The “Affordable Care Act” or Obamacare was never designed to make healthcare more affordable or give more people access to it. It will fail, and was designed to fail. Such failure is what happens in an orchestrated plan to overwhelm the system. Even if its planners were doing it with the best of intentions, which is not the case, overhauling an entire health care system is healthcare suicide.
All the evidence points to its designed failure. One of the most in your face blatant examples is the set of special exemptions for Congress. The most obvious question is, if this plan is so great why the need for so many exemptions?
Well, the goal of ObamaCare is to drive insurance companies out of business so the people will all cry for single payer. Forcing coverage for more items for free, eliminating deductibles, removing caps and all the other things we saw once we passed and then read the bill will serve to bankrupt insurance companies, drive up the cost of insurance and “nudge” Americans into exchanges, and eventually, as the insurance companies collapse, into single payer.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Democrats set up the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, to “fail” in order to establish a single-payer health care system, “where the government controls everybody’s lives.”
To even think allocating resources and health care services is not going to be dependent on rationing after this has happened is naive at best. Ezekiel Emanuel previously worked for Obama as his top healthcare adviser from January of 2009 to January of 2011, where he helped craft the “Affordable Care Act.”
He conveniently helped write the “Complete Lives System” January of 2009, a system where healthcare would be determined for a person by what is cost effective in managing him or her. Such a system will undoubtedly be used to determine a person’s worth in society and of course, it is based in large part, on age. Emanuel has since moved on to work as at Vice Provost for Global Initiatives for the Penn Global Fund and is Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. That only makes sense, as one needs to think in “global” terms, which we will get to below.
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.
The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.
As with everything that we see happening it is a good idea to always look at the end result first, rather then looking at things stasis, or in retrospect, as we are watching the best health care system in the world being systematically dismantled. The planned failure will usher in universal healthcare, which will then merge into a global system of healthcare “with special applications for low-income and and middle-income countries.” It does not take a genius to figure out how this system will fare for Americans, as time passes.
All of this may be seen while understanding that the United States is one of the 194 members of the “World Health Care Organization.” Like it or not, this means that by its schemes we will participate in this system, a system based on the always failing ideology of egalitarianism, or “equity.” It is unfair that the US has the best health care system and other nations do not, therefore we have to level the playing field. Inevitably an imposition of fairness does not mean bringing the rest of the world up to our standards of healthcare. In fact, it means quiet the opposite.
From who.int (the World Health Organization):
Member States Adopt Political Declaration
21 October 2011 – 125 participating Member States adopted the Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health, pledging to work towards reducing health inequities by taking action across five core areas.
The declaration expresses global political commitment for the implementation of a social determinants of health approach to reduce health inequities and to achieve other global priorities. It will help to build momentum within countries for the development of dedicated national action plans and strategies.
The declaration is currently available in English only but will be translated to all official UN languages in due course. Translating the text into other languages is welcome and needs WHO approval.
/ … /
7. Good health requires a universal, comprehensive, equitable, effective, responsive and accessible quality health system. But it is also dependent on the involvement of and dialogue with other sectors and actors, as their performance has significant health impacts. Collaboration in coordinated and intersectoral policy actions has proven to be effective. Health in All Policies, together with intersectoral cooperation and action, is one promising approach to enhance accountability in other sectors for health, as well as the promotion of health equity and more inclusive and productive societies. As collective goals, good health and well-being for all should be given high priority at local, national, regional and international levels.
8. We recognize that we need to do more to accelerate progress in addressing the unequal distribution of health resources as well as conditions damaging to health at all levels. Based on the experiences shared at this Conference, we express our political will to make health equity a national, regional and global goal and to address current challenges, such as eradicating hunger and poverty, ensuring food and nutritional security, access to safe drinking water and sanitation, employment anddecent work and s ocial protection, protecting environments and delivering equitable economic growth, through resolute action on social determinants of health across all sectors and at all levels. We also acknowledge that by addressing social determinants we can contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
Many very good, well seasoned doctors, and health care professionals will retire or leave the field of medicine all together, as the system that they once knew will be drastically altered into something unrecognizable. Standards of practice and ethics will have to change without a doubt, and many in good conscience will not be able to accept these changes, as they are immoral (interesting, as noted above, that Ezekiel Emanuel is a university “Chair at the Department of Medical Ethics”). Truly ethical professionals will no longer able to accept having the government take over of our healthcare system, in this communitarian (essentially, communist) way.
New doctors, and healthcare professionals will crop up and they will be well versed in the new system of healthcare, and unfortunately for patients they will know nothing but the new system. Welcome to another part of the fundamental transformation of our Country.