Friday, January 6, 2017

Ring in the New Obamacare Schadenfreude

2017 is begun, and something will happen with Obamacare. What it will be is not so clear. Paul Rand wants to Repeal all of Obamacare and replace immediately. His vision:
1. The freedom to choose inexpensive insurance free of government dictates.
2. The freedom to save unlimited amounts in a health savings account.
3.The freedom to buy insurance across state lines.
4.The freedom for all individuals to join together in voluntary associations to gain the leverage of being part of a large insurance pool.
I can't argue against any of that, but I doubt Congress can achieve it immediately, and if they do they'll probably screw something else up. More significant (in the sense of likely to be followed is what the incoming President wants: Trump Wants To Repeal A Lot Of Obamacare On Day 1, brought to you from "The Shark Tank" via Wombat-socho's "In The Mailbox: 01.03.17." Unfortunately, the article doesn't say which parts. J. Marsolo at the American Thinker thinks Repeal Obamacare. Do not replace.
We need to ask why we have to replace Obamacare with another government plan. We should have a debate whether we need the federal government to have an "Obamacare"-type plan and a real debate on the proposals. Obamacare was rammed through Congress on a parliamentary trick with only Democrat votes and no real discussion – just speeches.
By way of Wombat-socho's "In The Mailbox: 01.05.17", the usually sensible Megan McArdle tells Republicans They Should Save These 3 Unpopular Parts of Obamacare. Being a responsible economist she wants to save the parts where people actually pay for things (and where they get thrown to the wolves if they're too old and sick). Republicans would have to be moral saints and political fools to follow her advice. Better to trash it and start over, and let the Democrats take the blame of creating the unpopular parts.

The Washington Post posits Why Obamacare is unlikely to die a swift death
Democratic opposition and complex Senate rules mean that core pieces of the 2010 health-care overhaul are likely to remain, including the legal framework for the individual mandate and pieces of the state exchanges the law created. Furthermore, President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to preserve other key aspects, such as a ban on insurers denying coverage because of preexisting conditions and a requirement that insurers cover children under 26 on their parents’ plans.
The Week tells us Why repealing ObamaCare will be a trainwreck for the GOP. They certainly hope so. Jazz Shaw explains The end of Obamacare and the Pottery Barn rule. Hey, we didn't break it, the Democrats did. Adding some weight to the thought that thinks won't change all that suddenly: Trump transition team member: Don’t worry, ObamaCare plans won’t change at all for the next two years. Make sure the Democrats get the blame for that too. From the new President to be:  'Time for Republicans & Democrats to Get Together' on Health Care Plan. I guess you have to pretend.

And it begins: LIVE BY RECONCILIATION, DIE BY RECONCILIATION: Senate Republicans just introduced an Obamacare repeal plan Democrats can’t stop and Obamacare Repeal Budget Resolution Passes Senate With 51 VotesPaul Ryan: GOP will defund Planned Parenthood as part of Obamacare repeal. Twisting the knife. Nancy Pelosi, allies prep for war over Obamacare, Planned Parenthood. War to the knife!

The regulation in question implements Section 1557 of the ACA, which prohibits health-care entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. According to the regulation, this prohibition extends to discrimination based upon “gender identity,” “sex stereotyping” and “termination of pregnancy.” Among other things, it requires that covered entities treat individuals in accordance with their self-proclaimed gender identity, which is defined as a person’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”
Common sense from a federal court? Who knows what might happen next.
This goes back to a question I raised a couple of years ago. If the government is willing to not only recognize but mandate the acceptance of a person’s desired gender rather than their actual sex, why should there be any barriers at all. What about people suffering from Cotard’s Syndrome? They fervently believe that they are undead… literally zombies walking the Earth. Can Uncle Sam declare them dead just to honor that belief and force the medical community to treat them as corpses? While that may sound like an extreme comparison, it’s actually the same thing. There is precisely as much scientific evidence that a man identifying as a “transgender woman” is actually female as there is that a Cotard’s sufferer is actually a zombie.
And what about transgender zombies? This must be a federal issue!

Liberals say the darnedest things!

And finally Scott Adams asks Is The Onion Advising Democrats Now?:

1 comment:

  1. repeal ACA and replace with....the free market. no where does the constitution enumerate the power of health care to the federal government.
    but.....just to take that stick away from the leftists....
    if a person cannot get health care COVERAGE because of a pre existing condition, that person, and that person only, MAY b e placed on the medicade program, REGARDLESS of family income....if chuck shumer were to have an austic child that he could not get health insurance for, that child could receive welfare health care.
    like shumer is not going to pay the costs out of least his kid will be as healthy as any other kid on welfare.