Red herring, a clue designed to be misleading or distracting. In the case of Obamacare it’s ENROLLMENT, the great Democratic tool for distracting away from the problems of Obamacare in terms of actual health care (since Democrat is often associated with blue, blue herring applies).
On July 29, 2014, Warren Richey reports for, “The Christian Science Monitor,” that a US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit that challenged Obamacare based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause that requires laws for raising revenue shall originate in the House.
The court focused on the “raising revenue” aspect of Obamacare deciding that “…the paramount aim of the Affordable Care Act is to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care, not to raise revenue,” therefore Judge Rogers concluded the lawsuit was not possible under the Origination Clause. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0729/Did-Congress-pass-Obamacare-the-right-way-Court-dismisses-lawsuit).
The sad truth is that the Act is unconcerned with the costs of obtaining needed medical care in the event of illness for INDIVIDUALS, but instead is concerned about managing those costs for the entities that are providing INSURANCE, governments or employers.
Ultimately, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not about Patient Protection from UNAFFORDABLE Care in the event of illness, it’s about protecting insurers (whether government or employer or private insurers) from bearing costs of expensive US medical fees charged to patients to maintain and/or regain health.
Regarding the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, Section 1501 (a)(2)(G) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act directly addresses why ENROLLMENT is key for Obamacare: “…if there were no requirement, many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will minimize this adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums.”
This helps to explain why the Judge states that the Act is not designed to RAISE REVENUE through the imposition of the individual mandate TAX. What it’s designed to do is to SAVE MONEY for government and insurance companies that will benefit from RECEIVING PREMIUM PAYMENTS FROM HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS because as in the case of all INSURANCE, premiums provide little to nothing to consumers UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS where they need to use their INSURANCE PRODUCT TO HELP PAY FOR NEEDED SERVICES.
Therefore the less you use your insurance the greater benefit your premium payments provide to insurance companies. Theoretically, this lowers premium costs for everyone by balancing out the winning customers for insurers, those who do not use their health insurance, with the loser customers for insurers, those who DO use the services that insurance helps pay for.
This is why things seem so wrong to individuals who have actually experienced illness and more deeply understand the needs for change in our health CARE system of skyrocketing costs of medical services and skyrocketing costs of health insurance that seemingly covers less and less in the event of illness.
Obamacare worsens our health CARE system by promoting bottom-heavy cheapie checkups (that will likely go up in price now that insurance pays for them) and “wellness” AT THE EXPENSE OF and neglect of the REAL healthcare crisis which is not about enough checkups and wellness visits but about obtaining timely access to affordable health care in the event of illness.
This is why Obamacare was almost provision-for-provision suggested by the INSURANCE industry in 2008…(See “Health Plans Propose Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate,” produced by AHIP), cited in my 7/28/13 post entitled, “Insurance Companies Created Obamacare,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/07/insurance-companies-created-obamacare.html.
Ultimately Obamacare is a massive law of small and not-so-new ideas designed to keep insurers flush by doing what insurers have always done, covered less and/or charged more, with the new twist of making sure there are enough participants (ENROLLMENT) through the imposition of the individual mandate tax and through the provision of entitlement dollars to eligible exchange signups.
So, why do we buy into the blue herring and cheer for Obamacare enrollment? Because we want there to be good news and because most people reading the “news” are not those facing illness and experiencing the inadequacy of Obamacare as anything but a bulky, inelegant attempt to create a new entitlement classes and charge every other consumer more to protect the government and private insurers who are providing plans that are arguably less real protection in the event of illness than plans that came before Obamacare.
So, enrollment, even at its current levels of making a dent in the 47 million uninsured has become the fundraising thermometer of measurement of the success of Obamacare, leaving discussion of the burgeoning crisis of the under-insured, the built-in capacity for waste of federal dollars in fraud from Obamabucks and the still evolving role of the independent patient advisory board in a back seat to enrollment numbers that are largely meaningless to individual consumers.
With this in mind, we go to the latest and greatest updated ENROLLMENT figures, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, 3.4 million new Californians have health insurance coverage, 7/30/2014, “Survey Finds Approximately 3.4 Million Previously Uninsured Adult Californians Obtained Coverage Since Start of the Affordable Care Act’s First Open Enrollment Period,” http://kff.org/health-reform/press-release/survey-finds-approximately-3-4-million-previously-uninsured-adult-californians-obtained-coverage-since-start-of-the-affordable-care-acts-first-open-enrollment-period/.
But the pitfalls of Obamacare for INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS rears its REALITY head in the breakdown of these newly insured: “The largest share of previously uninsured Californians gained coverage through the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal (25%),” http://kff.org/health-reform/press-release/survey-finds-approximately-3-4-million-previously-uninsured-adult-californians-obtained-coverage-since-start-of-the-affordable-care-acts-first-open-enrollment-period/.
Only 9 percent of the individuals who are described as newly insured obtained health insurance coverage through California’s state exchange, Covered California.
Many remain uninsured and it was explained, “Cost also remains a barrier for those still uninsured. When asked to say in their own words why they didn’t have coverage, a third (34%) point to costs as the reason — far more than cited any other reason,” http://kff.org/health-reform/press-release/survey-finds-approximately-3-4-million-previously-uninsured-adult-californians-obtained-coverage-since-start-of-the-affordable-care-acts-first-open-enrollment-period/.
For consumers it is the details that should raise concern. While Californians are lucky enough to have expanded Medicaid, which was THE MOST SIGNIFICANT way the uninsured became insured, nearly half the states don’t meaning that their uninsured populations are forgotten, lost under Obamacare. Also significant is that even with Obamabucks cost remains a concern.
Good news is fun, we get to watch the President brag that he SOLVED healthcare. But we did that in 2012 also, before the untruths about Obamacare started coming out with the 1/2014 effective dates and it was to our detriment.
It is ridiculous that we’re buying into the ENROLLMENT game. Sure give free money for premiums and tax people who don’t buy health insurance and you reduce the numbers of uninsured, small idea. But it is WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE SICK that is the test of a healthcare system and of the health insurance product and THAT must remain the focus for consumers when they’re well and during benefits election season as well as during election season.
