Implementation of Obamacare: Quickening the Pace
Suppose you are a die-hard progressive who has waited decades for the opportunity to implement a socialized health care system in America. You’ve schemed and manipulated your share of times along the way, for the sake of the “common good”, all the while progressing towards a specific goal. The time comes to put your plans into action, but things don’t go as well as you had planned. (As exhibited by the outcome of the elections in 2010.) You need more time, but there aren’t any guarantees that the voters will give you more time. If the opposition wins the election and is put into office before your plan is fully implemented, all your efforts and waiting could be for nothing. So, what do you do? You move some of your plans forward, move things into place more quickly on the premise that what has been done won’t be easily undone.
The pace of implementation of Obamacare has quickened. In the light of the true reality we are facing in our economy, the fact that the administration is moving forward on implementation of Obamacare in the manner which is being chosen (which does make a difference in this case) exemplifies beyond any shadow of the doubt the willingness of the left to pursue their ideological goals at any cost. We’ve all seen instances when the left has pursued some part of their agenda with the attitude that the end justifies the means, and they exemplify an attitude of “consequences be [redacted]” in the process, meaning that they don’t genuinely care about the consequences of their actions that we the people might have to bear. This situation very much displays to what extent they will go to achieve their goals…to the point of deliberately playing Russian roulette with our entire economy.
I’m going to try to share some evidence that confirms that they are trying to move the process forward, but I will also say that we shouldn’t consider this as being cast in stone or that the outcomes being predetermined by the actions of this administration are absolutes. Quite frankly, the opposite is more likely to be proven true. In their zeal to move forward with implementation of Obamacare at a more rapid pace than was originally planned, conveyed, insinuated or otherwise implied, the left has stirred up a hornet’s nest of huge proportions, and there is now a strong possibility that what we will end up seeing is that the old saying “oft evil will doth evil mar” will prove itself to be true.
Evidence Point 1: Timelines
Here’s the timeline being presented by CMS to indicate where our government stands on implementation of Obamacare. If you take a moment to follow the link, you will see that it shows implementation is moving at its scheduled pace. However, if you compare that information to the timeline provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation, this shows that implementation is actually ahead of schedule, with 5 of the 10 implementation benchmarks that had been scheduled for 2012 being put into place in 2011. The Kaiser timeline is accurate.
Evidence Point 2: Regulatory measures which are much harsher and more stringent than need be
There are two examples being provided for this, but I can assure you that these aren’t the only examples available. The first example pertains to medical loss ratios
The medical-loss ratio dictates how much private insurers need to spend on medical claims and how much can be spent on overhead costs such as payroll and advertising, and on the profit they can earn.
Insurance executives say the imposition of this provision of the law last January is already destabilizing the marketplace because insurers did not have enough time to make adjustments to comply.
Small- and medium-sized insurers are expected to be hit especially hard by this rule, with the net result being the reduction of competition and choices.
The medical-loss ratio has raised the ire of at least two dozen states, which have applied to the Obama administration for waivers, and so far only Maine, Nevada and New Hampshire have been approved.
The second example pertains to the grandfather clause
And according to recent congressional testimony provided by Rep. Joe Pitts (R.-Pa.), during a hearing of his health care subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Department of Health and Human Services expects roughly half of all employers and as many as 80% of small businesses to give up their existing health plans in the next two years as their existing plans lose their grandfathered status.
Losing grandfathered status will drive up costs for employers as they are forced to cope with having to offer the array of coverages required under the law. More affordable health care insurance packages such as high-deductible plans and their accompanying health savings accounts will largely become a thing of the past.
Notice the phrase that’s been bolded? If it came from anyone other than DHHS, I’d call it a projection, but coming from DHHS, this is meant more in the context of a goal! (Remember…this is all about moving to a single-payer system). Did you catch the reference to time…two years! That’s the deadline for their goal…the spring of 2013, just after the next President, whoever he or she might be, will be sworn into office.
Another point to consider is that if this progresses very quickly, the next step in the process would be implementation of the public health insurance exchange. If you take the speculative goal stated by DHHS above, and couple that with the McKinsey survey and the Holtz-Eakin report to Congress, federal subsidy costs for public health insurance exchange premiums were grossly underestimated by roughly $4 trillion dollars over ten years and possibly even more.
At this point, there is no way to know for certain just how rapidly things will progress between now and the election in 2012. Dependent on how things go, we could begin to see significant deterioration of the financial stability of private health insurance companies take place relatively quickly. If that does happen, then by the time that the next President is sworn into office, the reality they may be facing could be that what has been done can’t be easily undone, i.e. full repeal of Obamacare may not be an option because we won’t have enough private health insurance companies with the financial stability to meet demand if the law is fully repealed.
I’m not a political strategist, but if I was, I’d be watching this situation like a hawk. If this situation does go in the direction of what I’ve described, then whoever the Republican Presidential candidate turns out to be should make NO promises to the general public regarding full repeal of Obamacare that they can’t keep.
What’s more, if Republicans have a lick of sense they’ll be looking for ways to slow down the pace a bit while gathering together individuals from various sectors of industry to come up with a contingency plan that they could put into place, in a “worst case scenario” context, and they’ll tell the American people the honest-to-goodness truth about where things stand, presenting their “worst case scenario” option as the better alternative in comparison to the massive tax increases we would be facing to cover federal subsidy costs.