Obamacare...Romneycare...Who cares? Repeal it!

This week the Supreme Court is hearing the arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act, the health care law passed in 2010 by President Obama and his congressional majority of Democrats. Later, they will decide the constitutionality of this law. Regardless of whether or not its constitutional, I want to take my knowledge of the bill and determine if it really was a benefit to the American people.

To understand a bill, one has to figure out the reason for enacting into law. In the case of health care, the Affordable Care Act was intended to help the millions of uninsured American citizens gain access to health care without paying high costs or premiums. A noble idea, indeed. However, in order to ensure those without would purchase a health plan, an individual mandate was interjected into the language of the bill. The mandate required an individual to buy health coverage or take a public option. If one chose to take the public option, it would cost them in the form of a fine. Additionally, if one chose not to purchase a health plan or enroll themselves onto the public plan by 2014, they would face the same consequence.

Let's look at the logic of this for one moment. Let's say you have a family of three: husband, wife, and child. In order to cover everyone in your family, you must acquire a family health insurance policy. But it's much more expensive to insure a family. So, in accordance with the health care law, you decide to take the public option. BAM! Government fine!

Can someone please explain to me how fining someone who can't afford private insurance is a good thing? It contradicts the entire idea of providing "affordable" insurance. Therefore, the mandate in this case wouldn't work unless you remove the fine. If that happens, then the question becomes, "How do we pay for all the government-provided health care?" The answer is simple: raise your taxes!

To pay for it, Medicaid and Medicare taxes will increase, leaving you less in your paycheck. So how are you supposed to pay for private insurance now?

The second issue of concern for me is the requiring of insurance companies to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. It would be great if everyone with a pre-existing condition was never denied, but this isn't reality. I can see many American citizens applauding this portion of the law, saying it promotes fairness. I understand this point of view.

However, each issue holds two sides to a story. A health insurance company's main responsibility, much like any other business, is to generate a profit. By doing so, they can pay their employees, but also pay their customer's medical bills or portions of it, depending on the policy. An individual with a pre-existing condition is more often than an individual without one to get insurance payments for frequent doctors visits and prescriptions. This is seen as a liability, which has potential to drain funds/profits from the company. Without the proper funds, insurance companies could be rendered ineffective, since the cost of health care is rising. Consequently, the health care law hurts the interests of the consumer because if health insurance companies are forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions and forced to pay the costs of their care, in response, the insurance agencies will raise their premiums accordingly. So, instead of making health care more affordable, in the long run, it makes it more expensive.

My solution to the problem is to repeal the health care law, regardless of its constitutionality or not, and start over. There needs to be more emphasis on providing cheap access to medical care through market means. Government only makes the situation worse, and history has shown time and time again that when government spends money in a certain industry, prices go up.

What would really help bring costs down is a sound monetary policy, but that's a discussion for another time.

"No insurance? Looks like you're going to have to pay..."