Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review

[007]

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review​

By Kevin Hassett - Aug 1, 2010 8:00 PM CDT

One of the more illuminating remarks during the health-care debate in Congress came when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience that Democrats would “pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

That remark captured the truth that, while many Americans have a vague sense that something bad is happening to their health care, few if any understand exactly what the law does.

To fill this vacuum, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, asked his staff to prepare a study of the law, including a flow chart that illustrates how the major provisions will work.

The result, made public July 28, provides citizens with a preview of the impact the health-care overhaul will have on their lives. It’s a terrifying road map that shows Democrats have launched America on the most reckless policy experiment in its history, the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Story continues here...

Congressman Kevin Brady (TX08) :: Press Release :: AMERICA'S NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REVEALED

 

[Greenbeard]

Can you identify the components of that chart that are directly attributable to the reform law (i.e. the things that don't exist without it)?

 

[007]

Can you identify the components of that chart that are directly attributable to the reform law (i.e. the things that don't exist without it)?

All of them.

 

[Greenbeard]

Oh come on. This is a picture of any and all things even tangentially related to health care in the United States with lots of random lines drawn between them in an attempt to somehow impress you. There's actually a box that says "states." Most of the items in that ridiculous graphic--and the relationships between them--aren't new.

Let me ask you this: what do you think this picture shows?

 

[007]

I believe the graph above I posted is 100% accurate. If you don't, be specific, point out what's wrong and some sort of proof to show why.

Well take it from there.

 

[Greenbeard]

Accurate about what? What point is it making?

If you're suggesting it's a picture of "OBAMACARE'S BEWILDERING COMPLEXITY" as your link suggests, that's obviously false as it's a picture--purposefully designed to seem confusing and disorganized--of the American health care landscape with the additions made by reform factored in (these, by the way, are modest compared with the part of the graphic that was already there before reform).

So let's get to the heart of it: what are you finding to be bewilderingly complex?

 

[007]

Accurate about what? What point is it making?

If you're suggesting it's a picture of "OBAMACARE'S BEWILDERING COMPLEXITY" as your link suggests, that's obviously false as it's a picture--purposefully designed to seem confusing and disorganized--of the American health care landscape with the additions made by reform factored in (these, by the way, are modest compared with the part of the graphic that was already there before reform).

So let's get to the heart of it: what are you finding to be bewilderingly complex?

Really? If it wasn't such a massive "new" government bureaucracy, then how could the graph be made confusing. It's confusing because it is, because of the endless patch work of agencies and control. It illustrates, in detail, just how expansive, intrusive, over reaching and complex this health care take over by obama and his liberal accomplices is. It's the greatest power grab by any administration in the history of America, and there's currently a dozen or so legal challenges in court right now challenging it's constitutionality.

So you can poo-poo it away as though it's nothing if you want. I know better. I hope it's repealed, and the next Presidential candidate I vote for in 2012 will vow to do just that, or he/she won't get my vote. It's a monstrosity, a disaster, an unconstitutional catastrophe.

 

[Greenbeard]

Really? If it wasn't such a massive "new" government bureaucracy, then how could the graph be made confusing.

Well, for starters it mixes content types: you have agencies listed next to specific offices (people) within those agencies listed next to programs listed next to financial instruments listed next to pieces of legislation listed next to products listed next to concepts. As I said, they just dumped all the words related to our health care system they could into one graphic with no real logical structure. Again, what point is it making? That there are a number of moving pieces in our health care system? Yes, there are. That's not an innovation of health reform--most of the things on that graphic existed prior to reform.

If some of these bubbles were nested--as they are in reality, organizationally (e.g. the CMS Actuary is part of CMS)--and arrayed in a fashion that demonstrated the organizational structure of our system, you'd have a much tidier graphic. But that would lose the effect.

 

[007]

Really? If it wasn't such a massive "new" government bureaucracy, then how could the graph be made confusing.

Well, for starters it mixes content types: you have agencies listed next to specific offices (people) within those agencies listed next to programs listed next to financial instruments listed next to pieces of legislation listed next to products listed next to concepts. As I said, they just dumped all the words related to our health care system they could into one graphic with no real logical structure. Again, what point is it making? That there are a number of moving pieces in our health care system? Yes, there are. That's not an innovation of health reform--most of the things on that graphic existed prior to reform.

If some of these bubbles were nested--as they are in reality, organizationally (e.g. the CMS Actuary is part of CMS)--and arrayed in a fashion that demonstrated the organizational structure of our system, you'd have a much tidier graphic. But that would lose the effect.

By your admission, what is on the graph is all pertinent to the health care system. Whether it was prior or not isn't the point. The fact of the matter is, obamacare was a massive expansion of government control and a power grab, and everything that is on the graph presently is part of it. Is it confusing? You bet. That's the way it was crafted, by obama and the left, not the graph maker.

 

[Greenbeard]

The point is, imagine you've repealed the law. Or gone back in time and prevented it from being written. How much does your graphic change? Not all that much. Most of the items remain: states, employers, private plans, Cabinet-level departments and their subdivisions (DHHS and subdivisions like CMS, AHRQ, etc).

But again: what are you finding to be bewilderingly complex or confusing?

 

[Bern80]

The point is, imagine you've repealed the law. Or gone back in time and prevented it from being written. How much does your graphic change? Not all that much. Most of the items remain: states, employers, private plans, Cabinet-level departments and their subdivisions (DHHS and subdivisions like CMS, AHRQ, etc).

But again: what are you finding to be bewilderingly complex or confusing?

Okay, let's pretend we could subtract the stuff that was added by the reform. Doesn't that still beg the question, how did adding more complexity make the system better? If the system was going to be better shouldn't I expect to see a more simplified graph as oppossed to a more complex one?

 

[uscitizen]

Of course Obamacare looks worse.
If you cannot stop something up front make it into something no one wants.

 

[GWV5903]

The point is, imagine you've repealed the law. Or gone back in time and prevented it from being written. How much does your graphic change? Not all that much. Most of the items remain: states, employers, private plans, Cabinet-level departments and their subdivisions (DHHS and subdivisions like CMS, AHRQ, etc).

But again: what are you finding to be bewilderingly complex or confusing?

The point is clear, Obamacare has become an obstacle to better health care, if he had any intentions of improving our current dilemma Tort Reform would have been the first step....

Before you use the debate that Tort Reform is only 1% of the annual impact on HCC, check out what group made the largest contributions in the '08 campaign cycle.....

It is ridiculous that anyone believes that litigation only impacts HCC 1%.....

Shut the lawyers down, simple solution, funny how a town full of lawyers tries to tell us their not the problem....

 

[uscitizen]

I heard 3% of total healthcare costs are due to malpractice suits, etc.

If we blocked that 3% you think they would reduce our rates by 3%?

LOL

 

[Greenbeard]

Okay, let's pretend we could subtract the stuff that was added by the reform. Doesn't that still beg the question, how did adding more complexity make the system better? If the system was going to be better shouldn't I expect to see a more simplified graph as oppossed to a more complex one?

There's no way to answer that in the abstract. If you're telling me that streamlined/simplified is always better and less is more, then you're telling me that single-payer is invariably better than multi-payer. After all, it would have fewer boxes on a chart, so it must be, right?

Pick a specific new (or altered in some way) item on the chart and we can talk about whether the system is better with the addition/change. Talking about this in the abstract is useless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's my Health Care Chart

(me)---(my doctor)

End of story.

 

[Bern80]

There's no way to answer that in the abstract. If you're telling me that streamlined/simplified is always better and less is more, then you're telling me that single-payer is invariably better than multi-payer. After all, it would have fewer boxes on a chart, so it must be, right?

I think you're trying to argue extremes. Simpler is better for the consumer. Simpl-est in terms of single payer is only best for the government or whatever insurere gets to be the single payee. That would be a monopoly and those aren't good last I checked. On a side note it has always ammused me that the anti-corporatists rail against private monopolies but not state run ones.

Pick a specific new (or altered in some way) item on the chart and we can talk about whether the system is better with the addition/change. Talking about this in the abstract is useless.

It isn't useless at all. I would think answering questions like; Is our reform going to add more beauracracy going to make for a better system? Is it going to make things easier or harder on the user? Would be important questons to ask. You wanting to focus on this table suggests you are picking a minor battle to avoid having to defend the undefendable.

 

[007]

Here's my Health Care Chart

(me)---(my doctor)

End of story.

And that's the way it should be CF. Government should get it's filthy, greedy, over extending it's usefulness and powers fingers out of it. To obama and the left, it isn't about providing health care for everybody, it's about CONTROL, POWER, and the more we hear about obama care, it gets worse, even recently, people's health insurance premiums are SKY ROCKETING! But, but, but... obama care was supposed to make things CHEAPER.... pfft... yeah, right, dream on.

 

[Annie]

And the need to read the whole thing. It's not enough to listen to the politicians, you and certainly not those that 'needed change the most' will be getting what was 'promised.':

Health Policy Briefs

...This brief focuses on issues surrounding the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan program, which will be operated by some of the states themselves and, in other states that have chosen not to take on this role, by the federal government. The $5 billion that Congress appropriated for the program is generally recognized as insufficient to cover all those who may be eligible until the broader reforms take effect. Although Congress specified a number of requirements for the program, difficult decisions may still have to be made about who is eligible and what health care services will be covered in order for the plans to stay within the spending constraints...

... High premiums are expected to be the main factor limiting enrollment of eligible adults. Even though premiums for the new program are likely to be less than those offered in the private market and in existing state-operated plans, they may still be unaffordable for some potential enrollees. ed. they don't even bother to explain the assumption of 'likely'

Some estimates are that the $5 billion in funding could run out as early as 2011 if as many as 375,000 people enroll this year. The federal government has broad authority to make adjustments to the program to stave off any deficits. For example, HHS can simply stop taking applications for enrollment. If the costs of the program do end up exceeding the available funding, HHS may have to make other difficult decisions about how the program is structured, including increasing premiums...

...Uncertain path ahead: At this time, HHS has not indicated how it might exercise its authority to close a deficit in the program. But the interim final rule issued on July 30 would permit adjustments to premiums, changes in the benefits the plans would be required to offer, limits on new applications, and other measures to limit program costs. These steps would probably reduce the number of individuals receiving coverage under the program.

Some observers note that as people gain coverage under the plan, there may be additional political pressure to ensure that the program will survive without restricting benefits or increasing premiums. That could prompt Congress to appropriate more funds for the program. On the other hand, recent concerns in Congress about raising federal spending without making offsetting budget cuts or increasing tax revenues are likely to continue. All these pressures make it difficult to forecast the future of the program beyond 2011.

 

[RDD_1210]

Lots of uneducated hysteria in this thread. So let me get this right, Obama doesn't want to make America better and provide better access to healthcare, what he wants is more power. More power from a bill that isn't even fully implemented until after his 4 years are up? Do I have that right?