Housewives would do a better job

President Obama and Democrats passed in 2010 the Affordable Health Care law commonly referred to as Obamacare. This law, containing 2,700 pages, had the speaker of the House urging every Democrat that we must pass it if we are to learn what is in it. We were told by Obama that this law will save the average citizen $2,500 in health care costs when fully implemented with more than 30 million additional to be covered under the Medicaid program.

The best way to describe what they advocated is similar to what our trusty used-car salesman promised when we purchased our first car. We are now beginning to learn what is actually in this 2,700-page plan that no one read.

So far this is what reality is. The majority of 30 Republican governors reject creating their state health insurance exchange, which instead allows the secretary of HHS to create it. I suspect the reason is any exchange created by the state must comply with provisions in this bill and be approved by HHS. The law has an economic review board and in reality is similar to a death board since they define what procedures are authorized for each age group. I doubt the board would consider authorizing any person 90 years old or older to receive a pacemaker. My close friend Magnus shortly after his 91st birthday in 2011 went to the emergency room because he was not able to swallow any liquid over the previous 24 hours. They immediately attached an external pacemaker and scheduled a permanent one for the following day. This happens to be Magnus' first time in a hospital environment since WWII on the USS Enterprise.

I am type-2 diabetic for the past 21 years and routinely visited my doctor twice per year over the last 18 years for my routine checkup. Now, my doctor must see me every four months under this law without exception. The insurance plan called for under Obamacare even requires women in upper 40s and 50s be covered for pregnancy under a one-for-all plan. Why should all adult children under the age of 27 be covered by their parent's health insurance? Employers with 50 or more employees must provide this plan to all full-time employees or pay a fine for each employee not covered. Full-time employees under this law must work a minimum of 34 hours per week. Employers whose job skill/positions permit reducing the workweek now are cutting employee workweeks to 30 hours. The positive side of this issue is the increased hiring of additional part-time workers.

The economic benefits of this law don't seem to compute in my world. The private doctors and hospitals each year are supposed to give back cost savings due to efficiencies by periodically reducing the amount received in fees. Fortunately, every year Congress pushes this problem down the road and the current amount that should be cut is 23 percent. The AMA has advised Congress almost every year that if or when the full cut is implemented, expect doctors to drop all Medicaid patients and those Medicare patients without supplemental insurance.

The cost of medical devices is going up with a special tax to help pay for Obamacare. This concept does not compute in my logical view. But then again, there are Democrats who advocate more deficit spending will help the economy. They even believe it is sound financial planning to ignore an ever increasing national debt and to raise taxes to expand all social welfare programs. President Obama and even the former speaker of the House advocate ignoring the debt limit or for President Obama to simply raise it whenever and how much he desires. Maybe this is why so many of the states governed under Democratic legislatures and/or governors have major problems in the budgeting process.

I have one simple suggestion for this financial mess: Replace all the politicians with a bunch of housewives who have successfully managed the family budget for at least the past five years.

William R. Hadley

Yuma