ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

5 Reasons Obama Era Healthcare Will NEVER Really Be Repealed

Updated on July 31, 2017

While the future evolution of Obamacare may be up in the air right now, if we are able to count on the few consistent patterns exhibited by our countries government over the last few hundred years, then there's pretty much a guarantee that government controlled healthcare is never going to truly leave the books.

There's no question that it will change in what it offers, how involved or hands off the government is, which industries will get what special privileges at whatever time -- but in the end, the important problem is that now that the ACA is on the books, it'll not likely ever be removed from them.

Let's explore why...

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." | Source

How do you feel about Obamacare?

See results
Source

What government health does for individuals is much less important than what it does for crony politicians and incorporations...

While voters argue over whether or not healthcare should be considered a human right or be abolished completely, whether to mandate participation or how much the government should interfere in company profits and risks -- they miss the truth staring them right in the face -- the ACA is really just another tool in the kit of legislators, which they can use to manipulate voters across all lines and use to funnel in more power and more money up to the top. For these crony politicians and power players, health benefits for some individuals is more of a side effect than a goal. The true goal is to keep government in control of the largest and most important industries in the nation, in as many ways as possible; by doing so, they position themselves to stay in power even longer.

Why would they do that? Let's explore the reasons why...

Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for meaningful democracy.”

— Noam Chomsky
Government doesn't care about you.
Government doesn't care about you. | Source

1. Power Precedents

Power is more than enchanting, it's addictive. Especially for those who already have a great deal of power right at their fingertips.

Government is a collective of people who already have just that.

And so, just as they've done with what I call Power Precedents (the Welfare Clause, Supremacy Clause, Helvering v Davis, the Patriot Act, Pratt's Indian Boarding School laws, and sadly so many more set and kept) the US government, like all governments before it, will keep and utilize the precedents set by the ACA, in whatever way best benefits them.

The Affordable Care Act in particular, was a markedly more important bit of legislation for the government, than it was for anyone soon to find out just how little the law would do for them health-wise; especially in comparison to it's costs and consequences. This is especially evident in the fact that while legislators made sure to require that everyone get or be provided with healthcare insurance and a multitude of proceedures, they didn't set up anything that required that even a single person actually receive quality or even just good healthcare.

The reason it's such an important bit of legislation for the Government, is because it is one of the first utilitarian federal laws that the people of America have not openly and extremely opposed -- which gives the federal government the authority to openly force all citizens to use Medical services and products.

This is an exceptionally powerful precedent to have at your fingertips.

I mean, say that someone in the federal government decides that all citizens must be required by law to take antidepressents everyday, and manages to get it written into a bill and passed by both the house and senate without a vote from the public. With the utilitarian precedent of Obamacare already in place, there's virtually nothing anyone can do about the federal government clearing that new mandate, especially if the sitting congress has done a diligent job of setting up the supreme court to support their own ideological and/or spiritual morals.

It wouldn't matter if you could prove you didn't need antidepressants, or that they create worse side effects for you than just not taking them. It would also be immaterial if you could prove the entire law immoral, because the Utility Monster dominates the law and of course, it's much better to prevent the potential depression of one person, than to provide services for the few people who will definitely end up depressed.

And with the precedents set from compulsory schooling laws, as well as those set by ancient prefecture systems -- the government has every bit of legal authority to cart you and/or your children away, at the slightest hint of your objection.

Why would those in power ever want to truly dismantle such a powerful precedent?

2. Money

Authoritarian power may be the first most valuable asset to a politician, but money is only a hairs length away from that.

This is why our government has tried many many times over the past 200+ years, to set a precedent that allows for forcing citizens to purchase various products and services, largely because it's much more profitable to extort money for products and services operated by private institutions and NGO's, than for anything truly public and crony-free.

With the AHA, they've finally managed to achieve what both the supreme court and the citizens of our country used to fight tooth and nail to prevent them from doing. And with that accomplishment on their part, they have been able to rake in more of our tax money for administration and managerial fees, than any other bit of tax-collecting legislation.

Even if they didn't care so much about the Power Precedent they've set, they certainly do care about the incoming money -- which I highly doubt they're keen on letting go off.

3. BIG Gov...

One of the BIG problems with a YUGE government beauracracy, is that it's so BIG. Even if that didn't leave it ripe and open to corruption, it makes it extremely difficult for government to function like the well oiled machine they'd like us to believe it can. Instead, it runs more like a shredding machine that somehow just keeps making copies instead of shreading anything.

This is one of the largest reasons that most people seek to reduce the size and scope of government, as the bigger it gets and the more responsibilities it takes on, the more wasteful and less efficient it gets at everything it tries to do, and the less accessible true change becomes for voters. This definitely includes dealing with legislation, and is emphasized when it comes to attempting to repeal any legislation -- even more so, if that legislation happens to be written around a current hot topic.

And just think, the first draft of Obamacare took 2000 (Two Thousand) pages just to cover the basics. The completed draft was only a few hundred pages less and actually included more legislation within (a lot that had nothing to do with healthcare, but that's a tale for another time). Even without having seen or heard about all the challenges that right-owned congress is going through just talking about repealing or possibly replacing the affordable care act, it's easy to see that if a 5 page bill can't be repealed, a near 2 thousand page bill is not going to get anywhere close.

Source

4. Influence

Right up there with Power & Money, is Influence -- another very powerful asset for every politician and legislator who would like to keep their jobs without having to do anything openly shady to keep them.

In particular, ever since the utilitarian monster has taken hold of the notion of healthcare as a potential 'right', politicians have been salivating to be the ones with the control over that meal ticket. And make note; there are no qualms about whether or not a particular politician actually believes healthcare is good for the economy or for citizens -- the thing that's important to them is that it is currently important to a majority of Americans, which means that regardless of their true opinion on that matter, they'll do whatever they can to keep healthcare in the hands of the government, so that they can wrestle that power into their own political toolbox and use it to their best benefit.

That way, depending on what the majority of voters want at the time, they can use that to their benefit to gain favor with active voters (the only people they actually give a tiny crap about). This is all pretty self-evident for any of you who happens to have been paying attention to the way that the whole 'repeal' movement has gone as of late amongst the republicans, and even those democrats and independents who either just didn't like Obamacare, or whom recognized it was not at all what they propagandized it to be.

The movement started out with an outright attack against any form of government involvement in healthcare, and then morphed into a movement against just the style of healthcare the government would provide, then turned into a fight about how 'free' the government would leave the insurance industry, and then became a fight over whether or not they could legally mandate the theft of our money for not being able to afford health insurance even after they made it quote unquote "affordable".

Following that it was an argument over whether or not Obama could legally push through the ACA after voters and the senate and house had all voted it down, not just because government should stay out of healthcare, but because it was an exceptionally poorly written mountain of legislation that all but 2 politicians even bothered to read all the way through.

Now we see that the repeal movement has changed even more, and gone from a desire to completely trash any and all government involvement in the health care industry, and become a movement to "repeal and replace" Obamacare with a republican copy of the same darn thing (Romneycare anyone?), minus a few of the only benefits that made the ACA somewhat bearable if we have to have it.

Now the movement within D.C. is transforming again; the fight has now split between those who'd just like to let Obamacare lapse and not do anything to replace it, and those who continue to desire a replacement - preferably something that invokes the currently holy notion of single payer healthcare.

All these changes are only occurring for one simple reason: Our current congressional members want to keep their seats when they're up for election once again.

So while republican and conservative voters might be unhappy to find out their supposedly loyal congressman and woman are flip-flopping and not voting to repeal Obamacare (with or without replacement), or openly deciding not to effect change at all -- democratic voters are especially pleased to find that they're now standing for keeping the ACA. Democratic, socialist and independent voters are currently in the greater majority when it comes to active and dependable voters; going against that large of a voting base, especially when it's that voting base is already livid about the election of Trump, is tantamount to career suicide for most conservative congress persons right now.

And the rest of the movement will continue to change in many ways as the next congressional term continues on. D.C. will continue to do whatever they can to maximize the level of effective influence they can, while minimizing the fact that they have no true intention of ever actually getting rid of the affordable healthcare act.

5. Entertainment Value

The more entertained the public is, the more likely they are to vote, even if they aren't dependable voters -- this is yet another form of power that every politician wants.

In particular, entertainment is also a valuable way to manipulate most voters -- especially partisan voters. This is easily exemplified by the power plays used by the two major parties in defense against the fast growing 3rd parties, especially in this last election.

Rather than just ignore 3rd party candidates, which would've made their jobs much harder.. the main duopoly used the growing third parties to dramatize and turn the election into infotainment. By doing so, they did lose a small bit of ground by legitimizing the third parties even more, but they gained so much more in that they were able to create more drama, suspense and distractions.

Distractions in particular, are one of the most valuable tools in terms of political entertainment. There are countless examples of times when a strangely coincidental disaster, emergency or political drama star happens to do something really big that steals and keeps the public's attention. This provides ample time for D.C. politicians to get away with countless named and unnamed actions, including legislation, war-making, tax increasing, jerry-mandering, backroom dealing, and so much more. (look for a link about what gov does when ppl aren't looking...)

With the same tune in their fiddle, politicians will milk healthcare for as long as they can. So far, it's been working beautifully as a distraction to keep people from even bothering to look for what else could be happening, just like they did when Obamacare was first proposed and then enacted.

Source

What can you do to effect REAL change?

Get Involved Directly & Personally

Regardless of how you feel about the ACA or any area of government, getting yourself directly involved in governing, is one of the few best ways to literally effect change. You can do this best by applying to work on the staff of your local or national politicians, or by running yourself.

Local Solutions

Community can do everything better than government can do, and hold the added benefit of being much less prone to mood swings or manipulation by DC politicians. More importantly, by keeping social and economic solutions as small and local as possible, not only do more people get the help they need, but voters have a great deal more access and ability to effect needed changes within the system whenever necessary. Anyone whose studied government over the past several hundred years, can see that once something is legislated at a federal level, it's nearly impossible to repeal it completely. Even the prohibition on alcohol was never really repealed, it was just split up and focused on different areas of social and economic restriction.

Election Education

Always stay up to date and involved in the political process, especially when it comes to thoroughly and deeply researching all candidates who are running both locally and nationally -- regardless of how much you like them. In fact, this should be emphatically emphasised if you feel like you can trust said politiican...

Question EVERYTHING
Question EVERYTHING | Source

Do you think Government Healthcare will ever be repealed?

See results

Share your thoughts!

Submit a Comment

  • MsMinarchy profile image
    Author

    Miss Minarchy 3 months ago from Seattle

    Gov solutions are almost always the source of more problems. If we put them in charge of the sand in the sahara dessert, we'd likely be out of sand in less than 10 years.

  • MsMinarchy profile image
    Author

    Miss Minarchy 3 months ago from Seattle

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment DashingScorpio!

    I have some thoughts in response...

    First, I agree GovCare won't be replaced b/c it's an 'entitlement' -- though the reasons I outlined are actually applicable to all entitlements, which are all near impossible to remove. Politicians turn them all into golden cows of political power. The ACA isn't the first & sadly won't be the last cow they carve out of stone.

    I also agree having more involvement from voters on issues like this, would be nice in theory. Though then we still run into the E.O. problem (Executive Order). The ACA was originally voted down by both voters and congress. It was an unconstitutional E.O. that made it into law. Public votes clearly had very little effect on that -- hence the reasons E.O's are such a controversial power for one person. People want real health care, not GovCare Insurance.

    As far as the risks of ending soc sec & current savings stats, there's 2 majo problems with the logic of it being basic income/safety net for elders - First, if you look at the way the law itself is written & also applied, you're intentionally not actually meant to get a single cent of your money back. I'm working on an article right now, that details how & why they did that, but it's factual & out there for anyone to find. Soc Sec was never meant to help anyone except politicians.

    I can personally attest to this, as they refused to give my elderly & disabled Dad is his ssi, b/c he got a pension from his old job after he broke his back on the job the 3rd time. The Gov argued that b/c ON PAPER he was the tiniest bit better off with his pension than other ppl, that they weren't going to give back the money he paid in, which they PROMISED he'd get back. They didn't even care that over half his money covers my mom and her sister, who're both in & out of surgeries, as well the mortgage, etc. You're not entitled to getting anything back. Neither are the poor/disabled entitled to help. So, no, it literally doesn't provide a B.I. for elders or the disabled. The 2nd big problem, is that there's too many people receiving SS funds (or waiting to receive) & that list is growing while the list of young adults coming in to provide that income, is getting smaller & smaller. So even if SS was once a good or doable idea, & we ignored the fact that it wasn't designed to care or give back to anyone -- we still can't ignore that it's not sustainable. Even if we were to take 50% of all incomes, it still wouldn't cover everyone indefinitely. Especially not with big pharma's scheming in the middle of it all.

    There's also a flaw in part of the logic that is pushed around, making people fear that they wouldn't be able to save enough retirement money for themselves if it wasn't all stolen away in taxes... The main problem being that people did just fine saving for their own retirements before J.P. Morgan engineered the great depression, followed by John Maynard Keynes drugging politicians & bankers with his Keynesianism scheme, which changed the meaning of saving into deficit spending & trained most American's (and other countries) to stop saving money & put everything on credit. So with that in mind, the problem is not that people couldn't save their own money or that we would be helpless without gov to "rescue" us in our old age or disabled moments -- the problem is that people BELIEVE they are helpless. This is part of why I decided to start writing on these topics. This world is so full of disinformation & intentionally crazy conspiracy theories from all sides involved, that people don't know what to think. And because the Gov is especially good at using fear (one of the most powerful emotions) to manipulate people, they're particularly good at convincing people that they hold our 'best interests' in their hearts & that we'd be helpless without them.

    People all over the country & all over the world, are starting to wake up though & recognizing that; no, we don't need govs (in their current incarnations) to save us or provide for us or protect us & more importantly, even if we did need gov to do those things, it hasn't been able to do any of them with any meaningful of success.

    Additionally, in reference to your thoughts about people being willing to pay a little extra to make sure everyone is cared for. 1, I agree. I'm one of those people. I have no problem putting out a little extra to cash for those who need it, especially considering that for half my life, I've been one of those people who needed the safety net. And, as a Consensual Minarchist, I have very few problems with authentic socialism or collective efforts to share or conserve resources. My concern is in doing all those things through the barrel of a gun (which is how Gov does it), & also with the fact that going through central gov to handle things, ends up creating far more problems, wastefulness & inequality than if we'd just done it ourselves. It's almost exactly like myths/stories about making "wishes" -- all magic comes at a price & more often than not, the things we think we want & wish for, end up being complete hell in comparison to what we had before we screwed it up with our shallower desires.

    Lots of folks feel the same. Instead of working through gov & creating bigger messes, let's work WITH each other in community, to achieve our goals & directly care for each other in ways actually need & deserve, instead of paying out of our asses to NOT really help the ppl who really need it. Then we'd actually get to see who/where our hard work benefits & how much it helps. That's not only more efficient, it gets people back together. "The Homeless" & "The Elderly" go from being a benign strangers & again become individuals; our neighbors & friends who we couldn't imagine not helping. Know what I mean?

    Lastly, as far as the other countries that have communized/utilitarian GovCare, have you thoroughly & deeply researched any of those healthcare systems??? Or their economic situations? I ask b/c I noticed you included countries like Britain, Germany, Greece, Romania & Russia, which have particularly horrible GovCare systems. It can takes months to even get a basic appt even if you meet the qualifications or have an emergency. Plus, most of the money goes into paying for the bureaucracy, not the actual care. Also, it's often lower quality than our own horrid Vet care system. Currently, most of those countries are AGAIN raising the requirements you must meet into order to even get life saving surgeries, in order to cut costs enough to cover everyone's basic needs. They also have regular HC worker lay off cycles, which makes wait times even longer & burns through medical pros like match sticks.

    In Britain, Sweden, Switzerland & Russia in particular, they gov literally prohibits the medical estab from using any sort of innovative or less invasive medical procedures or tech, even if it saves them money b/c they literally can't afford to implement them. It's so bad, that there's even news reports about cancer patients who've had their "life saving" chemo appoints canceled 48 times in a row. In most of the places you listed, you'll often find the elderly & those in need of urgent care, sitting on stretchers in the hallways of ER's for DAYS or even WEEKS before they get any real assistance. Most of these countries "prioritize" the care they are to give to ppl, based on their "value as taxpayers" (talk about classism), which is why the elderly/poor get such horrid care. All the other countries listed have similar problems. The ones with the least problems are much MORE capitalist than we are - like for example, the Netherlands & New Zealand.

    Heck, many utilitarian countries with "GovCare" systems are downright horrific. Have you looked into Venezuela, Egypt or Argentina? In Romania, it's so bad, Doctors are literally fleeing the country & patients have to buy their own med supplies.

    Even just a shallow dig beneath the surface of what medias, gov & ngo's tell us -- can reveal a great deal of horror, most of which stems not from a lack of money or good intentions, but from too much bureaucracy & political cor

  • MsMinarchy profile image
    Author

    Miss Minarchy 3 months ago from Seattle

    Obviously, I agree near emphatically. I have another article in the works to talk more about why people shouldn't want "GovCare" (which is a much better name for it!), including looking at examples of VA care, Soc Sec Care and Medicare. It's so hard to not write about all aspects in one hub! lol

    Sadly, there just isn't likely to ever be an end to GovCare at this point. Whatever authentic resistance there was in the beginning, is pretty much down to the last few crumbs of moderately honorable politicians in office, which will likely be pushed out soon enough. Though even with that, I'm not convinced anyone could have done anything about it in the first place. "GovCare" reeks of elitism, and it's rare when anyone's able to prevent or remove the things elitists put their minds into enacting.

    Anyways, thanks for the thoughtful comment!

  • Garry Reed profile image

    Garry Reed 3 months ago from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

    GovernmentCare is here to stay. Doesn't matter if it's called HillaryCare or ObamaCare or TrumpCare. Now that they have the Republicans on board for some kind, any kind, of GovernmentCare the progressive left has already gotten what it wants. Controlling everyone's healthcare isn't about healthcare, it's about control. Welcome to Third World VA care for everyone except the politically connected.

  • dashingscorpio profile image

    dashingscorpio 3 months ago

    No, It won't be repealed because most government "entitlements" are impossible to stop once people become accustom to having them without seeming heartless!

    Paul Ryan has been wanting end Social Security as we know it for years by allowing people to do their own investing instead of being "forced" to pay into it. However based upon the average savings of most people especially seniors it's unlikely many people would do well taking home a little extra money from their paychecks. Even if they did invest the stock market and the real estate market have tanked over the years.

    Social Security at least offers people a "floor" of basic income during their retirement years which frankly most people wouldn't have arranged for themselves without it.

    The ACA will eventually become a "sacred cow" as well.

    In fact I would not be surprised if in a few decades the U.S. actually has a Universal Healthcare model.

    Right now countries with universal health care include Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

    Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, informally called Medicare, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.

    Whatever the future may hold it's unlikely we're going to go back to the "pre- Obamacare" days.

    If citizens were allowed to vote up or down in a national election on having Universal Healthcare instead of congress approving it or killing it I suspect the (average working person) would vote "yes". Most people really are willing to pay more in taxes for certain services or they're in favor cutting some other areas in the budget like space travel...etc