Saturday, June 30, 2012

THE HEALTH CARE LAW (OBAMACARE)


The new health care law, nicknamed Obamacare, has polarized the political opinions of Americans like no other issue since the Viet Nam War. A poll, conducted right after the Supreme Court decision that the law was Constitutional, showed that 46% of the respondents agreed with the decision and 46% disagreed with the decision. In the Presidential race Barack Obama is counting on the health care law to win reelection. Mitt Romney is promising that if he wins election he will repeal the health care law.

I would like to weigh in with my opinion on the subject. The health care law has many positive aspects. Millions of people who have no health insurance will now have health insurance. There are two extremes of this group. On one hand there are people who cannot buy health insurance because a member of the family has a chronic health condition – cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, etc. They could not buy health insurance until now. On the other extreme are healthy adults, many with comfortable income who are playing the odds. They are betting that the costs of what medical care they will need is less than the cost of health insurance.
In both cases the average American who has health care and who pays taxes is the loser. In the case of those who cannot buy health insurance, after the family finances are ravaged, the home is foreclosed, and the family is forced into poverty by burgeoning medical bills, the taxpayers begin picking up a portion of the bills and the hospital and doctors begin “eating” bills that cannot be paid. The healthy adults who play the odds are ahead until there is a car accident, a catastrophic illness, a criminal assault. Then the medical bills wipe out all their assets and they become a burden to taxpayers who bought health insurance.
    The health care law is a great positive in assuring millions of Americans who were without health insurance that now they will have it. The law also has a great negative for many Christians and Jews. The law requires all employers offering health insurance to include coverage for “preventive health services”. The Department of Health and Human Services defined this to include contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs like the morning-after pill, and even sterilization. To call such services “preventive health” is to characterize pregnancy as a preventable disease!

    Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that government’s actions “struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty.” A Federal lawsuit has been filed by a number of religious employers including Geneva College. Their suit contends that the HHS mandate will “coerce thousands of religious institutions and individuals to engage in acts they consider sinful and immoral, in violation of their most deeply held religious beliefs.”

(Read “Following The Call of Conscience: The Health Care Controversy and Religious Liberty” by Alan Dowd in ByFaith, Q2.12 No.36)   

1 comment:

  1. M frustration is best summed up in SCOTUS Roberts comment in that the Judicial Branch now had to execute the role of what the Legislative Branch should have done. House Speaker Boehner states that this whole Bill must be ripped up by the roots. I argue that until we have a Legislative Branch of Government that can do it's job, and pass a Balanced Budget-- every single one of them are blowing Hot air. I'm still angry that we are forced to vote on a political party as opposed to a Political candidate, and that the sum total of monies spent in Elections, Re-Elections, PAC's and every other Political individual-- the sum total of that money could fund and underwrite this very legislation. People refuse to Vote because it infringes on their Anderson Cooper or Bill O'Reilly time-- they have to tune in to those people to see "HOW SHOULD I PROPERLY THINK? WHAT IS THE CORRECT OPINION?"

    ReplyDelete