creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Betsy McCaughey
Liberty Belle
15 May 2013
Sebelius' Monkey Business

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was criticized last week for soliciting private … Read More.

8 May 2013
Biggest Breakthrough in Healthcare

A 180-degree change in how doctors and hospital administrators think about germs is likely to almost … Read More.

1 May 2013
Senators in Charge of Asylum

Only the first 151 pages of the 844-page Senate immigration bill deal with border security and a path to … Read More.

The Nation Will Reexamine Obamacare

Comment

The weasels that wrote the Obama health law postponed the pain until after the 2012 presidential election. Popular provisions were put into effect immediately, such as allowing children to stay on their parent's plan until age 26, offering "free" colonoscopies and mammograms (in truth, forcing you to pay for them in your premium, whether you get them or not) and giving women the thrill of getting contraceptives at the drugstore without paying anything. The White House also granted 1,472 waivers to certain companies and unions exempting them from insurance reforms, so they would not drop coverage for employees and members before the presidential contest.

Voters saw through these hijinks. Even on Election Day 2012, a majority favored repealing the health law. But they cared more about other issues or didn't care for Mitt Romney. The 2012 election was not a referendum on Obamacare.

November 2014 will be different. By then, people in their 20s and 30s will be clobbered with 100 percent or higher premium hikes, insurers report. Nineteen percent of the president's 2012 voters came from this age group.

Workers in retail, hospitality and home care will lose on-the-job coverage and, in some cases, their full-time status, forecasts the ADP Research Institute. The law mandates that employers with 50 or more full-time workers provide an "essential benefit package" that costs about twice what these industries currently offer. Employers will drop coverage. Even the government's actuaries admit fewer people will get coverage at work after the employer mandate goes into effect than if the law had not passed.

Employers will be struggling to determine what "affordable" means, how to calculate "full-time" workforce and how to pay the $65 fee for each worker and worker's dependents.

Seniors needing hospital care will be shocked at cutbacks. Section 3000A of the law awards bonus points to the hospitals that spend the least per senior. Hospitals are even whacked for what Medicare patients consume in the 30 days after discharge, including physical therapy.

Hospital patients of all ages will wait longer for a nurse.

Cuts to Medicare pay for over half the law, and this will mean $247 billion less for hospitals over the next decade, forcing them to operate under scarcity.

Consumers directed to a state exchange will worry about handing their Social Security number and 15 pages of financial and family information to exchange "assisters," temporary workers often from community organizations. Civil rights activists in California are resisting background checks for "assisters" because it would disqualify too many minority men with prior convictions.

In politics, 20 months is an eternity. But barring a transformational event, voters will pull the lever against Obamacare in 2014.

The cards are stacked for Republicans winning control of the U.S. Senate and holding their majority in the House of Representatives. Thirty-three Senate seats will be in play. The 13 held by Republicans are considered safe. But most of the seats currently held by Democrats are in swing states or Republican-leaning states, giving the GOP several election opportunities. Republicans need only six wins to gain control of the Senate. By the way, three of those states — Iowa, Virginia and Arkansas — will be hit with the highest premium increases in the individual market.

History suggests Republicans will have little trouble holding on to their current House majority. Mid-term elections generally produce House losses for the president's party.

With the GOP in charge of both houses after 2014, entitlement reform will be redefined to mean defunding the huge new entitlements in the Affordable Care Act — the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies to health plan buyers in the exchanges. The best way to reform entitlements is not to fund new ones. It's a lot easier to take away an entitlement no one is accustomed to. Defunding will reduce federal spending by $1.6 trillion through 2020.

GOP governors who recently announced they would expand Medicaid made a bet against defeating Obamacare, They will get clobbered after 2014. They will be stuck with vastly expanded Medicaid enrollments and no way to pay the tab except burdening their own state taxpayers.

It's not over till it's over.

Betsy McCaughey is a former Lt. governor of New York and the author of "Beating Obamacare." She reads the law so you don't have to. Visit www.betsymccaughey.com. To find out more about Betsy McCaughey and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;... Have you ever heard about introducing your characters before dropping them on the stage to strut??? Who is the ADP research group, and what do they stand for, and what ulterior purpose were they created to advance???... Few of these research group think tanks do more than confirm what they have already decided before joining ranks...
Even calling those who passed the law, "weasels" is a little absurd...I don't like 'em; and I do not like to find myself bargaining for their souls like Abraham with God for the souls of Soddom and Gomorrah like a used car buyer for a spare...Without the cooperation of the republicans in making a good law; only a bad law was possible...It is better than no law because the absolute inertia of the government amid the hustle of society is impossible to overcome... Everyone wants every issue settled, and since change is everywhere the norm, nothing will ever be settled... The situation before demanded a change, and the situation today demands change; but today it is those most used to digging in their heels, manning the baricades, and swearing death before retreat who must go on the attack... Now, they must advance a plan for change, and now they must make the argument for better- instead of good enough... Do they have it in them???
I think it is easier to fix the bad parts of an otherwise good and well meaning law than it is to get things moving from zero...The argument made for Mr. Obama was essentially the same: Better than nothing... It ain't saying much; but when your side wanted nothing, wanted to see people living in poverty as the price of any sort of life at all; wanted to see them dying in far greater numbers if they are poor, wanted them in want and in a condition of perpetual servitude; then it is hard to frame your true objects in a positive fashion...
The republican party is trying to redefine itself without really changing what it is, and what it stands for... They reject Carl Rove because people are no longer buying his apples... But he had it right in so many ways... As Mr. Romoney said: Their 47, and your 47 can be counted on, or counted out... The ability Mr. Rove demonstrated, of being able to paint the democrats with offensive hues to either neutralize support, or enthuse ones swing voters cannot be lost to the republicans... The key to republican success has always been in the ability to define the democrats, and since the democrats are powerful enough and accepting enough to define themselves in a positive fashion, this power is strictly limited to individuals in individual races....
Everybody knows what the republicans are...No one is going to believe they are capable of change, and they are not...They ought to save their trouble, and commit to being the party that rubs booggers on the doornob the democrats must turn on the door into the future...
Republicans do not so need to change their image, which is offensive and vile, as you well reveal... They need to change themselves; and this is not possible, or they would allow the society to advance as it very much needs to in order to be prepared for a future that already has passed by this society...The inertia of any form, and in any form of government is present in our government in spades... Between the courts and the constitution, the status quo has all the defense it needs... Now; all parties and people need to change themselves, as hard as that is to do, and change government- so it is effective at achieving the goals the preamble of the constitution has set for it...
So what if our government has served the rich since day one??? What if tommorrow it would serve only the poor and dispossessed??? A government stitched together of gathered extremes in a crazy quilt of principals and motives as we have it today will not be able to defend those extremes when it no longer works period... Failure is the best argument possible for change...
Too bad the republicans can't listen... Maybe they have a back up plan...Going back in time is not an option... Maybe that is why they will not accept science...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:19 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Betsy McCaughey
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 15 May 2013
John Stossel
John StosselUpdated 15 May 2013
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 15 May 2013

20 Feb 2013 Big Brother Obama

16 Jan 2013 Privacy Only for Gun Owners

10 Apr 2013 Assimilation Reform, not Immigration Reform