Saturday, February 22, 2014

Obamacare: The Disastrous Concluding Thoughts of a Legacy

It is now nearing the end of February and the dust is beginning to settle after the storm named Obamacare has swept through my family. I have spent a lot of time perusing newspaper articles, reading blogs, and just simply trying to keep up with the rhetoric many of the politicians behind this legislation have been spewing out to the public. It seems that after a negative issue arises from this agenda, the Obama "think tanks" try to design an explanation to view it in a positive light. As a result, it appears that the success of The Affordable Care Act is solely based on individual subjective experiences. The problem is that we all do not have good things to say about Obamacare. In fact, there are some very terrible side effects of this legislation which are significantly impacting lives. It has opened up some doors that should have been left closed, and closed other doors that should have been left open.. Who really is benefiting from this sweeping change of law?

The concept of making health insurance affordable for everyone is certainly an issue which needs to be addressed. Can we use Obamacare as a draft template to hash out a fully functional system? Perhaps we can. But the problem is the extreme partisan divide that is pushing us into becoming a fallen society. Remember the statement made by Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand"? One of the largest side effects of Obamacare is the fact that there are actually hundreds of thousands of people who will not have insurance, a consequence of its own legislation. Here in Missouri, and my wife and I are part of this group, over 400,000 people are falling into what has been coined "the gray area". We do not qualify for government subsidies because of our income and Medicaid will not be expanded. As of today Governor Jay Nixon "has accepted the Medicaid Expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, but yet is still battling republican legislature to finalize the Expansion." They are stating that they will not pass this legislation for "fiscal and philosophical reasons". ( From my point of view this whole ordeal has just been a pissing contest for the republicans to get their way. And Missourians are suffering as a result. In my case I guess we get some saving grace - "You are not required to pay a penalty for not having health insurance because of your income and because the state of MO declined to expand MO HealthNet to cover individuals in your situation." (quote from Health Insurance Marketplace application December 21, 2013)

One of the biggest concerns that I have seen developing from this legislation is the promotion of unethical business practices by corporations, small businesses, and individuals. Coming from personal experience, I have noticed that general managers and small business owners are purposely cutting labor hours wherever they can in an effort to make sure certain employees do not meet the yearly 1,560 hours required by the Affordable Care Act. Why pay for an employee's insurance benefits when a corporation or business owner can simply cut enough labor hours each week and let the government foot the bill? I would suspect that there are bonuses behind these types of moves for managers because not having to pay out for an employee's insurance will save revenues and thus trickle down as an incentive. Small business owners benefit in the same way. Could we say that this legislation is undermining all the hard work Clinton did for small businesses during his presidency? Would one not agree that using this kind of tactic is an unethical way of subverting a basic necessity, that being healthcare, from an American worker just to increase profit or to fatten a salary? Could the term "thrown under the bus" apply here?

It has been a hot point topic with many writers on the reasoning the Obama administration has been using to justify workers not needing to work full time hours. This issue has become so controversial because it is a ridiculously absurd utopia that has been linked to Marxism and socialism. Nancy Pelosi made a statement which I'm sure by now everyone has heard. "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." (Krauthammer) The administration takes it even further by stating that people need to spend more time with their families and so working less hours is a Godsend. Never mind the huge debts hanging over your head. Or the cost of living growing at an exponential rate. Oh, and let's forget about those Americans who are working many hours so that a percentage of people can choose to work less in order to pursue some blissful lifestyle on the back of some else's labor. Perhaps your home life sucks. Or you're an average American who allows your wealth to define who you are in the context of society. Maybe you really do love your job and want to work full time. Or perhaps you simply do not want the government taking away your Constitutional right to govern your own life. This list could go on and on....

Suddenly, a lot of the negative attitudes and anger that people can have toward the welfare system is now going to be aimed at the Affordable Care Act. It is the beliefs, attitudes, and values of Americans that shape the framework of this country, not tyrannical legislation. These types of legislation are passed to exercise control over the population, much like many of the government control practices we see at work in countries like Russia. Our fundamental right (and in a twisted way, government mandate) to have a basic need of health insurance was stripped from my wife and I as it has been done to hundreds of thousands of citizens. Why should we be left helpless and vulnerable because of the stroke of a politician's pen?

Works Cited

Krauthammer, Charles. "Obamacare's War on Jobs". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 14, 2014.


  1. The legislative body of the state of Missouri is doing exactly what it should be doing.
    That is, Standing up for the inhabitants of the state and protecting their rights as the founders and the constitution prescribed, not allowing what a group of men in Washington (Social planners and Fascist) think is what we need.
    We the people are best at choosing what we want and need!

    If it looks like the republicans are in a pissing contest then so be it, but I would feel the same way if the republicans were trying to force an unconstitutional federal governmental system down my throat.
    This system and they way it has come about is wrong and wrong on many levels.
    It is another system in which this corrupt government is putting its unwashed hand in to the pockets of the American peoples.
    The Federal reserve system, The Federal Income Tax System, The National Education System, The New Common Core System and now the final nail in the coffin of liberties, the UNAFORDABLE Healthcare Act 232 and counting.
    Get government out of the private lives of the people PERIOD.
    And we will all be free to pursue Life, Liberty and Property, as we see fit.

    1. Kudos to your comment Alpha! I can only hope that the will of the people shall prevail. For me it's just a scary thought to not have insurance and to know that any medical treatment this year could financially ruin my family while we wait and see what the politicians ultimately decide. It's not supposed to be like this.

  2. Don't think it'd be better if it passed. I have a friend in Washington who just had surgery and now they won't release her medication to her.

    Having top-down control of anything is a very bad idea, and it seriously limits our ability to make the decisions that would be best for us.

    Me, I need catastrophic coverage and dental, not an option because I'd have to pay for an obscene level of coverage for things I will never use not leaving enough money left to cover (or pay out of pocket) for the things I do.

    1. Thank you Liam for the comment! If I understand you correctly, passing Medicaid expansion wouldn't necessarily be a benefit. This reaffirms my stance that the ACA is very subjective, meaning it has a different outcome depending on the individual. This was supposed to be a UNIVERSAL health plan that works for everyone. It is far too selective to come anywhere near its supposed agenda. I wish your friend well. That is terrible to have medication denied to her over red tape.