Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Obama Care & Real Reform.

 Affordable Health Care Act is not UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE its' a Money maker Policy.
Health care is obviously more important than ice cream. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare,” was stuffed into law two years ago and has been serving up tax increases by the gallon and overwhelming taxpayers and jobs-creating businesses. Affordable health care is now even further out of reach.
What's wrong with Obamacare? here is a brief look .
Instead of encouraging states to improve health care at reduced costs for taxpayers, the Obama administration has decided to force states to enroll more patients in Medicaid without concern for costs. In New Jersey, these mandates entailed a 40 percent increase of enrollees at an estimated cost of more than $900 million from 2014 to 2020, when all of the act’s increases are implemented.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires every American to buy government-approved health insurance or face fines of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of his or her income. For younger senior citizens between retirement and Medicaid eligibility, this could mean a $1,400 penalty for a couple earning less than $56,000. Happy retirement!
Similarly, disastrous fines are applied to employers, who will face fines up to a $3,000 penalty for every employee who doesn’t receive sufficient coverage. Already, it’s estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that more than 3 million people annually will lose their health coverage through their employer because of the health act’s mandates. With the ever-increasing costs of health care, it’s not hard to conceive employers doing cost/benefit analysis between paying a fine of $2,000-$3,000 and a $10,000 health plan.
We need to reduce health-care costs by encouraging free competition and innovation, listening to doctors who know how to eliminate needless expenses in health care and aggressively manage chronic conditions to prevent expensive treatments. These types of approaches will truly reform the care people receive and what it costs them.


They are attacking a law whose major provisions do not take effect until 2014, which means that for now, there is not much to obstruct.
Meanwhile, because significant Republican wins in November 2012 could lead to amendments or outright repeal, GOP governors have an interest in trying to undermine voters' confidence in the law by vowing to oppose it.
Yet if the law survives the aftermath of the 2012 election - and the court challenges - the governors will have an incentive to implement it themselves. That's because the law empowers the federal government to step in where states fail to take the lead.
For instance, Republican governors would face a choice between letting a Democratic administration establish a potentially more regulated version of state-based private insurance markets known as "exchanges" or designing their own.
And if these governors don't start laying the groundwork soon - deciding what new rules to issue and agencies to revamp - they risk missing the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline by which states must prove they have made enough progress to avoid a federal takeover. 

No comments:

Post a Comment