Letter to the R-J Editor
Aug. 7, 2013
The Wednesday, August 7 Las Vegas Review Journal editorial
“Waivers, favors” shows so much eagerness to trash Obamacare that the R-J
editors are chomping at the bit and can’t wait until after selected aspects are
put in place to see if they work or not. The column admits to not having
information (“details haven’t been released”), and suggests the president has
“again broken the law” when that part of the program hasn’t been implemented.
It continues by citing the Wall Street
Journal as if it were a court of law having authority to rule on the
legality of President Obama’s anticipated actions–actions discovered through unidentified “leaks”. The editorial uses “perhaps” to try to convince readers of Obama’s
intentions, and cites higher premium payments with “could be” when dollar
amounts are not yet available–shame on you R-J.
The main problem discussed is really quite simple. Senator
Chuck Grassley (Iowa) introduced, and got accepted an amendment to include
Congress and its employees in the original Affordable Care Act passed in 2009.
Grassley didn’t provide, until 2017 when the ACA takes care of it, a method for
the government benefits program to pay the portion of healthcare congressional
members have already been receiving. Being a government entity, moving money
around is tricky. There needs to be an exact system in place for the government
to continue to pay the long-standing employee benefit. This shortcoming was
noticed long before the change was to take place, and it seems like officials
have worked out a system to pay while moving the insurance policies from the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan to the exchanges. It looks like they did
their jobs and should be applauded.
Senator Dean Heller (R–Nev.) tried to muddy these same waters in a
press release on Friday, April 26. He too suggested that Congress was secretly
discussing a road out of Obamacare. That was not the gist of the discussions at
that time either. They were simply looking for a way to protect the employee
benefit they have enjoyed all along. That is what this current flap is also
about–not a move away from Obamacare, rather putting a system in place where
they can retain their working benefit while getting insurance from the
exchanges.
There are tons of other fear-invoking warnings in the editorial that seem to
have come straight out of Tarot cards. The warning of taxpayers having to pay
higher premiums is not supported with reported facts. Many states are looking
at lower premiums when the exchanges kick in. The idea that taxpayers will have
to start subsidizing others is false on its face because we are already
subsidizing the uninsured going to emergency rooms for general health care.
This practice will soon stop resulting in savings.
We should also understand that “unilaterally delaying the
employer mandate for a year for large businesses” is not illegal, just being
responsible in making sure the system in place works well and does not
interrupt anyone’s coverage when implemented.
I’ll listen to trash talk only if Obamacare actually fails.
I think I’ll be waiting eons.
No comments:
Post a Comment