The mainstream media has found other things to talk about of greater importance than ObamaCare, I mean ONE thing—Republican governors. Of course, Democrats get away with murder, or to try and stay temperate here—an unjustified loss of lives—see my blog or the Democratic-controlled senate report on Benghazi calling the deaths there “preventable.” That is of no importance but Governor Christie and the allegation against him or former Governor MacDonald and the indictment against him—that is all the rage.

Just as an aside—if the Benghazi deaths were preventable, who could have prevented it? It seems that the department of state could have. But who there? Mum’s the word. It was whitewashed. Disgusting. Four people died in a terror attack on the U.S. and 18 months later no one is responsible for a “preventable” attack; yet the media cares about Christie and his traffic jam.

Back to ObamaCare, it is time to unravel some of the myths surrounding it:

– The prior system was “unsustainable”:

This much used-and-abused talking point by the president, administration, and other Democratic mouthpieces is simply wrong. Note that the more axiomatic the talking point is, the more likely it is to not be true. The vast majority of people in the U.S. were insured before ObamaCare. The vast majority of people in the U.S. were very satisfied with their health care. According to numerous polls from the pre-ObamaCare area, 80–85 percent of the people were happy with the health care they were getting. Furthermore, there are no recorded events to my knowledge of people dying due to hospitals and ERs not treating them for lack of health coverage. So what was the rush to create this enormous upheaval? If it ain’t broken don’t fix it!

– 40,000,000 or so of people in the U.S. were not insured:

Probably true, but not relevant. First, many of these uninsured people did not want or did not need coverage. Second, as mentioned above, even without coverage people got care. Most importantly, even based on the most optimistic current projections, about 30,000,000 people will remain uninsured. So again I ask—all this upheaval for what?

– Health costs were escalating out of proportion:

Health costs were growing above inflation for many years, true. ObamaCare did nothing to resolve this issue. Other factors started affecting this matter already in 2007, and ObamaCare if anything will cause this trend of lower growth in costs to cease due to all the problems surrounding this coverage. Already we are hearing health insurance executives predicting a “double digit” increase in premiums for 2015 due to the low level of participants in ObamaCare and especially that of healthy people. Remember health costs are NOT just the premiums. They include the deductibles, co-pays, many uninsured drugs, and more. The Obama administration cynically pushed insurers to provide cheap premiums so that they can claim in headlines that the premiums are cheaper than before. They did not care about high deductibles, co-pays, and uninsured drugs. But people are finding it out very quickly. One element of big-government ideologues is that they always assume that the people are stupid, that they know better what is good for them. Fortunately, that is not the case.

– There was an acute need to change the system because of all the people with “preexisting conditions” that could not get coverage:

Simply laughable. The whole story of the “preexisting condition” is another media canard fueled by administration dishonesty. Yes, of course, there will always be a few cases of people who were treated badly and wrongfully. These cases will exist under ObamaCare too. The issue of preexisting condition was never a big issue. As long as you were insured when the condition occurred, you were more or less guaranteed continued coverage under HIPAA rules. It is only if it occurred prior to you having any insurance. So how many of those existed? ObamaCare created a plan for these people to be active from 2011 until 2014 (starting in 2014, all policies must cover preexisting conditions without any exclusions or penalties). How many people do you think signed up to that special plan? The administration itself projected about 350,000 people.

Remember the president describing the 6,000,000 people who lost their coverage as a “small percentage”? Well it seems that 350,000 is not even A percentage. In any case, just about 100,000 people signed up for this program—one of the pillars of the case for ObamaCare. 100,000 is not even A permile (one per thousand), let alone A percentage.

– Young, healthy people, the so-called “invincible,” will sign on to get the coverage:

Why would they do that? They are healthy, they do not need coverage, there is ZERO incentive to get coverage now when they are healthy knowing that they can ALWAYS get cover when they need it. Since there’s no more issues with preexisting conditions, on the way to the hospital or to the doctor if and when they need treatment they can purchase the coverage needed. Ostensibly, that is why we have the mandate but as long as the mandate is well below the cost of insurance, and as long as there are zero penalties for buying health coverage only when you need it, why pay for it otherwise? And oh, by the way, the IRS cannot collect the individual mandate by any means other than by deduction. So it cannot pursue you in court; it cannot penalize you; it cannot even add interest. One day when you will be due a refund from the IRS, it will deduct it from your refund. Really? That is the incentive to get coverage?

– ObamaCare will help people who could not have coverage before to have it:

According to the best available information, about 300,000 people who did not have coverage before have signed up for ObamaCare…that is out of 40,000,000. Wow, that is a big dent.

– Medicaid has 6,000,000 new insureds:

Some pundits bandy around this number. Maybe.

  •  I have not heard any serious substantiation of this number.
  •  The vast majority of these people would have joined Medicaid anyway. Every month hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in the unfortunate situation that their income level has dropped and makes them eligible for Medicaid. That is a testament to the terrible state of the economy rather than to ObamaCare.
  •  If true, it makes very little difference to the health CARE that these people will get. There is a significant consensus amongst most experts that the difference in CARE between those without any coverage at all and those on Medicaid is minute. It is not cheaper, it is not better, it does not contribute to the wealth or health of the American society. Let’s remember, we are in this to provide better CARE and not in order to provide coverage for the sake of coverage.
  •  But if all else fails, if it is true that due to ObamaCare many more millions joined Medicaid than would have otherwise (the act did make it easier to join by raising the financial threshold below which one is entitled to join), then would it not have been easier to have a ONE-page law stating that the eligibility to Medicaid is now for people with asset levels of TWO-X as opposed to ONE-X before? That is it. No need to create an unprecedented upheaval against the clear objection of most people, surely.
  •  I repeat that all these additions to Medicaid is to no avail and serves no real purpose. No better or cheaper CARE is available under Medicaid than was available without coverage.
  •  By the way, due to a hardly known provision of the 1993 Medicaid law, many of these new people who have become eligible for Medicaid due to ObamaCare will pay for it after their death (their estate and heirs will pay for the health costs provided to them since they joined Medicaid). This is true for all people with estates. Prior to ObamaCare in order to qualify for Medicaid, your assets had to be so low as to probably not matter as your estate will be worthless anyway. But now due to the change of eligibility, many people with considerable assets can join Medicaid—their estates will pay for it. Great, another misinformation.

– 3,000,000 young people have gotten insurance by staying on their parents’ coverage:

So? What is the point? These are young people between the ages of 18–24. Generally speaking, these are people at the best level of health and least need for coverage than they will ever be. They are not paying for the coverage so they are not contributing to the overall system, which is one major reason to try and attract “invincibles.” Were they really the target age bracket that we were worried about in terms of heath CARE? What is the point?

– Health insurance providers—the big bad wolves:

Ostensibly one of the core principles of ObamaCare and one of the main reasons to justify this monumental reform/disaster was that health insurance providers were abusing the people and in the process making too much money. The act provided a number of ways to limit insurers’ profits. Why is it then that the stock price of the health insurance sector has soared to new heights? Why is it that the markets predict that their earnings will be more than before? No government supervision can beat the free markets. Entrepreneurs will always find legal ways to make the best of the system, and well they should. That is their job. Making these insurers basically cost-plus operations will just promote inefficiency, reduce competition, and increase their profits. That is what the market predicts.

The tragedy of all this is that there was an opportunity to really improve the healthcare in the U.S. to make it better and cheaper. It was sacrificed by Obama for ideological and political reasons.