My thoughts on Obamacare

I know this isn't exactly fresh, but it has occurred to me that I have not yet vented about Obamacare. Let me fix the omission.

Although I have seen variants in the official name, Obamacare is a reference to the so-called Affordable Care Act. Despite its name, I have not seen any evidence that affordability was even a consideration. Sure, they told insurance companies that they could no longer hold preexisting conditions against them, but their savings were offset by increases in premiums for healthy individuals. While an argument can made in favor of the change, it does not actually alter the affordability. It changes who pays.

On the flip side, the government has added an expense. They expanded the IRS to enforce the law. These new workers are not free, so we now have to spend more money related to our health care system.

Overall, the impact on affordability has been uncertain. Most people complained of seriously rising premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, but many unhealthy individuals saw significant cuts. Early indications seemed to point to overall slower-than-usual rate increases, but it has been well established that the slowdown started prior to the law's implementation. Now, the rate seems to be getting worse.

One of my issues with Obamacare is the use of the tax code as a means to manipulate Americans. Our tax code is out of control, and we need reform. At a time when simplification seems vital, it made absolutely no sense to add yet another regulation.

The democrats love to point out the number of individuals enrolled under Obamacare as proof of the law's success. This is highly misleading. Many people who are now insured can't afford the out-of-pocket expenses. We are seeing a numbers game where numerous individuals who are still effectively uninsured now pay for plans they can't afford. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to fine individuals for not being able to afford insurance.

The primary goal of Obamacare was not to create a better approach to health care. Barack Obama is obsessed with his legacy. Successfully passing a bill to reform health care was more important than the consequences of the law. Obama put his own interests above the people he is supposed to represent.

To get his precious legacy, the Affordable Care Act was rushed without much thought. Yes, it's long, but it's also full of poorly thought out components. For example, I know someone who had to call to cancel her Medicaid coverage because she earned too much in a month. It took her multiple calls to get through. Since her earnings are not consistent from a month-to-month basis, she asked how to handle her earning not matching what she was reporting. She was told to call every month. Keep in mind that a lot of people, especially among those who need subsidies, do not have a reliable monthly income, which is what Obamacare assumes.

I don't want to go through too many details of how shortsighted Obamacare was when it passed, but it seems relevant to remind readers how it was passed. The democrats had to exploit a loophole to ease the requirements for passing the bill into law. The law contained measures such as bribery. Democrats were instructed to vote for it even if they didn't like it. The democrats even resorted to child exploitation to pass the bill. Even for those who like the law, I don't understand how anyone can support how the law was passed.

Another misguided argument I have heard in favor of Obamacare is that it is centrist. People insist that the reason it appears unpopular is because a lot of people would like to go further toward single payer. While this is true to an extent, it is flawed. Not everything can be defined by a linear scale. Many of the issues with Obamacare did not exist before and would not exist if we went with the single-payer system. The mandate is a good example of this. I hate the idea of fining someone for not being able to afford a product.

I saved my biggest concern for last. In recent years, I have repeatedly complained about how little say I have on my own life. We may claim to be free, but our federal government has clearly become oppressive. The most important thing here comes down to a simple question. Does Obamacare give the government more or less control over our lives? I think the answer is pretty clear.

Here we have a law demanding that we buy a government-approved health care plan from government-approved insurers and report our compliance to the government yearly during tax season. If you go through the exchange, you have to provide a lot of information, include census information that has nothing to do with health care. If your wages change, even due to fluctuations in monthly earning, the government wants you to give them a call. You should never have to jump through hoops just to be in compliance with a law. Perhaps there is a better derogatory name than Obamacare. Let's refer to the Affordable Care Act as Dance-Puppets-Care.

I would rather live a short and free life than a long life enslaved to our government. That means that I would rather be uninsured than to deal with Obama's approach to health care. In all fairness, I felt like I was a mental slave long before Dance-Puppets-Care became law. That doesn't make the latest addition to our oppression acceptable.

There were some reports that the true purpose of Dance-Puppets-Care was to become the first step toward a single-payer system. There might be something to that. I am certainly more open to single payer than I was before this awful law was implemented. Socialism usually takes away freedom, but Dance-Puppets-Care is far worse than a single-payer system. If I had to choose, I would prefer being insured by the government over having to worry about compliance with Dance-Puppets-Care.