The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.



The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.  There are good arguments on both sides of the Obamacare issue.  There are good intentions and motives that go both pro and con.  There is sound, fundamental logic that supports it and contradicts it.  Having said all of this, there is one fundamental problem with Obamacare…but we will save it for last.

Who amongst us hasn’t wondered at some point in our life….”In such a marvelous country, it is a crime that anyone should go without basic health care”.  We have wondered this when seeing a child in obvious poor health.  We have wondered this when seeing an elderly person making difficult economic decisions in order to balance health concerns with living needs.  It is a fact that a large, significant number of people in our society do not have adequate health care.  It is also a fact that both Democrats and Republicans agreed on this.  They probably agreed on two-thirds to three-fourths of the Affordable Care Act, but that is not the issue.

Social Security is a program that garners universal support.  It is a ponzi scheme, depending on the fees of new entrants in order to finance the benefits of existing members.  But the fact that it is a ponzi scheme doesn’t mean it cannot work.  As long as it is tweaked periodically with revisions to insure that it remains fiscally sound (eligibility age adjustments, etc.), it should continue to service our retirees for generations to come.  Unlike Social Security, Obamacare is a zero-sum game.  An insurance provider must be able to pay its indemnities, service its debt and administrative expenses, and make a profit for its owners in order to stay in business.  If you mandate what and who the provider must cover, then they will adjust their premiums accordingly.  If those least likely to draw indemnities do not enroll, those most likely to draw indemnities will not be able to afford the coverage.  This is the crux of Obamacare and the reason that the mandate is at the center of the ongoing storm.  Without the mandate, without the legal requirement for all adults to carry a policy, the premise will not float.  The non-indemnity folks must provide the profit necessary to carry the indemnity-receiving folks.  This is how it must be.  The Democrats, led by our president, say that health insurance is a fundamental right and it is therefore proper for our government to mandate participation in Obamacare.  The Supreme Court surprisingly supported this notion.  The Republicans say that health maintenance should be provided to all, but that the free market should determine the availability, the cost, and the level of that maintenance.  Both sides agree that health coverage is essential; they disagree on how people should obtain it.  Republicans see health insurance as a privilege that is earned and should be provided to those clearly unable to obtain it in a measured fashion.  Democrats see health insurance as a fundamental right that should be provided to all regardless of their ability to obtain it, and that the areas covered should be uniform to all, regardless of the coverage level.

Both sides see the problem: too many people with inadequate health care.  They agreed on 75 percent of the solution.  Now comes the problem; the sticking point with this whole mess; the gravel sticking in the craw of the Republicans and many others opposed to Obamacare.  No law or regulation, no matter how wise or well-intentioned, should be promulgated into law without some degree of bi-partisan support in our legislative process.  No law in the history of our nation with the sweeping nature of Obamacare has ever passed through Congress and been signed by the President without some support from both of our national parties.  When Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama schemed and devised an abnormal fashion in which to foist Obamacare on America, they did so on a strict party-line basis with not one single Republican vote.  They could have passed the bulk of the law with bi-partisan support.  They could likely have obtained a good portion of the remainder through honest negotiations. 

So whether or not you agree with the effort to defund Obamacare, you must understand how Obamacare came to be.  To call it “settled law” in any traditional sense is a stretch of reality.  When you force a law into play using extraordinary means, you must be prepared to defend it against extraordinary challenges.  I do not agree with the defunding option pursued by the House, but I can certainly understand why they have taken that approach.  The chickens have come home to roost.