More on Obamacare

By now I’m sure you’ve been to, or at least read about, all the anti-Obama Care rallies that have taken shape all around Colorado.  Reports indicate that both Denver and Fort Collins had good turnouts with around 400 to 600 people.  Colorado Springs however, is reporting attendance between 1,000 and 1,200.  Pretty great turnouts considering they’ve been on workdays and we all have jobs.
Make no mistake, House Resolution 3200 – aka Obama Care – aka politically controlled health care, is coming down the pike.  Right now the bill sits at over 1,000 pages, and according to the National Taxpayers Union, despite the left’s rhetoric, the language indicates a ton more coercion than any “choice” whatsoever.  (Are you even surprised that the words “require” and “must” outnumber the words “choice” and “option” 9 to 1)?  This bill is so ridiculous, even Jimmy Fallon made fun of its size and price tag on his TV show.
The bottom line is this:  the reason we are even in this health care dilemma is because our current health care system is entirely too regulated and politicized.  As of 2007, Colorado already had 46 mandates codified in our state statutes. Do we really need over 1,000 pages of more restrictions, mandates, and regulations?
If you don’t like the idea of Obama taking over our health care like he’s done with banks and our car industry, take a minute and contact your congressman.  This page has the phone and fax numbers, in addition to links for electronic correspondence.
Don’t wait until it’s too late!  Tell our representatives that you prefer REAL consumer choice and freedom, NOT the federal mandates currently on the table.
Thank you for your time!
Justin Longo
Legislative Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

“Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.” -Mises

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “More on Obamacare”

  1. The Center Square Says:

    As I read it here, I take it that your primary objection to the healthcare reforms being considered is that some aspects are coercive. I assume you mean the ideas that almost everyone will be required to participate in an insurance plan, and/or that most employers will be required to either provide an insurance plan, or make an alternative payment into the system.

    Is that objection based on ideology? It does not seem that radical to me. We already have such coercion for auto insurance and homeowner’s insurance.

    What happens without health insurance “coercion”? Young healthy people opt out; and when they bet wrong and incur big medical bills, file bankruptcy and push the bill onto you and me. Poor families opt out of treatment and medication they cannot afford; and when they become sick they require expensive medical care, the cost of which again gets pushed onto you and me.

    I am not making the case in favor of a mandatory system. But I do think it is fair to ask if you have considered how much the non-“coercive” system is costing you right now?


  2. Patrick Sperry Says:

    I think that Justin’s main point is more about ever more coercion by the government in the day to day lives of Americans. Driving is a privileged, and it can be abused to the great determent of others. Hence, mandatory insurance laws, at least that was the main focal point that was argued when that law was passed if I am remembering correctly. Homeowners are required to have coverage? I wasn’t aware of that. I know that you would have to have it while you were paying off the loan. But after that? I think that one would have to be flat broke, or incredibly stupid not to have coverage, but being dumb is not a crime. Not yet anyways…


  3. The Center Square Says:

    You are correct that homeowner’s insurance is not mandatory per se, but is a requirement of any mortgage. For all intents and purposes, that is the same thing. Same goes for auto insurance: you only need it if you want to drive the car *lol*. The effect in each case is that no one, or hardly anyone, is able to free ride on the rest of us.

    The larger point is the cost of the current system. As Paul Krugman wrote yesterday (, the private health insurance market we have now exists solely because of government coercion.

    If not this solution, then what?


  4. Patrick Sperry Says:

    The links bad, but I was able to find this:

    Paul Krugman just can’t stop spreading misinformation about Medicare and health insurance. Today he writes:

    In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

    This is just plain deceptive. The latest government figures available, from 2007 (see Table 12), show that 87.8 cents of every private health insurance premium dollar went to personal health care bills. And that remaining 12.2 cents? In addition to underwriting, administration, advertising, and (gasp!) profit, that 12.2 figure also includes some patient care that insurance companies provided themselves, like disease management and on-call toll-free nurse consultations. Krugman continues:

    Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance. Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance.

    But what Krugman fails to tell readers, or perhaps doesn’t even know, is that many Americans OVER 65 also have some form of private insurance. In other words, Medicare is not quite the “single-payer” paragon that Krugman holds it out to be. The latest government figures available, from 2005 (see Chart 6-3), show that Medicare pays only 51% of Medicare beneficiaries’ health care costs. The rest is made up by the beneficiaries themselves and … those evil health insurance companies.

    Krugman is in touch with one key reality: the federal government does play a huge role in our current health care system, controlling more of the spending in the health sector than in any other area of our economy. And that role has been accelerating rapidly. If our health care system is in such bad shape now with so much government control, then why on Earth does Krugman believe even more government control is the answer?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: