Subject: Re: No attacking Pelosi
Obama crafted a program that included some elements from the Heritage Foundation

Obamacare is almost the most radically conservative, and truly libertarian, law possible.

About the only way to make this law even more radically conservative (and non-libertarian) would be to require everyone to buy a new gun and a case of ammunition for each gun owned every year.

The new healthcare law does not require anyone to buy healthcare insurance. This is totally a libertarian concept.

What the new law does is impose "personal responsibility" on people. Benefits for making good choices and being required to pay the costs of making poor choices. No mandatory "sharing" of benefits gained or costs incurred. You choose--so you win or lose based on which way you bet. That is also most certainly BOTH a conservative AND libertarian concept.

It differs from "what was" because, historically, the price of healthcare insurance could be literally unaffordable. Thus, it was not an option to buy or not buy. Because it was unaffordable, that meant it could not be purchased given the income of those who wanted to buy it. The PPACA (Obamacare) subsidizes the cost of healthcare--making it affordable for everyone. Thus, NOT having healthcare insurance is no longer due to it being unaffordable. Not having healthcare insurance now is a choice freely made.

The new healthcare law requires the payment of a relatively modest penalty for not having healthcare insurance. The reasoning is fairly simple. The question is not "if" someone will ever need healthcare. It is a matter of "when" and "how much". A small reminder is exactly what the penalty is (like your mother saying "You should have it"). People know they are now being held accountable for their choices--whatever the outcome. They have the choice of having healthcare insurance or paying the penalty for not having it--in terms of real money--as a result.

Choosing to not buy health insurance is a choice. Why that choice is made is irrelevant. The potential of saving money is a valid reason and there may be other reasons as well. The key point is it is a choice made.

If someone does not require significant healthcare during the year, that person gets to keep the full savings (= premiums not paid, by choice). The person made a conscious choice to take the risk--and it paid off for him/her. This is totally a conservative and libertarian way of thinking.

What about the person who made the choice--but then needed healthcare?

The real penalty is only incurred when people who chose to not buy healthcare insurance require significant healthcare--and they run up the bills accordingly.

Because these people chose to not have healthcare insurance, they are required to pay the full cost of their healthcare out of their own pocket. This is also totally a conservative and libertarian way of thinking. Those people made the choice, took the risk, and it turned out to be the wrong choice. Those people pay the price for making that wrong choice. Lesson learned?

The above paragraph is very important. The "writing off" of medical care provided by an emergency room will be greatly reduced in the near future. The healthcare law will dramatically increase payments to emergency rooms for medical care actually delivered. That means the local governments that operate those facilities will see a significant drop in unpaid invoices they send for medical care--which means lower taxes for taxpayers. This financial incentive will cause even more bills to be turned over to collection agencies and aggressively pursued because the person who incurred the expenses will be expected to have had insurance--but chose to not have it. The people who will mostly get hit by this surprise expense will tend to be younger (in their twenties) and have the "I am invulnerable" mindset. Getting hit with $20k in medical bills for one incident might change their minds about the need for healthcare insurance. But it will be far harder to get out of those debts because the public expectation of "pay your own way" for healthcare is now a "personal responsibility".

Conservatives do not really believe in accepting "personal responsibility"--but they keep talking about it. Because the decision to buy or NOT buy healthcare insurance is at the individual/family level, so are the rewards AND penalties of the choice made. There is no way conservatives can shift "personal responsibility" for the outcome of Jim Bob's choice to someone else. They can not shift the reward if Jim Bob takes the risk and does not have many medical expenses--Jim Bob did it himself, so he gets to keep ALL the savings. Successful risk-taking yields the reward to the person who earned it. There is no socialism or communism anywhere in that bet made by Jim Bob--no sharing of risk AND no sharing of the reward. The opposite is also true. There is no sharing of the loss if Jim Bob did need significant medical care. The bills are all his--nobody else's.

Why conservatives AND the Tea Party/libertarians would oppose a law that imposes one of their deepest wishes into law is something they can never explain. They should be bowing at Obama's feet for actually doing what conservatives AND libertarians have dreamed for generations.