Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Moral of the Obamacare Story: Taxes In, Doctors Out

    Moral of the Obamacare Story: Taxes In, Doctors Out

    There were two important developments recently in the continued unraveling of the Obamacare public relations BS.

    First, the Obama administration cemented its legal position that the health care mandate is a tax, which means that Obama is raising taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year contrary to his campaign promise.

    Second, the promise that you could keep your doctor is evaporating as health insurers, in a desperate attempt to keep down premiums under the burden of Obamacare requirements, are reformulating their plans by limiting choice of physicians.

    Read Obama’s Tax Lips

    Read Obama’s lips: I will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

    Read Obama’s lips: The health care mandate is not a tax, so even though people making less than $250,000 per year have to pay it, I have kept my promise.

    Read the Obama administration’s legal defense of the mandate:

    When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

    And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

    You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” “tax” is.

    He will say anything, because he doesn’t really care whether it is a tax or not.

    He just wants to force you to pay it.

    You Cannot Keep Your Doctor, Sucker

    Read Obama’s lips: You will be able to keep your doctor if you want to.

    Reality is that Obamacare imposes so many requirements on health care insurance that costs must rise or companies will go out of business. In order to qualify as acceptable insurance, and to avoid the health care mandate penalty, patients must obtain insuance with coverage they may not need or want.

    There is no free lunch. Either health insurance premiums must rise, or coverage must fall. But since coverage cannot fall due to Obamacare requirements, the only place left to cut is in access to physicians:

    As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

    The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

    But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

    The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks.

    That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

    Welcome to Obamacare, one big freakin’ HMO.

    Moral Of The Story

    Yes, we will raise taxes on people making under $250,000 per year, and no, you cannot keep your doctor.

    Related Posts:
    The Guns & Tobacco Mandate
    Obamacare’s Chickens Coming Home To Roost Already
    Freedom So Willingly Relinquished

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Understood, but if the law can logically be defended on grounds other than those cited by Congress I don't really see that the DoJ is prevented from making the argument to the Courts.

    What you're bringing up, of course, is a political argument rather than a legal one. While I agree wholeheartedly, and while Obama should pay a political price for all of this, I am even less confident of the success of these ObamaCare lawsuits now than I was in March.

    Peasant Citizen,

    You don't care how your passport or driver's license is issued, so why do you care so much about how your doctor is issued to you?

    This is all for the greater good. We have a much broader understanding of these issues than you do. You think of yourself as a benefit. Realistically, you are also a cost, and a very big cost as you age.

    You are going to die anyway, so why impose such a large cost on the rest of us as you do it? You complain that it is "your money", but be realistic. Others can do so much more with it than you can. Think of the children and all of the other future voters.

    Don't bother replying to this message. We have gathered the information we need in an efficient and scientific way. This does not include reading your misspelled and ungrammatical letters. Spare us.

    Doug, are you suggesting that the courts will simply disregard the Congressional Record? Obviously, I can't say whether they will or will not, but I think it's safe to say that this would set a very dangerous precedent, especially in a case this important, involving one-sixth of the economy. If allowed to stand, Congress would have a new incentive to simply pass massive legislation under seemingly innocuous political pretenses (i.e. under the commerce clause, as here) and then cases would later be defended under entirely different, more onerous, legislative justifications (taxation powers) created– not by the legislative branch, mind you– but by DOJ attorneys, after the fact.

    If so, why even bother keeping a Congressional Record?

    As judicial examination of legislative intent has always been an important factor (and in many cases, the deciding factor) in Constitutional Law cases, how are the courts to determine a case, for example, under strict scrutiny, or even under rational basis review, if they incentivize a means for Congress to pass laws with simply no stated, defendable intent in the record? And what is the purpose of Congress, for that matter, if the DOJ would essentially be usurping the role of creating that legislative intent?

    I think this signals how weak the defense of Obamacare really is, Professor Jacobson. And then there's the 16th Amendment.Is it satisfied by stripping a House tax bill on TARP of everything and substituting the healthcare language the senate adopted?
    I don't think so.

    But why sweat this, why not just set up offshore private clinics and hospitals. All those fat cats who contribute to the Dem party and rake off govt largesse will be flying over to avail themselves of our services.

    "The DoJ lawyers are advancing the arguments they can to defend against the lawsuits. That's not only not surprising, it's their ethical duty as attorneys."

    Ethical and DOJ lawyers can be used in the same
    sentence? You've got to be kidding.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend