“If the health care legislation passed in 2010 is implemented fully and on schedule, public attention will turn to features of the legislation that were perhaps less obvious during the debate. For example, who ultimately controls the new health exchanges-the states or the federal government? Resolution of this issue could determine the nature of health insurance in America. The so-called OPM alternative will soon be seen as an end-run for the public option and, if it remains on the statute book, could lead to a far stronger public option than anyone thought possible. Employers and employees will soon wake up to the fact that the legislation will accelerate the erosion of employer-based insurance. And rosy projections that health spending will taper down will most likely prove to be an illusion-forcing choices about price controls and budgets. However Congress responds to these decisions, it will mean big changes in access to services and control of the system.”
“The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration’s argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out “waste.” Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration’s new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.”
“Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama’s health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.”
When he takes control of Medicare and Medicaid, Don Berwick will begin to implement his vision of a more centralized, government-run health care system. This viewpoint is at the heart of ObamaCare, with the aim of putting Washington in charge of all health care decision-making. “Such a command-and-control vision is widespread among America’s technocratic medical left, but it is also increasingly anachronistic amid today’s breakneck medical progress. There isn’t a single ‘ideal model’ in a world of treatments tailored to the genetic patterns of specific cancers, or for the artificial pancreas for individual diabetics, or other innovations that are increasingly common.”
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents more than a federal takeover of health care; it is a direct threat to federalism itself. Never before has Congress exercised its power under Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution to force American citizens to purchase a private good or a service. Congress is also intruding deeply into the internal affairs of the states, commandeering their officers, specifying in minute detail how they are to arrange health insurance markets within their borders, and determining the products that will be sold to their citizens. If allowed to stand, this unprecedented concentration of political power in Washington will reduce the states to mere instruments of federal health policy. State legislatures and sympathetic Members of Congress should consider (among other actions) crafting a constitutional amendment to guarantee the personal liberty of every citizen in the area of health care. Given the trajectory of federal policy, state officials should take the lead in the next phase of the national health care debate, reclaim their rightful authority, and change the facts on the ground for Congress and the White House.
Despite the publicity it has received, the official estimate of the White House Office of Management and Budget is that not even one in every thousand Americans will be impacted by ObamaCare’s “patient’s bill of rights” — and this disclosure stands in stark contrast to the administration’s estimate that ObamaCare could cause more than half of all Americans with employer-based health plans to lose their current plan.
When it comes to the young and the old, ObamaCare would force an unconventional redistribution of wealth — as its price controls would force insurers to raise rates on younger (generally poorer) Americans relative to older (generally wealthier) ones. This distortion of the market and of nature would likely lead to a host of unpleasant consequences — including, for young adults, the likely consequence of having to forego insurance, getting fined as a result, and having more trouble finding a job.
As health care becomes politicized — with basic economic principles being denied — the Obama administration considers coercing states to issue price-controls on health insurers, by threatening to withhold tax revenue to states if they don’t. This would effectively leave private insurers with only two options: ration care, or go out of business.
ObamaCare eschews the one proven way to cut health costs — so, while the price of ObamaCare would be higher federal spending, increased deficits, and diminished liberty, what Americans would get in return would be higher health costs and reduced quality of care.
ObamaCare would increase costs, increase deficits, and reduce the quality of health care — and outside of President Obama and other Democrats who are ideologically driven to expand federal power and control, no one wants it.