John Shadegg
How Will Obamacare Affect the Average American?

SHARE THIS:
Share

So Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are adamant that Congress pass their health care bill. They’ve dismissed the August protesters and are pushing for passage as soon as possible. But, what does this mean for the average American (we’ll call her Mary Smith), a single mother of two struggling to get by in a down economy. She hears terms like “individual mandate,” “employer mandate,” and “CBO score.” But none of this helps her understand what health care reform means for her.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

Mary wants to help the uninsured, but why is Congress talking about changing her plan? And why does every report now indicate her premiums and her taxes will go up--and her employer could be fined or forced out of business? President Obama said his plan would control cost. She worries about losing the health plan she has and the doctors her children know. What about her job? What if her employer can’t continue to afford coverage? Will decisions about her family’s coverage and medical care be made by her or someone in Washington? Will it be a radical change that rations care?

Unfortunately, Washington politicians are ignoring the concerns of average Americans. Mary Smith’s family’s health care is about to change dramatically.

Mary gets her insurance through her employer. She has a plan that suits her needs, and has a great relationship with her doctors. She’d like more personal say in her plan, but like 83% of Americans, she’s basically happy with her care. Why don’t the politicians just fix what’s broken—cover those without care and people with pre-existing conditions? Instead, they are forcing her to change her plan. H.R. 3200, the House bill, changes every plan in America. Some are outlawed sooner, but virtually all are disqualified in five years.

Mary’s parents also lose the coverage they know, understand, and like. They have Medicare Advantage, which provides benefits they like over and above regular Medicare. Under Nancy Pelosi’s proposal and the Senate bill, that program will disappear.

What’s worse: when Mary goes shopping for a new plan, it will have been designed by a government bureaucracy, even if the so-called “public plan” isn’t adopted. These new, “government-approved” plans will make her pay for services she doesn’t need, and can’t afford, like alcohol and drug counseling, even if these aren’t health care concerns for Mary or her family. She'll be forced to buy services she doesn’t want because it will be illegal to buy just what she needs.

John Shadegg's Biography
John Shadegg has represented Arizona's Third Congressional District since 1994. He has established a reputation in Congress as a leading advocate for reduced government spending, federal tax relief, and the re-establishment of state and individual rights.

Be the first to read John Shadegg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join the Debate
43 Comments So Far
« Previous12Next »
Brad in AZ Wrote: Nov 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Right brain bro wrote "How would you know?
What was the last time you spoke to a "regular" American, Rep Shadegg?"

My entire post near the beginning of this thread was an account of Congressman Shaddegg talking to me, A regular American.

I do remodeling for a living, I have no health insurance, I have 3 kids in college, which I am paying for, I am a veteran of Gulf War 1, I am white, I am Christian, Baptist to be exact, I pay taxes, I go to church, I own guns, I like honest and moral people, but liars and theives, I hold in contempt. How much more regular can you get?
Kristy Wrote: Nov 08, 2009 10:54 AM
That move you pulled on the House floor was classic! I laugh every time I see that clip. I don't know if we should be using children to make a political point. But it was really cute. As was the baby.
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 04, 2009 12:06 AM
We don't? Oh, only on thirteen of the sixteen cancers that lead the curable cancer list. Your point about the Brit not even learning he has cancer is true. They don't get as many tests as we do. We also do the majority of the research and pay for it. The rest of the world gets a free ride. We also have a lousy legal system that adds billions to the cost of medical care every year through the cost of defensive medicine, high malpractice rates, and legal costs. And we pay our doctors more because they're worth more. Compare a typical American medical education with a typical British education.

One tiny point-- it may not even be Constitutional to force people to pay for medical insurance. You're going to have to exempt hundreds of thousands for religious reasons if not more-- unless you're planning on locking up a quarter of a million Amish, not even counting many others. Let me know how that works out for you.

This is America-- not Germany.
Chad Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:53 PM
We don't consistently have "the best survival rates". We win some, we lose some. But in any case, these numbers are usually pretty misleading because they are completely clouded by early detection. For example:

British and American men both develop colon cancer at age 55. The American's cancer is discovered at age 57. The Brit's is not discovered until age 60. Both survive until age 64.

Who contributed to a higher "survival rate"? Who would you rather be? Why the difference?

And have fun explaining how despite our higher cancer "survival rates" than the Brits, they have a much smaller fraction of their population dying of cancer (its not demographics or smoking, btw).


Chad Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:47 PM
Canada has long waits? OK, why not point out how Japan has shorter waits? Or we have the best breast cancer survival rates? Why not point out how the British have lower breast cancer rates? You can cherry pick things that we win and ignore the ones we don't all day long, but it really boils down to this:

1: If you have health insurance here in the states, what you get is about as good as the best available anywhere else.

2: We pay 50% more, and suffer far greater risk, than the citizens of any other industrialized nation.

If you paid 50% more than the guy up the road for your house in a flood plain, and his house was comparable to yours, you would realize you had been robbed. Why is health care any different?

Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:42 PM
look, it's been special & we could go on for hours I'm sure, I honestly do need to go make dinner. I just got home from work not long ago. Yes, liberals work too.
Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:34 PM
look, it's been special & we could go on for hours I'm sure, I honestly do need to go make dinner. I just got home from work not long ago. Yes, liberals work too.
Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:26 PM
We've already been through the survival rate thing.

And yeah, clearly I am unable to read. The German system is a 'multi-payer' system with mandatory insurance for people ABOVE a certain income. There is also state insurance available in Germany. It is true that their system is "less" socialistic but not nearly like our.

And no need for cultural war. Oregon is rainy during half the year, yes. But it has an enormous amount of civic pride unlike anything I saw when I lived in Texas. We have beaches, mountains, huge national forests, and most people I know throughout the country have a much better image of Oregon than Arizona. I actually happen to like Arizona just fine, but that's just me. I don't expect everyone to be just like me, demonize them when they aren't -even if I've never hung out with many liberals 'up north'.

We're getting off track. I believe trafficking healthcare for profit, based on supply and demand curves, much like the underground organ trade, is morally wrong. We insure ourSELVES in the exact same way we insure our cars. That's the main reason I defend the public health model so strongly. Science and economics just happens to support me.
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:13 PM
"Every major *developed* nation has a public health system except for the USA." And the USA has the highest survival rate for many diseases, particularly cancers. Now why is that?
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 11:10 PM
"Instead of taking money out of my paychecks, I need to organize an entire community and auction knives?" Auction knives? I said I had to sing "Mack the Knife", just as the priest sang "Tiptoe Through the Tulips." Are you a poor reader? The time we spend together as a community is not a waste. It is the reason we have one.

It's not my fault you live in a cold, unpleasant place where you don't know your neighbors and nobody watches out for anybody else. More than a hundred million Americans live the way we do, and what you say about your society doesn't attract us.

You are dead wrong. Switzerland and Germany both have mandatory private systems, not public ones. Cuba has a public system. Good luck.
Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:58 PM
That is so durn sweet.

Instead of taking money out of my paychecks, I need to organize an entire community and auction knives? What an efficient use of people's time. I love how we seem to still be living in 1839 farm towns where everyone knows your name.

You live in a town. This is not possible in a city, where most of America lives in the 21st century. Mr self-centric, just because something amazing and touching is possible where you are does not mean it is realistic in the daily lives of everyone else.

Also, you are simply wrong on that point. Every major *developed* nation has a public health system except for the USA.

The rest of the countries of the world either have corrupt public systems, or excellent private systems that cater to the elite of society, where everyone else has to go to a local quack with no education.
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:46 PM
Last month, a fourteen year old football player in our town. collapsed on the field during a game. Three days later, he received open heart surgery and is now home. The community held a fiesta, a street fair, and other events to pay for his aftercare expenses since he didn't have health insurance. I made a nice piece of change by auctioning off a karaoke performance of "Mack the Knife." I'm lucky-- the priest had to do "Tiptoe for the Tulips." In Canada he would still be waiting for surgery-- likewise England and some other companies. By the way, the countries in Europe with the best health records have private insurance companies providing the services, not the government.
Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:31 PM
The better survival rate accounts for people who actually got treatment. My mother, despite her working every year for 40 years, full time and single, died at aged 54 recently from cancer she didn't know she had because as a self employed individual could not afford insurance while raising me.

And like I said, Canada's system has major problems. There are few such problems in France, Sweden, and numerous other more robust public health systems. Typical, pick ONE bad example in one country and assume the cause is public medicine, plain & simple, and use that example without supporting evidence to bombast ALL public health.
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:28 PM
If you think public care would be better, how do you account for our better survival rate from most all curable cancers? How do you account for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who come here for treatment, including a member of Parliament who came here for a cancer operation? Why do Canadian doctors and other medical professionals come here in droves? Mysterious, isn't it?
BONNIE Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:26 PM
When this plan gets underway, you too will know the fear. . .
Sam Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 10:13 PM
But all I see anymore from conservatives is fear these days. In this article, the Rep argues that somehow this is a bad reform effort because "Mary wonders..." So? Let Mary wonder if she can't read the bill herself and find out that most of her concerns are unfounded. Republicans are continuously suggesting horrible sounding effects will occur without backing it up. As though us liberals are sitting here and thinking "Oh, I LOVE death panels, I HATE my doctor of 30 years, and I LOVE bureaucracy more than anything." Like we're somehow not human too. It's insulting. It's funny, too, how there already ARE death panels - actual panels within insurance companies that decide on care. And it's funny how I always seem to have to wait for SUCH a long time in an overcrowded waiting room at my very expensive, private dermatologist and primary care physician.

The only major "changes" that this bill would make to her insurance is getting rid immoral things like "pre-existing conditions," lifetime caps on treatment. Yet Mary still wonders...

Public healthcare is so commonsense economically it's almost funny. How would something that operates without a profit, at a HUGE economy of scale, be more expensive? You guys always point to waiting in lines in Canada as practically THE reason against public health. But curiously, you never point to the health systems in Sweden or France, where the care is among the highest quality in the world, at about 2/3 the cost.

And not to mention I'd gladly wait extra time in line, if it means Mary can get a lifesaving operation should she lose her job. What decent person wouldn't?

Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 9:19 PM
"My Sweetie and I paid in nearly $10,000, and while Sweetie has had a new *job these past four years, together we have only collected $250,000." Really? Since the current rate is 15.2% and has been that high for some years, you must have worked very little a long, long time ago. Today, people are paying in who will probably never see a dime. For example, my father paid in heavily for his entire life and we collected $242 when he died. Glad it's working out for you, though.
jim#1 Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 8:06 PM

Soc Sec is terrible

Yes I know that Soc Sec is terrible.

My Sweetie and I paid in nearly $10,000, and while Sweetie has had a new *job these past four years, together we have only collected $250,000.

*Now the Angels have a role model.
Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 5:33 PM
The type of system they want to gradually put in the place of ours is basically the Canadian one. The big news in Canada this week is that a Liberal member of Parliament who works hard to ban private medical care in her own country flew to San Francisco for a cancer operation she couldn't get in a timely manner in her own. What's wrong with the wonderful system she supports so staunchly and which is held up as an example for us? Hundreds of thousands of Canadians also spend their hard-earned cash to get the same care in America that they allegedly get for 'free' in Canada. Now why is that?

You accuse our Congressman of getting insurance money to say these things. You of course have zero proof. If he isn't getting money from the insurance companies, I would encourage him to do so. We all have to work together if we hope to defeat Obamacare. After all, when America follows the Canadian model, where will we go for quality medical care?
RightBrainBrother Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 5:26 PM
What was the last time you spoke to a "regular" American, Rep Shadegg?

And are you sure that "regular" means what you think it means?

I bet you think that the insurance company lobby group that funds your campaign is a "regular" American.
Ron Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 4:37 PM
Very well put, and made understandable to the average American. Those simple questions continue to be unanswered by the dems in congress. Why does everyone's plan have to change to insure the uninsured? First off, according to critics of the bill in the house it still leaves about 25 million uninsured. Could it be this is not about insuring the uninsured, and rather about Washington grabbing more power over our lives.....http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/
Tyler Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 4:35 PM
Great question

It will makes their lives better.

It will keep more money in their pockets.

The economy and country will prosper.
male and frustrated Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 3:56 PM
In the article, the Rep speaks to "career politicians". With 15 years in Congress, when does he cross over to that side of the accounting?

I appreciated the points made and generally like Mr. Shadegg. Up to that point, I was nodding my head yes.
R Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 3:45 PM
If the bill passes in any form, we will move rapidly toward a compulsory single-payer system, and you can be sure they will find a way to subsidize abortion and illegal aliens. It is the regulations the administration implements that will determine the real costs and shape of socialized medicine, and these bills give Obama near dictatorial power to make those choices. The only way to stop this abomination is to make it absolutely clear to our representatives that THEY WILL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE IF THEY SUPPORT IT. There is a website where you can pledge to vote against politicians supporting the bill. Representatives will then be informed of how many votes they are losing. It is called http://www.PledgeOfLiberty.com

Bad Albino Bob Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 2:37 PM
""In Soc Sec, the money is taken out of your check, put in an account,and paid to those who qualify" He forgot the part where they sprinkle pixie dust on it to make it grow to replace all the trillions of SS money the government has squandered on other things over the years. Without pixie dust, all that money would be gone.
« Previous12Next »