Skip to main content

Obamacare and Religion


Obamacare and Religion

I am getting a bit tired of hearing all the rhetoric around the recent mandate by HHS that all health plans provide contraception etc. under the Obamacare law.

First did no one read this monster when it was passed? I have been talking with faith based organizations about this segment of the law since 2010. Did folks just think that this segment of the law was going to miraculously go away? Just like so many other sections of Obamacare this is another example of government over reaching in its regulations.

Here are the basics. The law says that all health plans have to provide coverage for contraception and abortion services by 2014. Faith based companies and other employers are clearly upset by this. The outrage seems clearly focused on the federal government trying to mandate that plans offer contraception even if they don’t wish to base it on religious beliefs. While I too am outraged at such presumption and hubris on the part of the Obama administration, we have much bigger problems.

The most serious of them is that the federal government is trying to circumvent existing legislation and regulation of certain health plans and force them to provide specific coverage. Specifically the feds are trying (and might be succeeding) in circumventing ERISA. A self-funded employer today has the choice of what benefits they want to offer in their health plans – as they should. This right is provided for under the terms of the ERISA regulations. Since 60% of all insured Americans are in self-funded plans this represents a massive shift in the private health insurance industry. It also sounds the alarm that our current administration has decided it is going to override ERISA and remove some of the founding principles without public or congressional approval. This is huge.

Let me be more specific. If Obamacare can decide at will what benefits will be federally mandated and can force those benefits into self-funded and insured plans then defacto we have a federal health plan or certainly the infancy of socialized healthcare. This is nothing short of outrageous.

So while I empathize with the religious groups and understand their indignation, the problem is actually bigger and much more devastating than just a difference in beliefs. We can’t run a competitive society if our largest industry is about to become a federal bureaucracy. Look at the condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs. Do we really think in our current economic condition nationalizing healthcare is a prudent fiscal strategy? 

Some may argue that now is the perfect time as we can cut costs and thus be more competitive on the world stage. Sadly this reasoning is fraught with several fallacies. First is that we can cut costs. When has a government run program of any kind been lower cost than a private sector venture? How long of a transition will this process be – 5 – 10 years? What happens to our economic results in the interim? How competitive will be during this transition? What will the national plan do that we can’t do privately? Sadly it will eventually implement all the reforms I have been advocating for more than a decade and maybe even more. Here are a few – they will quickly eliminate all PPO networks and opt for Medicare based pricing; they will ration healthcare over time; they will establish parity in drug pricing globally; they will decrease if not eliminate broker compensation; and they will eliminate state mandates in favor of a new set of federal mandates.

All of these reforms could be done in the private sector with the result being a rampant decrease in healthcare costs and a significant decrease in annual healthcare inflation. More on this is a subsequent blog.

So as the debate rages on Obamacare versus the religious organizations remember that this is the beginning of a very serious paradigm shift in healthcare reimbursement in the US and the impact on our economy will be devastating and long lasting.

Popular posts from this blog

Porsche Perspective

Before I start I must declare that I am a Ferrari owner, racer and lover. As such Porsche is normally an arch enemy. Most of the faithful from each camp very rarely see eye to eye and often avoid each other like the plague. So for me to write this piece on Porsche is a stretch and proves once and for all, above all I am just a true lover of all cars! Porsche has to be respected for their longevity, their racing prowess and their myopic market focus. Porsche's have been racing and winning for as long as I can remember and while they are not a Ferrari their racing pedigree is remarkable. Initially their claim to fame was the basic 911. This is still their bread and butter car and over the decades has been improved markedly. But I am not going to focus on the 911, the Panamera or Cayenne. Today I want to discuss the smaller, younger cousins - the Cayman and the Boxster. These two "entry level" Porsches are worth writing about. Porsche first made the Boxster in 1997 in an...
Read more

Tax Returns & the Truth

We are being bombarded with stories about the Mitt Romney tax returns. The left thinks he is hiding something and wants him to disclose 10 years of returns (recently amended to 5 years) so they can dig into them and find ways to make his wealth an issue in this election. While it appears all is fair game in politics I think the American people would prefer to hear about who is going to fix the economy and get jobs back on track. That said all the debate about tax returns made me start thinking and now I have some questions. Mitt Romney paid over 13% in taxes in his 2010 return and claims that is the case for all years. His 2011 return will be out in September and we will see what that year yielded. Barrack Obama paid 20% in his latest tax filing according to public records. All this got me thinking. I made less money than both of them in 2011 and I paid about 44% in taxes. Is there a problem here? How can they both pay so little on large sums of income and I, a poor working ...
Read more

Energy Policy in America

Energy Policy in America Well it appears that we are at another critical crossroad with economic policy in America. Our President has decided that moving America to alternate green fuels is worth the potential economic downturn that could result from this short term strategy. America definitely needs to diversify its energy use. No one on either side of the aisle would argue that point, however, the process and timing of such a diversification are critical to our economic recovery. We must do 2 things over the next decade with our energy policy if we are to maintain a position as the leading economy in the world. One we must become less dependent on foreign resources and two we must diversify our energy use. It seems apparent that we have tremendous oil and coal resources in our country that we are not utilizing. I feel this is a starting point. How much energy utilization can we switch from foreign oil to our own resources over what period of time? At the same time what...
Read more