Politics: Obamacare: Pinata or Trojan Horse

Published by: on Thursday April 12th, 2012

One of the things about most liberals' logic that tickles my funny bone more than anything else is the way in which I can easily win debates against them as their so called refutations only further buttress my arguments. They shoot themselves in the foot as they try hard to justify the socialist agendas being forced on all of us liberty loving folks in America. The SCOTUS' recent hearing of both sides of the argument on the constitutionality of Obamacare is no different a topic and is the single most important decision in our battle to preserve individual liberty and keep federal government in its proper place. Now healthcare reform has been a contentious topic long before President Obama. We all love to hate our health insurance coverage for a variety of reasons and then there are those who just don't have coverage because they can't afford it, are unemployed or other reasons – nearly fifty million Americans are uninsured (less than 20% of the US population).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) which has been informally dubbed “Obamacare” is the Trojan horse of federal healthcare legislation. Cunningly, the drafters, led by President Obama, are seeking to try and fulfill a major campaign promise in a hurry so it won't be so glaringly apparent in November that he has been more of a figure head than commander in chief, for nearly four years, enjoying lavish vacations and shopping sprees while so many have found themselves in the soup lines. With Obamacare, Barack Obama is dangling before those 50 million desperate, uninsured Americans several enticing things including (but not limited to):

  1. No annual or lifetime coverage caps on coverage.
  2. No co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles for health benefits that are considered to be a part of an essential benefits package/preventative care (Oh, I can only imagine how many things will suddenly be considered “preventative”)
  3. No discrimination (this is a big one) for individuals with pre-existing conditions, whom will initially be a part of a “high-risk pool”.
  4. Dependents will be permitted to remain on their parents' plan until age 26, including dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married. (Now why would a married person still be considered a “dependent”of their parents? I'm still trying to figure that one out.)
  5. Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders from the coverage when they get sick.

Let me tell you, at first glance it all sounds wonderful (insert sarcastic smirk here). I, for one, have learned in life to be very cautious when a thing looks and sounds to good to be true and my mental alarms are going off justifiably so when I read things like these that come/will come along with it:

  1. Employers must disclose the value of the benefits they provided beginning in 2012 for each employee's health insurance coverage on the employees' annual Form W-2's.
  2. All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging deductible, co-payment or co-insurance. Women's preventative services such as contraception and domestic violence screening will be covered without “cost-sharing”.
  3. An annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, will be imposed on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085
  4. A $2,000 per employee tax penalty will be imposed on employers with more than 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers.
  5. Revenue increases from a new $2,500 limit on tax-free contributions to flexible spending accounts. (So we can no longer prepare for our own healthcare costs? Oh now only up to $2500, now we all know that can be sucked dry from 2 dental visits nowadays.)

Now keep in mind that the five things immediately above carry with them serious implications and will set even more dangerous precedents for future federal governmental intrusion into our lives, just as Social Security set for Obamacare, if you can imagine intrusion of that magnitude. If I have to explain the implications to you, then you're probably one of those people who could have seen this list:

  1. Candy is prohibited from the diets of policyholders.
  2. Each policyholder must brush their teeth before 7pm.
  3. If you are caught eating meat you pay a penalty.
  4. Only one cup of caffeinated coffee allowed per week.
  5. Policyholders must spend 4 hours per day exercising.

and still exclaimed “Obamacare today, Obamacare tomorrow & Obamacare forever!”so I won't waste my time with explanations. My close friend and fellow conservative blogger Walter Myers III masterfully wrote in his blog entitled, “Obamacare & Now You Know What's In It” the following which sums up what the federal government's role in healthcare should be limited to and I concur:

“First, this is about respecting the Constitution. We shouldn't be here in the first place because ObamaCare is distinctly unconstitutional. The federal government has absolutely no role in healthcare (including Social Security and Medicare), other than to promote competition within the industry through a proper use of the commerce clause. Beyond that, they need to stay out of the subject (but I do believe the states do in order to serve the truly indigent).”

When the federal government goes beyond merely promoting competition through proper use of the commerce clause and tries to mimic the healthcare of socialist nations the entire process becomes too bureaucratic. Control, as well as accountability moves furthest away from the point of greatest need – individual states. Why not utilize the commerce clause properly to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines which will promote competition and bring down costs? Why not make sure that in fairness, individuals that do not need it, are not forced to pay for certain unnecessary or gender dependent components like chiropractic medicine, mammograms or colonoscopies? Why on Earth, Jupiter and every planet in between would any citizen think that after the mess that has become of Social Security and Medicare that we should entrust our health needs to a president who doesn't even seem to know that the Supreme Court is here to decide if a law passed by Congress is constitutional or not, even though he appointed two of the "unelected" justices himself?!

Getting back to the liberal logic I mentioned in the beginning of this missive, so many have said to me, “You're wrong! The government has required citizens to purchase insurance before! Obamacare is nothing new!”. They are referring to the 1790's when the first Congress did in fact require shipowners and seaman to buy medical insurance. This was due to the dangers of being at sea, namely disease and injuries, which had claimed many seaman's lives, so much so that many men were discouraged from entering maritime careers. Liberals deliberately misinterpret this as a precedent for Obamacare when it is not. It is simply an example of the proper use of the commerce clause actually, as commerce in the 1790's was dependent upon those seaman and shipowners. Moreover, Congress utilized the commerce clause to mandate healthcare for a specific part of the population in need, not all, because foreign commerce could not take place without them. Adam Smith gave to us a very fitting caveat which we cannot ignore this time:

“As soon as government management begins it upsets the natural equilibrium of industrial relations, and each interference only requires further bureaucratic control until the end is the tyranny of the totalitarian state.”

Listen folks, we must see Obamacare for what it is, government “management” at its worse and a Trojan horse being led into our lives by meddlesome Liberals, with President Obama at the forefront. Don't be fooled by Liberal attempts to make that Trojan horse look like a pinata, full of pleasant surprises when it's full contents are released. Let's not forget the 2008 Democratic primary where then Senator Barack Obama scolded Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan for it's individual mandate because it "It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't." Really Mr. president? So why are we now in 2012 before the SCOTUS over the very aspect of Hillary Clinton's healthcare which you campaigned against? Were you misrepresenting yourself then or now? Lastly, the ultimate goal of Obamacare is not to provide quality healthcare for all, but for the federal government to gain complete bureaucratic control of our lives through seemingly benevolent legislation. If Liberals are so concerned about the availability of healthcare for those without it, then they, like the first Congress, can enact legislation addressing the needs of that portion of the population, while leaving the healthcare choices the rest of us have made for ourselves in tact.