While some groups of people are celebrating health care reform and some headlines are singing praises, I feel that “America Actually Does Nothing, Perpetuates Broken System, Manages to Continue to Demonize Universal Health care While Further Enriching Insurance Companies, Rest of World Nonplussed” would be a more realistic headline.

The people who are happy about all this view politics as sports – My team beat your team. The people who are angry either have no idea what is in the bill or they know exactly what is in the bill.

While I do believe that it’s possible to have Universal Health Care at a decent cost without nationalizing anything, American citizens need to remember that “Government can’t do anything right” and “America is not Canada” are not defensible justifications for being opposed to it.

I’m amazed at how badly Congress handled this. When this bill was first proposed, I predicted that it would either shatter and burn or expand Medicare Medicaid coverage slightly.
However, the only thing that is absolutely, entirely guaranteed is that the insurance companies will derive even more money.
What this reform boils down to is that health insurance companies that have been killing people or drowning them in debt by finding loopholes to get out of paying for care people needed now have a law requiring people pay the same insurance companies that have been killing them.
Bravo, Congress. Bravo. You’ve shown just how remarkable you truly don’t care by failing to ensure this reform does one major thing: Lower the costs.

This is a horrible reform and most of the things pointed out as “good” things could have been passed easily on a bipartisan level without all of the things people are critical about.
The mandate could have been sparkling if there was a credible public option in place to keep the insurers unbiased, there is not. You are now mandated to purchase a product from a retailer you don’t trust (who the government agrees you shouldn’t trust) and this is a ample step backwards.

So, what good does this bill do, exactly?
Essentially, those who live near or below the poverty line essentially don’t have any more access to health care than they did before. The big reform is that insurers cannot refuse to insure someone for a pre-existing condition and they cannot tumble someones coverage just because they are unprofitable to cover. It also expands Medicaid up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Line. These seem to be the only circumstances that are a proper tangible change for the better.

Now let’s peep at what was excluded from this reform:

Not allow drug re-importation – prescription drug costs will still be expensive

Not allow for a public option. This means that people who want a government-run program that wouldn’t be funded by anybody NOT inside the program meaning if you weren’t in it, you weren’t funding it. This could have helped region up competition for private insurance companies. Without a public option, this bill is predatory. Without a viable public option the bill will afflict people and not make the problem better. That’s kind of the whole point to most of the left opposition to the bill. With one the whole system can work, without it you’re throwing the nations most needy to the wolves with no guarantee of real protection.

Put caps on premium prices.

Let’s say that you believe there’s no reason to have Insurance anymore until you get sick. Let’s say you pay the gorgeous every year, and you happen to get a terminal illness and you decide to catch insurance. Now, the companies can’t deny you for preexisting condition, but without a cap, there’s nothing to end them from charging you thousands a day for coverage. So, now you’ll be charged thousands of dollars a week for your insurance since insurance companies know how much it’ll “cost” them (It actually costs them a lot less, but you don’t need to know that!)
It’s the basic idea of a ‘Seller’s Market’.

They have it, you need it, and your other option is to do without. In truth, the only regulation of premium pricing is a committee that will investigate whether or not rate increases were “unfair.” Each and every state already have boards like these set up, however, they’re not really used.

The bill bans states from setting up dependable, universal systems (if the states wish to implement such a system) until 2017

This bill allows the Federal Government to give households within 300% of the Federal Poverty Line subsidies to help pay for this wildly expensive private health insurance that they have no way of controlling the costs of.
What that means is money will be collected from taxpayers and given true back to the taxpayers to be given to the insurance industry – essentially shoveling money right into the insurance industry’s pockets.
And since there’s no meaningful control on premiums in place, guess what happens if premiums soar? Subsidies and their profits increase.

In 2014, this bill requires you to buy health insurance or you are forced to pay a penalty to the IRS.

Yes, that’s correct. You are a criminal if you don’t pay.

Isn’t it improbable how having health care is the first ‘right’ you can be fined for not exercising?

Where, exactly is the logic in forcing people to lift private health care?

That feels like the health care companies complained that the bill was going to force them to treat people like human beings, and threatened to remove all future funding unless they threw in a part that would greatly benefit them.

And it horrifies me that that’s probably not too far from the truth.

Where are people supposed to buy health insurance if they are absolutely terrible and can barely afford to eat?
Does this just apply to those who have the option of buying health insurance through their employer, or everyone?
Under the reform, insurance will be subsidized for a family of four making $88,000 or less.
Not having insurance will get you subject to a pretty of $250 or 2% of your income.
Companies that don’t provide insurance will also be subjected to a fine of $750 per worker.
Medicare will be cut by $500 billion.
Medicaid will be expanded to cover a family of four making less than $29,000 and Medicaid taxes will increase on families making more than $250,000. If you have a health plan valued at more than $8,500 (or $23,000 for a family of four), prepare to pay taxes on it.

I don’t have high hopes that any major program begun or managed by the government has a high chance of staying within its projected budget or maintain solvency without outside intervention (re: more money).

A Good Bill should have garnered bipartisan aid by its own merits and have natural succor from both sides. This bill almost came to “deem and vote” (I prefer “demon vote” ), and required a puzzling Executive Order, and God knows how many other back room deals and promises that we weren’t privy to.

Another scream is that this bill is a blatant assault of the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Some people who choose to ignore this are excusing their flagrant disregard for the rule of law by deliberately misinterpreting the things like the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause to mean that Congress can do anything it feels like, as long as it can be construed to be “promoting the general welfare of the country,” for example.

President James Madison who helped pen the Constitution, was confronted with this right attempt to illegally expand federal powers in 1817, and he responded by emphatically denying that this was ever the intent of the Founders, or that they would have ever even ratified the Constitution in the first position if anyone keen had erroneous it to mean something so broad. President Madison stated that the powers of the Federal Government are “few and defined, and that the rights of the states and of the people were “numerous and indefinite.” He went on to justify that such a bastardization of what was created by the Founders would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would give the Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”

This country could indeed function as fifty independent states running their hold affairs. We’ve done it in the past. The European Union is currently run under an independent system. They have a coalition between them, as the federal government was intended to be here. Control the borders, settle interstate disputes, deal with foreign governments.

That is pretty much the extent of the federal government’s actual legal authority. Why does this matter? Because 90% of the problems we have right now wouldn’t exist if we were following the Constitution and keeping nearly all the power at the status and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own community and affairs.

Sadly, we allow our system to illegally nationalize all the power and control away from the individual and the rightful sovereign states, and into the hands of a tiny handful of unaccountable extremists in Washington.

Lawmakers trampling on the Constitution happens so often that most people barely bat an eye anymore.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, The Patriot Act, The 1994 Crime Bill, The 1989 Assault Weapons Ban, The Brady Law, The Domestic Violence Act are just a handful of bills that violate the American people’s Constitutional Rights.

I agree that Health Care needed to be changed; however, being fiscally irresponsible while simultaneously ignoring the Constitution isn’t the way to go about it.

Congress shouldn’t be joyful about covering 95% of Americans if you do it like this. It’s just not right.