Oh yes, ObamaCare is a great success in Kentucky. If you don’t believe it, just ask all the Democrats and our Democratic MSM, which includes the [Ashland] Daily Independent, a CNHI paper. Big front page article by local newspaper with pic of Marcus Woodward, with sub-headlines touting him as “Woodward rare expert on new health care laws.” Ashland resident Woodward was named by Gov Steve Beshear to the Kynect board. They do point out that Woodward is in the insurance business, which evidently makes him an “expert” and is the only board member in the insurance business, which evidently makes him “rare.” Here’s some other points:
The article by James Juett is a particularly nasty little partisan bit of hack, noting O’Care is the biggest change to our healthcare since Medicare/Medicaid in 1965, and snarls that they too were called Communism/Socialism back then by conservatives. Could someone point out to Juett that these programs actually are a form of socialism? Could someone also point out to him that these programs are essentially bankrupt, that in 1965 Americans were assured by the Democratic pushers [LBJ, Humphrey] that the cost for them would someday max out at $11 Million to taxpayers? Hah, I bet they cost more than that every single day.
Could someone tell Juett that Medicaid fails all tests of quality, reliability and cost-effectiveness, even in blue states such as Oregon? This is not a secret or conspiracy theory, but a commonly accepted part of the coverage for the poor equation. Does he consider Medicare – with its massive fraud, skyrocketing drug costs, and low compensation for doctors – a success? Has Juett used either program or tried to find a doctor with either?
Juett also smugly claims SCOTUS approved O’Care for Medicaid expansion in 2012, thus permitting the acceptance of ACA. But Juett ignores that SCOTUS only approved the question of the legality of ACA/Medicaid as a tax, without directly ruling on ACA as an act, and he ignores that Obama and his administration were simultaneously lying to Americans by angrily denying the program was a tax, requiring a tax increase. Indeed, Obama and his crew repeatedly claimed ACA would put money into the pockets of Americans. Certainly not taxpaying Americans, that’s for sure. Juett never addresses the negative roles of O’Care, such as the dubious requirement of electronic medical records – notably their susceptibility to security invasions and privacy risks – and never mentions the hit to medical innovations through a new tax on medical equipment, always one of the strong points of American healthcare. No mention that the healthcare panels will require an acceptable amount of diversity expansion, with the federal government dictating what is acceptable and punishing institutions such as medical schools, nursing programs or ancillary services by withholding tax $$ to institutions deemed unacceptable .
Juett also tried to portray ACA as bipartisan and all but using the word “hypocrite” by pointing out GOP officials who furthered government healthcare, such as Reagan requiring hospitals to serve indigent holders of Medicaid and Romney initiating a form of single payer healthcare in Massachusetts but these fall short. Reagan certainly didn’t support Medicaid but saw he couldn’t eliminate it so he required the humane application of it to prevent discrimination against the indigent. Reagan was never a hypocrite but was ever the realist. The GOP never forgave Romney for RomneyCare and he admitted that it had only limited application in a state like MA and couldn’t apply to the nation, Officials there are admitting that it isn’t working, just as Vermont has at last admitted the single payer system – the government of either the state or the federal level is the single payer – isn’t working, prompting the logical question ” if single payer healthcare doesn’t work in those liberal big government states, how can it work nation-wide?”
The ugliest part of the article is he blatantly partisan attack on Sarah Palin ad her “death panel” accusation, which he claims has been universally proven false. Excuse me, Mr Juett, but the health rationing committees show Palin was correct and even Obama-loving sources such as WaPo admit that unfortunate choices will be made likely at the expense o seniors, without apologizing to Palin, of course. Perhaps you missed the subtlety. There will be rationing and some people will die because of it. Authors of O’Care admit the cornerstone of the program is the British National Health Service. If you don’t know the failures of NHS, including death panels and bonuses to doctors who persuade larger numbers of seniors to die rather than choose surgery or treatment, then you’re not paying attention.
Personally I support seniors who are willing to undergo great risks, partly because I think a civilized society supports life even with limitations and partly because we learn so much from people who suffer through likely hopeless clinical trials or risky surgery or painful rehab. If we encourage abortion without limits, consider disable children with Downs a marginalized group who shouldn’t be alive [ a la Palin’s youngest, as so many liberals said in 2008] and don’t think old people have the right to expect treatment, who is our society for? The young and beautiful of a certain age and capabilities? This sounds like the now-ex Abercrombie & Fitch CEO?
Juett fails to explore my 2 main objections to O’Care: 1] It is shoved down our throats via fines if we don’t want insurance, which some young healthy people don’t. You’re 22, fresh out of college, healthy and wanted to spend that $300/month on a car for work not insurance with a huge deductible. That includes a subsidy, too, but you would opt out if you could avoid the fines.
2] if the overwhelming number of new participants are Medicaid or near-Medicaid highly-subsidized – by taxpayers -into private plans, why did we need to overhaul our entire massive healthcare system? Why didn’t the states simply push to add new Medicaid participants via a massive PR program or health departments, schools, etc?
Juett’s article presupposes to be comprehensive but is highly partisan and omits anything which would weaken the pro-ObamaCare argument. This should have been marketed as an opinion piece, either on the opinion/editorial page or in a column clearly designated opinion. The failure to do so shows bias on the part of the newspaper and detracts from serious consideration as a news piece.
Finally, shouldn’t Juett mention Marcus Woodward is best known as the longtime head of the Boyd Co Democratic Party, working hard to elect Gov Beshear and Obama? http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/woodward-rare-expert-on-new-health-care-laws/article_f8ead176-8fd6-11e4-8f28-3b6b3c1b5fcf.html
Think I’m biased? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395512/kentuckys-obamacare-success-rich-lowry and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/us/kentucky-health-plan-is-flooded-with-the-poorest-and-sickest.html?_r=1