Dr. Manufacturing Engineering
The time has come to clarify what Obamacare is and what it is not, why it’s a fraud, and why the fraud was committed. We all understand that healthcare in America, while it is the best in the world has been outstripping inflationary cost increases for decades, and that a number of Americans possibly about 18 to 24% remain uninsured.
There are several immediate answers to the aforementioned postulations. First of these is the dishonesty of the claimed 20+% who are uninsured. The largest percentage of these, are young people who feel that they do not need to expend money for healthcare, because they are young and healthy. However we rationalize their decision, it is a personal choice, in which the government has no business to be involved in. The second part of this group is people like migrant workers, part-time employed, and the indigent who are unemployed. These people have healthcare coverage through laws that require any hospital emergency room to accept any visitor, which they do, and have been doing for decades. This is not the most expedient way of addressing the situation, but the claim that these people are not accorded healthcare is a lie. The moochers in fact have healthcare provided by the taxpayers.
Of the insured, about 155 to 165 million Americans have healthcare coverage through a system of employer funded and partial employee funded private insurance. Obamacare fraudulently lumps the insured and uninsured into one single group, something that makes no sense whatsoever. The claim that self-employed are omitted from the same employer or union funded systems are a matter of the written words of the tax code, that could with ease be addressed by a simple change in IRS statue allowing self-employed to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their income taxes. Additionally, insurance carriers could be forced by law to group all single applicants into a single separate group, thus reducing their exposure and dropping their coverage expenses to the same as other groups.
The elderly who have the greatest need for healthcare are discriminated against by the existing system because as you get older insurance premiums rise. This is indisputable and is set in stone by actuarial statistics. Forcing the young to be insured and then charging them higher than actuarially set insurance premiums is not a solution, it is the process of shifting cost from one group of citizens to another. A simple solution would be to allow people over 65 years of age to stop paying property taxes thereby offsetting their healthcare costs.
All of these causes aforementioned are symptomatic of the real problems in our national healthcare systems, none of which are addressed by Obamacare because lawyers wrote Obamacare. What we must look at is why healthcare in America is financially out of kilter with the economy, and why healthcare costs are growing at a rate exceeding the rate of inflation by almost 10%, which has been an ongoing situation for several decades.
As in most cases, the culprit is government. States and the federal government regulate insurance companies within the states as well as in the federal government. These regulations are designed to restrict completion by various means, usually involving regulations and licensing procedures. If the reasonable goal is to lower the cost of healthcare the first and simplest solution is to nationalize health insurance regulations and permitting any insurance carrier that meets federal standards to sell their product in all 50 states. The opposition to this is bureaucrats and large insurance carriers who prefer to restrict access thus allowing higher charges due to lower completion, and in the case of government to retain bureaucratic positions and political power. This issue is only partially addressed by Obamacare.
The largest issues in the cost of medicine in America are the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and liability insurance laws. Obamacare addresses neither of these subjects, because in the case of the FDA Big-Pharma is one of the largest contributors to political campaigns, and in the case of liability insurance, most legislators are lawyers who earn the prevalent portion of their income from liability suites, thus tort reform is never addressed by legislators.
The FDA is a diabolical power grabbing bureaucracy that drives the cost of all medication through the roof. You hear very little on this issue, because Big-Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry, works hand-in-glove with the FDA to prevent completion from smaller, foreign, and small business pharmaceutical from competing in the marketplace. It is a fact that prescription drugs are on average 30% cheaper in Canada and 45% cheaper in Europe for the same product made by the same company. The FDA for example will not allow the sale of a French produced and not American available anti-biotic which has been on the EU and Swiss markets for three decades because it has not met FDA demanded approval criterion. The producer of the drug is a small company that has refused to issue patent rights for their anti-biotic to an American producer. The estimated cost of compliance with FDA regulations is well over $ 14 million per drug. Big-Pharma loves this situation, which allows them unheard of profit margins in most cases of over 6,000% per product. The claim by Big-Pharma that they require such margins due to the high cost of R&D is a lie. The most costly industry for R&D is the Machine tool industry in which I was a CEO for 37 years and they work on margins of between 3% and 4%, and their volume of sales is lower than any pharmaceutical producer.
Approximately 15% of the cost of every American made product that you purchase is the cost of product liability insurance paid for by the manufacturer of the product. Let me put this in simple terms that even a legislator can understand. In 1962 my business in the machine tool industry paid an annual product liability insurance cost of $345.00 by 1984 that cost, without one single claim against our firm, was elevated to $ 46,500.00. It was one of many issues that eventually drove us out of business, losing the American economy over 100 jobs. Foreign produced products are basically exempt from liability insurance claims because there is no attachable asset in America, so no law firm will take suite in a contingency case.
Because lawyers are involved, tort reform becomes a complicated matter. In America we have a law that allows contingency fee billings for legal services. You go to a lawyer and present your case, he accepts (bills you nothing) and when settlement is reached, the lawyer takes between 30% and 45% of the settled and agreed upon costs. This practice is illegal in continental Europe and most of the world. It is the driving factor in our litigious society for the many ridiculous suites. Additionally, if you bring a frivolous suite in Europe, or if the government brings a frivolous suite in any court of law and lose the suite, you are forced to pay all costs of the opposition. This is not the case in America and is not addressed by Obamacare. Additionally we have laws that allow the imposition of huge claims for pain and suffering that have no financial restrictions. This often causes punitive damages that factually destroy entire industries. Capping of these punitive damage claims to a total of $ 50,000 per case for pain and suffering must be addressed, Obamacare does not address product liability issues, whose principle beneficiaries are lawyers, not the public.
We see here that the two issues driving medical services through the roof are tort laws and the FDA, neither one of which is addressed by Obamacare. This clearly demonstrates that the intent of our present healthcare initiative as in all other nations that implemented nationalized healthcare has little to do with healthcare and a lot to do with socialistic control of the economy and the people.
Proving this is actually quite simple. The story of Sally a mythical American taxpayer. Sally is 57 years old and single, Obamacare forces her to purchase insurance including maternity coverage, even though she is far beyond birthing age. Sally who has a preexisting condition, type 1-diabetes, wanted to comply with the law so she went on the Internet and after ten hours was finally connected to the Obamacare site. Sally earns $ 45,000, which sets her above the poverty line. Se pays $970 rent, and has a car which she needs to get to work, her car payments, are $135. She looked at the Bronze plan but determined that it was a waste of her money, so she opted for the silver plan. The system informed that her monthly premium would be $597, or $7164 per year. The plan has a deductible of $13,988, in other words she was on the hook for a total of $ 21,152 per year. Crunching the numbers she concluded that she could not afford a fixed expense including Obamacare of $ 34,394 she could not live on $883.83 per month, and turned off the computer. The following day she got e-mail from the IRS, which stated that unless she immediately signed up she would face a fine of $ 4037 and that it would affect her annual income tax filings. Additionally the IRS would suspend her driver’s license (impossible legally issued by the state not the federal government) and if not paid within 12 months attach her bank account, car, and all personal property. What should poor Sally do? Pay the $7164 insurance or a $4037 fine? Simple pay the fine, Obamacare covers preexisting conditions so pay the fine and if she gets seriously sick join Obamacare gold plan, all of the plans cover preexisting conditions. And Sally saves $ 17,115.00 every year.
This conclusively proves that Obamacare was set up to be a one-payer one-insurer government run healthcare system. England had such a system; the waiting time to see a medical specialist was so long (from 12 to 28 months) that many people died before they ever see one, my father in law died waiting to see a specialist. Canada has such a system; thousands of Canadians chose to come to American Border States and pay cash for operations, because in America they are still available. Socialized medicine has been the first step in every nation that went socialist in history. Socialized medicine has failed in every applied case because the state when it found itself unable to cover the costs produced by the systems began restricting access. When they determined that the plans were financially untenable they began to make changes in items covered, and who was covered. In Soviet Russia, which had a universally guaranteed healthcare system in 1925, they restricted all coverage to only party members by 1950; party members were less than 8% of the population. England has systematically begun to disassemble their system and now allows private insurance in which over 40% of the population is now enrolled. Socialized medicine is the promise of government of something for nothing, an unrealistic premise.