A legion of commentators has speculated on the true
intent of Obamacare. Many believe the
end game is a single-payer system. That
is why states like North Carolina are being browbeaten by the Obama administration,
progressive organizations and media outlets into expanding Medicaid. The John Locke Foundation has postulated the
following:
While the current
Obamacare debate has focused on the fate of the insurance exchanges, the bill
was always primarily about expanding Medicaid. Most of the people forecast to
obtain coverage under Obamacare were to do so as new Medicaid recipients, not
enrollees of private plans.
Moreover, the flaws in the insurance exchanges reflect not an accident but instead a heartfelt belief by the law’s framers that true health insurance — a financial product to protect households against unforeseen major medical expenses — needs to go away. They were willing to use federal power to attempt to turn private insurers into regulated utilities. But most of them assumed the effort would fail in the long run, leaving no alternative but to expand Medicare and Medicaid into a de facto single-payer system.
In that one prediction, at least, the framers of Obamacare are likely to be correct. If current trends continue, a combination of adverse selection and moral hazard will render the private exchange plans unsustainable without massive and unpopular government bailouts. If taxpayers are going to be forced to plow more money into the financing system of health care, the argument will go, why not just cut out the middleman and fund the expansion of Medicare (by lowering the eligibility age) and Medicaid (by raising the income-eligibility cap)?
Hospital executives and other providers may not fully appreciate where this is going — although some may have concluded that they might as well be in on it rather than have no seat at the table. For Obamacare’s most-passionate advocates, however, there is simply no doubt about their ultimate goal. If you agree with that goal, so be it. If you don’t agree with that goal, you need to recognize that browbeating North Carolina and other states into expanding Medicaid is intended to hasten its realization.
Moreover, the flaws in the insurance exchanges reflect not an accident but instead a heartfelt belief by the law’s framers that true health insurance — a financial product to protect households against unforeseen major medical expenses — needs to go away. They were willing to use federal power to attempt to turn private insurers into regulated utilities. But most of them assumed the effort would fail in the long run, leaving no alternative but to expand Medicare and Medicaid into a de facto single-payer system.
In that one prediction, at least, the framers of Obamacare are likely to be correct. If current trends continue, a combination of adverse selection and moral hazard will render the private exchange plans unsustainable without massive and unpopular government bailouts. If taxpayers are going to be forced to plow more money into the financing system of health care, the argument will go, why not just cut out the middleman and fund the expansion of Medicare (by lowering the eligibility age) and Medicaid (by raising the income-eligibility cap)?
Hospital executives and other providers may not fully appreciate where this is going — although some may have concluded that they might as well be in on it rather than have no seat at the table. For Obamacare’s most-passionate advocates, however, there is simply no doubt about their ultimate goal. If you agree with that goal, so be it. If you don’t agree with that goal, you need to recognize that browbeating North Carolina and other states into expanding Medicaid is intended to hasten its realization.
The Democrats have
never been forthright with their intent.
They have lied to the American people time after time. Any reasonable person should conclude that a
single-payer system is the endgame, and they will implement it by any means
necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment