June, 2015, Part 4, The Unfolding Disaster That Is Obama Care: The Supreme Court Implications, The Economic Implications,and The Human Suffering Implications

Every month for the past three years or so we have had to take time out and review the latest insanity and disasters from the Obama Care legislation. Long ago it only took a day or so to cover it all. But then the law starting taking effect and the “unfolding disaster that is Obama Care” made it impossible to contain the bad news, the heartache, the rising costs, and the stress put on American families to just a day or two.

To review the past discussions on this horrid piece of legislation, enter the term "unfolding disaster" in the search box above or just page through previous month's posts on the right side of this page and click on the various references to Obama Care. Very quickly, as your read the past posts, you will see that this is easily the worst piece of legislation ever passed by Washington.

Not only has it disrupted lives, stymied the economy, and increased healthcare costs in this country, it never addressed the various root causes of high healthcare costs. Thus, by never addressing some of the root causes listed below, the legislation has virtually no chance of actually reducing healthcare costs in this country:

• Americans eat too much of the wrong kind of food.
• Americans smoke too much.
• Americans do not exercise enough.
• The healthcare industry in this country needs serious tort reform.
• Federal government crop subsidies lead to our food chain being infested with unhealthy sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
• Current government healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid, lose upwards of $100 billion a year to waste and criminal fraud, billions of dollars that could be used to reduce other healthcare costs in this country.
• Cross state line insurance competition needs to be made easier to do.
• The Obama effort never “followed the money” to actually map out where the high costs paid by Americans for healthcare actually end up.

Since Obama Care never addressed these root causes, we are still going to have those root causes resulting in higher and higher healthcare costs regardless of how well Obama Care is implemented. And since the prime objective of Obama Care was to reduce costs, the legislation will end up being a failure.

So with that gloomy set up, let’s see what Obama Care disasters unfolded in the past month or so.

1) One of my favorite TV shows is “The Big Bang Theory.” Penny is a character on the show, she is a full time waitress and a part time actress. She is constantly verbally sparring with another character on the show, Sheldon, who is a condescending academic genius. There is a running gag where Penny tells Sheldon never to tick off the people who can spit on your food before it is served.

Which brings us to a quote from the President this past week, a taunt directed at the Supreme Court which is about to hand down a ruling that could collapse the entire Obama Care legislation: "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up." In other words, you dummies on the Supreme Court, why did you even waste your time on this situation?

Which tells me three things:

• The President is really scared that the Supreme Court will come down with a negative ruling for the law and help it self-destruct and is trying one last desperate attempt to sway the judges.
• Or, the ruling has already been made, it is not good, the President knows it is not good, and is trying to rally public support to make the Supreme Court out as the bad guys.
• Finally, he is really the Sheldon character, calling the Supreme Court (Penny) dumb for even considering the case, in which case the Supreme Court, being comprised of human beings who probably do not like being called dumb, just spit on his food (the Obama Care legislation) to get the final say.

In any case, calling someone dumb while they still control the fate of something you value makes that person the real dummy.

2) The Supreme Court case we are talking about is called King Vs. Burwell. It challenges the administration’s contention that it did not mean what it said in the legislation, namely that only people who get Obama Care policies through state exchanges are entitled to Federal subsidies to pay for those policies. Those people who got their Obama Care policies from the Federal exchange, are not entitled to Federal subsidies, as clearly spelled out in the legislation that Democrats in Congress approved and Obama signed off on.

The writing and intention of this condition is clear in the actual reading of the law. Obama is trying to convince the judges that this is a mere typo and that from a compassion perspective, the judges should ignore was enacted and let his administration does whatever it wants, regardless of what the law says. The reason for the panic is that if the Court cuts off subsidies to about two thirds of Obama Care policy holders, the costs go up, the policyholders cancel their now much more expensive policies and the whole house of cards collapses.

If somehow the judges rule for Obama, then democracy as we know it is over. Any President in the future could then interpret any law anyway he or she wanted, Congress be damned. Obama Care legislation clearly states that only policies obtained via the state exchanges can get subsidies. That was debated, that was what was written into the law, that was what was enacted but is not what the reality is. The administration said, we will ignore that part of the law and do what we want, rule of law be damned.

Theoretically, in the future a Republican President could come into office and say that Roe Vs, Wade is outdated, I will ignore it. He or she could say that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not what it means,I will ignore it. He or she could say that the Clean Air Act does not apply to clean air,I will ignore it. When the law says “no” and a President wants it to say “yes,” and acts as if it does say “yes,” democracy is over and dictatorship has taken its place.

3) But what it be such a bad thing if the Supreme Court did deal a death blow to Obama Care? From an economic perspective, one recent analysis and research effort says the economy would enjoy a revitalization if Obama Care went away.

The American Action Forum (AAF), a conservative leaning think tank, thinks that would be the case, economically. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum recently told reporters his organization’s research sees many upsides for the downfall of Obama Care. For background, Holtz-Eakin does have some formidable credentials since he is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

His reasoning goes as follows:

• The majority of Obama Care policyholders previously had insurance policies that were cheaper and better fitted to those policyholders needs so many of the current Obama Care policy hodlers could eventually find their way back to more favorable, less expensive policies.In other words, not every Obama Care polciy holder would then be without health insurance.
• As many policyholders went back to cheaper yet better insurance policies, they would be paying less for insurance, leaving more disposable income to spend in other parts of the economy.
• The downfall of Obama Care would also free up millions of Americans who prefer not to have health insurance and hundreds of thousands of businesses who do not have to pay Obama Care penalties, freeing up untold billions of dollars to expand the economy.
• This analysis estimates that this situation would add 1.2 million workers to the U.S. labor force and increase the hours for 3.3 million part time workers.
• These workers would see wages go up between $830 and $940 a year, putting $13.6 billion back into economic growth.
• “There will be fewer administrative burdens when employers offer full-time employment to qualified employees who will have the opportunity to become specialized and therefore more efficient in their work,” the study says. “We might also expect to see more job growth in these states as employers expand their businesses and offer more hours without the cost of complying with the ACA.”
• Brittany La Couture, the health policy counsel at the AAF, agrees with the studies findings: “Because they will not be subject to the mandate, small to medium size employers may expand employment to more people, or allow their employees to work more than 30 hours per week.” 
• Also, “AAF estimates that there are currently about 3.3 million part-time workers in the states affected by the ruling who are seeking but are unable to find full-time employment.”
• And while the AAF leans conservative, the New York Times recently credited the organization with “following the numbers” and not being swayed purely by ideology.

Economic forecasting like this is often not much more than a stab in the dark. However, it does provide a rational and logical approach to considering the upside of terminating Obama Care, a solution that has no chance of ever fulfilling its goals and promises. 

4) While the AAF study shows that Obama Care has killed job creation and restricted economic growth, which could be reversed if Obama Care was killed, another study, this one by the American Health Policy Institute also concluded that the legislation is shrinking the labor force since it reduces incentives to work. Why? The more a person earns from working at a job, the less they get in Obama Care subsidies to pay for health insurance.

Thus, some people have and will decide the effort of working is not worth it given the decrease in Federal Obama Care subsidies. These people then become net takers from the Federal government, and the American taxpayer, than net contributors to the country and the economy. Eventually, these people become long term, chronic unemployed and their chances of ever finding full time, fulfilling work will approach zero over time. Nice law, incenting people to become idle, lazy and wards of the state.

5) As we often do in this series,m let's finish up today with some heart wrenching stories of how ordinary Americans have gotten screwed by this legislation, courtesy of the website:

www.ourhealthcarestories.com

We can argue economic theories and economic forecasts all day but these stories are the realities of Obama Care and they are not pretty:

ANGELLA - NEVADA: “Housekeeping is a tough job—many of us suffer serious injuries doing this work. And ObamaCare would cause my husband and I even more pain. The Obamacare website says we would have to pay $8,057.04 a year more to keep the great insurance we have now. That’s a $3.87 per hour pay cut. We work hard for our insurance. Why should we have to take a cut in pay for it?”

LIONEL - LOUISIANA: Baton Rouge public relations consultant Lionel Rainey said Wednesday the price of his health insurance will double even though he rarely makes a doctor’s appointment.

His policy is among the 92,793 individual insurance plans that Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance Jim Donelon reported would be discontinued because the coverage does not meet the coverage standards set by the federal Affordable Care Act.

Rainey’s plan didn’t meet the minimum standards but he was happy with it. “I don’t go to the doctor much. This was the plan that fit me and fit my lifestyle,” the 35-year-old said.

Rainey declined to name his insurer, but he said the new policy will cost him nearly $600 a month. He said he also will get coverage he does not need, such as a maternity plan. Rainey put plans to expand his business on hold when he got the letter from his insurance company.

He wanted to hire an additional person but is unsure whether he can afford it. As a newlywed, he also must buy insurance coverage for his wife, a full-time graduate student. He does not qualify for subsidies for the exchange.

MARY - CONNECTICUT: My husband & I are self-employed. We own a small retail business and pay for our own health insurance. When ObamaCare was introduced with all the hype of saving money and better coverage, we checked it out. The least expensive premium would triple our cost and increase our deductible from $5000 to $12,500. We then received a letter from our insurance carrier saying we could keep our current policy for another year, but after that, our premium will triple. We may have to close our business if something isn't done about this outrageous plan.

That will do it for today but we still have more unfolding Obama Care stories for tomorrow. Today we learned that the Supreme Court might,and should, render all of the unfolding Obama Care disasters moot when they rule alter this month. Killing off Obama Care might actually improve the economy beyond its tepid and weak performance since Obama Care was enacted. And individual Americans and their families continue to live through the horror of the law’s restrictions, requirements, and higher costs.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

It's Getting So That You Cannot Tell The Politcial Parties Without A Score Card

I have been really confused lately and it conjured up an old baseball saying: "You can't tell the players without a score card." Up until recently, each of the major political parties had done a good job of telling us why they were the good, blessed, anointed party of the people and the other party was nothing short of satanic. Think about it. The Democrats have told us for decades that the Republicans were anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-immigration, anti-minority, and cared only about being friendly and kind to big business. The Republicans have told us for decades that the Democrats were anti-business, anti-rich, anti-strong national defense, and anti-small government.

But consider my confusion with this neat, easy-to-understand political description of the world relative to some recent news events:

- Recently, a Federal judge found the U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell" to be unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon and the Obama administration to dismantle the program and treat gay soldiers and enlistees as they would straight soldiers and enlistees. According to traditional dogma, this would count as a great victory for the Democrats. But wait! The main plaintiff in this case was a national, major Republican organization, the Log Cabin Republicans. In fact, the Democratic administration Barack Obama and its Justice Department has had to defend this anti-gay law in Federal court (Source: The Week magazine, November 12, 2010). Very confusing, Republicans might not be as anti-gay as the Democrats would have you believe.

- In the overheated debate about the new anti-illegal immigration law that was passed by the state of Arizona, it was pretty clear that most Democrats wanted more favorable treatment of illegal aliens while the Republicans wanted harsher treatment of illegal aliens. But wait! In September, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News and the Democrats' favorite media political bad guy and demon, actually testified in front of a House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee to bring "an end to the arbitrary immigration and visa quotas" as it related to illegal immigrants (Source: Businessweek, October 25, 2010). Very confusing, maybe the Republicans and their favorite media supporter might not be as anti-immigration as the Democrats would have you believe.

- Over the years the Democrats have painted themselves as the bigger supporters of women's rights from supporting abortions to having a larger number of female politicians in their party vs. the Republicans (but still not nearly enough, relative to the male/female split in the general population.) But wait! As the midterm election results came in, it became clear that the Democrats no longer were the sole purveyor of female politicians in the nation as Republican women ran and won many, many elections:

• While nine Democratic women ran for Senate seats with four of them winning (44%), a respectable five Republicans also ran with two of them winning (40%), a comparable winning percentage.
• Eight Republican women won seats in the House of Representatives.
• Republican women became Governors in three states (Oklahoma, New Mexico, and South Carolina).
• A former Republican female governor, Sarah Palin, became a national force, for better or worse, in the election cycle.

Very confusing, looks like the Republicans might not be as anti-feminist as the Democrats would have you believe.

- The Democrats have traditionally painted themselves as the bigger supports of minorities vs. the Republicans. But wait! The midterm election results have turned that assumption upside down:

• Susanna Martinez became not only a female Republican governor in New Mexico but the first Latina governor anywhere in our nation's history.
• Nikki Haley became not only the female governor of South Carolina, the first one ever, but she is also the first Indian-American woman to serve as a state's chief executive.
• Michael Steele, an African American, is the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
• Marco Rubio, a first generation American born of Cuban parents, came out of nowhere to win a Florida Senate seat.
• Two African American Republicans won their elections for the House of Representatives and one of them, Tim Scott, was a Tea Party favorite.

Very confusing, I guess that the Republicans were not quite so anti-minority as the Democrats would have you believe.

Note: do I think either party has an adequate representation of women and minorities in their ranks? Not by a long shot. In fact, Step 45 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" would make sure that both parties abided by the same laws, regulations, penalties, fines, and principles as the rest of America when it comes to race/sex quotas and discrimination. However, the point to be made is that the Republicans are not the vicious anti-feminist and anti-minority type that the Democrats would have us believe.

But wait! There is confusion on the other side as well:

- The Republicans would have us believe that Democrats are anti-business and the Democrats' policies restrict business and thus, restrict the growth of the economy. But wait! According to a recent Washington Post article that was summarized in the November 12, 2010 issue of The Week magazine, corporate political action committees directed 53% of their donations to Democrats in the recent midterm elections, up from only 35% in the last midterm election. Very confusing, looks like the Democrats might not be as anti-business as the Republicans would make them out to be.

- Continuing along that same theme, according to an article from http://www.politico.com/, which was summarized in the November 12, 2010 issue of The Week magazine, from January, 2009 through June, 2010, U.S. corporate profits increased 62%, the strongest 18-month rise since the 1920s. Very confusing, more proof that the Democrats might not be as anti-business as the Republicans would make them out to be. Unfortunately, as the Democrats were helping businesses to attain record high growth, ordinary citizens in America were saddled with very high unemployment, underemployment, and high demands for productivity gains.

- Republicans have long portrayed Democrats as weak on national defense and terrorism issues. But wait! The Obama administration has followed the same Iraqi U.S. troop deployment plans of his Republican predecessor, has actually increased U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, has renewed the oppressive Patriot Act that was put into effect by his Republican predecessor, has not reduced unnecessary international U.S. troop deployment anywhere in the world, has not closed the terrorist jail facility at Guantanamo, and much like his Republican predecessor, Obama will not put some terror prisoners on trial at all, keeping them locked up forever without a day in court. Very confusing, a Democratic President is acting just like a Republican President on national defense and terrorism issues (unfortunately).

- The Republicans have traditionally portrayed the Democrats as anti-small government. Unfortunately, you do not need a score card for this one, the Democrats actually live up to (or down to) their stereotypical portrayal here. Since the Democrats have taken over Washington in 2006, the national debt has skyrocketed to never before seen heights, Federal government employment has increased by hundreds of thousands of new government employees, and the Democrats have pushed the Federal government into more and more aspects of individual Americans lives.

Why am I so confused about the score cards of the political parties? It is because the politicians in this country want to keep you confused, that is how they keep control of the government and our lives. The Democrats want to "energize their base" of gay communities, women, and minorities even though it is Republicans that are breaking down the military's anti-gay stance, it is the Republicans that are putting women into powerful political positions, and it is the Republicans that are opening up to minority candidates.

Conversely, the Republicans want to "energize their base" of corporate types, strong defense advocates, and those favoring small government even though U.S. business has done very well under democrat Obama, the Obama administration policies on defense and terror are basically the same as the ones under Bush, and small government...well, the Republicans are probably right on that stereotype.

With so much confusion, voters fall back into the old stereotypes that the politicians want us to believe in order to maintain their grip on their elected office and to protect their re-election campaign donation streams. As a result of not having a good score card to track the actual actions of each party, we continue to fight each other over issues and stances that are not as concise or as clear as our raving politicians make them out to be.

As a result, we waste a lot of energy placing fellow Americans into rival "tribes," as defined by the political class, while the same politicians with the same tired ideas use their tribes to continually get re-elected and no major issues facing American is ever seriously addressed, never mind solved. Once organized in these "tribes," we tend to not have serious, constructive discussion with other tribes despite strong common interests and concerns.

Hopefully, we saw a glimmer or two of light in early November as some strong incumbents were not asked back to Washington by the voters. Maybe voters are finally looking at the score cards and taking notice that the current members of the political class are making a lot of errors and not hitting a lot of home runs. Maybe it is time to break down the tribal barriers, have a national discussion on how to solve our problems, and finally put some runs on the score board and score card, regardless of what party or tribe gets the RBI.