Can you afford Obamacare?

This is a question everybody ought to be asking themselves.

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (also known as “Obamacare”) is already three years old, and we still know very little about its real impact on the health care industry, the marketplace, or on individuals and families.

What we do know is that, over the past three years, one complication after another has been surfacing. Details that were overlooked then are now beginning to come to light, and the policymakers are wrangling to head the problems off at the pass.

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to fix things until the law takes full effect and we actually see its impact. Until then, all we can do is sit back and wait…with bated breath.

Therein lay the real travesty about the “Obamacare” law: There was little foresight to begin with in crafting the legislation. Problems were likely not identified, because the policymakers didn’t want to see them. That would have set the legislation back a lot farther than 2010, and with a mid-term election looming that year and a general election in two more years, it was just a lot easier to slap a bill together like a “hero” sandwich and worry about the heartburn it causes later.

So, now we are stuck with a law that raises more questions than it provides answers. Isn’t that usually the way? Our esteemed lawmakers, always vigilantly looking out for our best interests, are so hyper-focused on their re-election that they fail to address the pitfalls. Getting legislation passed is the bottom line, after all; not doing right by the American people. They worry about the details later, when the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room has become somebody else’s problem.

For instance, there’s the problem of supply and demand on this new law. For the sake of argument, let’s say everyone who is mandated to complies with the law and buys health care coverage. Is that really going to keep premiums from rising?

What it does is cause a run on the market, an increase in demand for a product or service. And what, dear Mr. Adam Smith, is the consequence of higher demand? Yup. Higher prices.

In spite of the health insurance reform that Obamacare addresses, there is also the looming problem of a shortage of health care providers and an unprecedented increase in demand for care. How does the law address this?

The “baby boom” generation (born between 1946-64) has already started to reach retirement age. In the next decade, millions more will. As the “boomers” age, their need for care will increase, and the more of them there are that are demanding care, the greater the strain on services there will be.

Further complicating matters is the reality that fewer young people are choosing medicine as a profession. Medical schools are hurting for enrollment. When facing a half-million dollars in student loan debt, and the prospect of very expensive malpractice and liability insurance premiums to carry once licensed to practice, who can blame students for shying away from the medical profession?

This begs the question: Who is going to provide the professional care that the next generation of senior and geriatric patients will demand?

We can talk all we want about how increasing the pool of policyholders will keep individual premiums in check; but this theory says nothing about how the costs of rising demand and the wavering supply of services and care will be dealt with. I think we can realistically count on health care to continue to become more expensive in the near future because of supply and demand demographics.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t think there were problems with our current health care system, and who didn’t have an opinion about how to fix it. I agree that there has been a lot of hot air spewed forth about the problems with health care, and little or nothing of substance addressing the issues. However, passing a law simply because that would be a better alternative to passing nothing at all is equally irresponsible. It is a dangerous game to be playing, but one a lot of people have found acceptable. Let’s just pass a law, any law, to fix the problems. And if the problems aren’t fixed with that law, then we will pass another to amend it until the problem gets solved.

Such was the mentality of a lot of Obamacare’s supporters during its transition from bill to law. How about we pass the right law the first time, so we don’t have to keep revisiting, revising and amending the law ad nauseum? How about we do our homework and get it right, no matter how long it takes, before we slap a brand on it and start selling it on the shelves?

My dad used to tell me, “Work smarter; do it right the first time.” Because then I wouldn’t have to do things over again. Sage advice, and no doubt, many people adhere to this principle in their daily lives. Why the heck can’t politicians?

Because Obamacare was written in haste, we now face the likelihood of having to do things over again. Because the politicians refused to address the problems already foreseen with the legislation when they had the chance, and before the bill became law, now we will have to do this over again.

Redundancy isn’t just a waste of resources; it also fits in with Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.

Yup. That’s the American politician to a tee. I’m further convinced now that Obamacare was an exercise in insanity. Thanks for reminding me, Albert.