The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, puts me in mind of the old proverb: Be careful what you wish for. Democrats on a victory lap should watch their step, because John Roberts may have given Mitt Romney a gift. The impact on the health system will be much smaller than the political fallout, because with or without Obamacare, the American health system will continue to unravel -- quickly if Romney is elected, slowly if Obama is re-elected.
First the policy, then the politics:
Obamacare is simply incapable of doing what it is supposed to do -- provide nearly universal care at an affordable and sustainable cost. The problem is that three years ago, in his futile efforts to win over Republicans (remember the embarrassing courtship of Olympia Snowe?), Obama gutted the law before it was even passed. He made the private insurance companies the linchpin of the new system, and promised them millions of additional customers and billions of taxpayer dollars. He also did nothing to rein in the profit-oriented delivery system that rewards providers on a piecework basis for doing tests and procedures. So with all the new dollars flowing into the system and no restraints on the way medicine is practiced, the law is inherently inflationary.
Although there are some provisions to curb the worst abuses of the insurance companies, such as excluding people with preexisting conditions, there is nothing in the law that would stop insurers from raising premiums. A senior executive of the industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans, told me privately that that's exactly what the companies will do if regulations cut into their profits. Thus, costs under Obamacare will almost certainly rise even faster than at present. No reform can work well or very long if its costs are unsustainable.
In fact, it is unlikely that Obamacare will ever be fully implemented as it stands. If Romney is elected, with a Republican Congress, it will be quickly overturned. If Obama is re-elected (and I hope he is, despite my disappointment in his health plan), it will come apart more slowly. But unravel it will, as costs rise and it becomes clear that there are still tens of millions of Americans priced out of the system.
Here's how the unraveling will look:
Many of the uninsured who are subject to the mandate to purchase private insurance will choose to pay the penalty/tax instead. That will lead the insurance companies to raise their premiums, demand that the penalties be greater, or both. Deductibles and co-payments will increase to the point that many people will have insurance they can't afford to use. (This is the case in Massachusetts.) Many employers will simply stop offering health insurance, since our high unemployment means workers no longer have the leverage to demand it, or they will stop insuring dependents (thus avoiding having to cover grown children to age 26). In addition, because insurers have a strong financial incentive to evade the new regulations requiring them to take all comers, it will take a huge bureaucracy to monitor them.
Next year, states are supposed to set up insurance exchanges to pool risks and offer a menu of approved insurance plans for individuals and small businesses. But they are unlikely to be functioning by 2014, as called for in the law, either because Republican states simply refuse to set them up and hamper federal efforts to step in, or because of the administrative complexities. Some states may also refuse to accept the funds to expand Medicaid, as called for in the law, since the Supreme Court found that they could opt out without losing their existing federal Medicaid funding. Here again, the bureaucracy necessary to aid and monitor state compliance will be huge, diverting resources from health care. In addition, there are likely to be multiple legal challenges to nearly all provisions of the law.
Obamacare partially offsets the costs of federal subsidies to insurance companies and Medicaid costs by cutting Medicare reimbursement to providers. That means hospitals and other health facilities will take a hit, and many are already struggling.
So that's how it will unravel. There will be efforts to patch it up as we go along, but because Obamacare leaves our current inflationary system largely in place, they are unlikely to be successful.
Now for the politics. Even though the Supreme Court decision will have little long-term effect on our health system, the political ramifications will be great. To be sure, it's a victory for Obama, but that will be evanescent. Now the Republicans are on the offensive, and greatly strengthened by John Roberts' insistence that the mandate is a tax, not a penalty. Remember how hard Obama tried to avoid the T-word? Republicans are adept at painting Democrats as tax-happy, and Roberts has helped them to do just that. Pundits wonder what got into the Chief Justice. Was he just trying make the Supreme Court appear to be above politics, given all the recent evidence that it's not? Or did he do a favor for Romney and the Republicans?
It's very hard to read, but I think the Democrats would have been better off if the Supreme Court had overturned Obamacare, and I think it would have been better for our health system, as well. The base would be energized, and Democrats would take the offensive. More important, no one would be under the illusion that the health system has been successfully reformed, as many good liberals now are. That mistake will become clear as the system unravels. Democrats will suffer the death of a thousand cuts, rather than a quick blow that could be blamed on our politicized Supreme Court. If the law had been struck down, we could have started right away to work on an effective reform.
The only way to provide health care to all Americans at an affordable cost is by instituting some form of publicly-administered nonprofit system like those in other advanced countries. After all, they manage to provide universal care at less than half the cost, on average, and their costs are rising more slowly. I have long advocated expanding Medicare (which is a single-payer program) gradually by lowering the eligibility age one decade at a time, while phasing out for-profit health facilities and changing doctors' fees to reward primary care more and specialist care less.
On July 22, 2009, Obama said in a press conference, "Now, the truth is that unless you have what's called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual." Bingo. Too bad he didn't hang on to that insight, and use his rhetorical skills to make the case strongly to the American public. If he had fought for single-payer health care at the beginning of his administration, while he had both houses of Congress, and mobilized public opinion behind it, he might have made it. After all, the only thing members of Congress need more than industry money is votes.
Chief Justice Roberts: The decider
Roberts Jokes About Trip to 'Impregnable' Fortress
Did Roberts flip? Clues suggest court initially had the votes to strike down ...
ABC's Roberts' illness spurs bone marrow donations
Political panel: Roberts' legacy
Roberts' Ruling Recalls Other Moments When High Court Shocked The Nation
Poll: Americans split on health care decision
Excerpts from Supreme Court's health care opinions
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Secret negotiations, backstabbing, legislation originally proposed by Republicans, written with insurance companies (remember that seat at the table everyone was going to have?) passed by a corporate senate and president, ruled legal in the strangest way by hard core right wing ideologue Roberts. Why do democrats think this is a good thing? I don't get it. Are people using their noggins? There are some good peripheral things in it - but it doesn't address illnesses caused by pollution, toxins in the environment, industrial food, overtreatment, stress from poverty... they call mammograms preventive medicine! You want prevention? It's yoga, chi kung, acupuncture, less stress, organic food, no formaldehyde in furniture, no BPA or gmo's - that's prevention. Not tests that hardly save anyone at all. (NY Times: numbers of womens lives saved by mammograms - less than 4000 out of 39 million women annually) http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/mammograms-role-as-savior-is-tested/
It is only a win if you like western medicine, big pharma and insurance companies.
You bring up some good points and these are all issues which should have been talked about before this bill was pushed through Congress. I've seen many studies which indicate that increased access to health care is not associated with better outcomes outside of specific circumstances such as prenatal care.
Of course this bill won't bring costs down, and the worst part is that it's another Wall Street bailout with the costs of all the additional baked-in insurer profits falling squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.
I have no idea why the average Dem. voter would support this, but from what I gather, they believe it is like a single payer system and insurers will be forced to cover everything and premiums are going to fall now that all of those nogoodnik "free riders" are forced to pay a penalty. Boy, are they in for a nasty surprise.
Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
This is what happened with the demise of the Weimar Republic.... The Social Democrats often interpreted existing laws to suit their own needs. Hence, the laws became meaningless.
When they elected Hitler, thinking that he was a fool, and would be gone in three months, Hitler instead took the interpreted laws and just expanded them, and used them to first arrest all the social democrats and communists, eviscerated their members in the parliament, and than went ahead and demanded that those who remain give him the authority to pass the authoritarian law, and if they didn't he would just enforce it anyway... by fiat.
Khrushchev said he would bury us in the early sixties... He didn't have to, we buried ourselves. And now the government is shoveling the dirt over our graves.
ron hansing
Secondly, polling shows a majority of not only Americans, but Republicans support the idea of universal health care. It is only because of relentless corporate media propaganda that people like yourself believe that the public is not ready for and won't yet support the kind of reforms that we need.
What is so great about a system such as ours, when it benefits so few, at the expense of many? This is wrong. Very wrong.
ObamaCare's benefit to the American economy and healthcare system can be subjectively interpreted; however, the issue has every voter (Independent or otherwise) scampering to either candidate. If the ObamaCare polling is correct, this does not bode well for Obama. And all hopes of a 3rd Party Candidate to steal some of Romney's numbers are now a pipe dream.
Dunno
The best thing about this entire process is that it shows that Republicans in Congress have zero concern about Americans. It shows that Republicans in Congress do nothing unless it benefits Big Oil, Wall Street, etc.
The picture that has been painted shows that Obama at least gave it a shot. Bush had his chance when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate for 6 years and did nothing for Americans but burden us with a massive war debt.