The question:
Do you guys have any idea how we could potentially get more public support against Obamacare and toward a more free-market system so we can pass HB 1297 into law and stop this Democratic rhetoric from invading the hearts and minds of our citizens? I think we can truly improve the cost and quality of health care in New Hampshire if we could only roll back the government takeover.
My Response (edited, additional):
The problem is that the Dems did a great job of passing it in that the upfront costs to the public were about nil, the OMB scoring made it look good, so there hasn’t been much to rile folks up here in NH. We are the most unchurched State in the union, so appeals to religious freedom have sparked little here in the State (even with a high percentage of Catholics among the churched). And they painted it as Mom and Apple Pie stuff – the “easy” stuff. They are GIVING PEOPLE STUFF rather than us having to convince them to be and think like independent, self-responsible adults.
Even without Obamacare, people are used to paying a mere pittance for their care – “what’s my co-pay?”. And for a lot of things that use to have a preventative cost, those are now FREE! Essentially, the Dems have done to healthcare premiums that they did to mandatory income tax costs – instead of having to write a check, it’s “invisible” as a deduction in the weekly wage check, as most people only ever care about the bottom line (“what’s left?”). Week to week, the anger is gone.
Free. Like the Roman bread and circuses – mollify the public while the Republic spiraled downward. Distractions – like the fact that where socialize medicine has been tried here in the US already (remember: Federalism provides for 50 laboratories of democracy), it has failed: Tennesee, Maine, Colorado, Hawaii (KeikiCare), Kentucky. California thought about it and cancelled due to cost. Massachusetts – sure, more people “insured” but longer wait times and lines, doctors not accepting new patients, premiums rising > national averages, and the problem is “we don’t have enough doctors”? Canada has problems too.
We do have a hope, perhaps a thin one; we have to bring concrete examples of what is coming in the future back to now and contrast the now / now vs the bad future / now. Freedom is the range of choices we have; we have to show, concretely (vs broadly waving our arms in glittering generalities), how our choices will be removed from us by Obamacare – and that we might not even know that they are gone. They are eliminated point-of-use costs and most people will say “hey, no money out of my pocket RIGHT NOW, so what’s the rub” even as Dems know that few look at the ever increasing deduction in the paycheck (the cost will be invisible).
We need a steady stream of “here’s what is NOW and here is how this will affect you SOON. Like the YOUNG in this country are further going to get hit with OLDSTERS health problems even as they will have to shell out more for Social Security. Will they like paying more for others than what they will have for their own families? Or worse, unable to have families due to the high taxes that will be needed from them?
We have to make real that which is not quite real yet.
Updated: I started this back near the beginning of the month, so the conditions have changed due to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court this past week. In essence it comes down to “Is there a limitation to what the Federal Government can do?”
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to federal health care reform and health care exchanges.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Federal Health Care Reform; Purpose and Scope. Amend RSA 420-N:1 to read as follows:
420-N:1 Purpose and Scope.
[I.] The intent of this chapter is to preserve the constitutional integrity and sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and part I, article 7 of the New Hampshire constitution by creating a legislative oversight committee to supervise the insurance commissioner’s [implementation] administration of the insurance reforms required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, including any federal regulations, interpretations, standards, or guidance issued thereunder (hereinafter “the Act”).
[II. Further, it is the intent of this chapter to prevent the state of New Hampshire from defaulting into federal oversight regarding the Act by not meeting certain federally-mandated time frames for state implementation of the Act. It is the intent of this chapter to preserve the state’s flexibility by allowing consideration of each state implementation requirement as it arises.]
2 Federal Health Care Reform; Consistency. Amend RSA 420-N:6 to read as follows:
420-N:6 Consistency. In order to [prevent a default to federal regulation and to preserve the state’s status as the sole regulator of] protect the state’s rights and responsibilities to regulate the business of insurance within the state, the oversight committee shall have the authority to find, with respect to any specific provision within Title XXXVII, that the provision is inconsistent with and prevents the application of the Act. Upon such a finding, the [commissioner may, on a provisional basis, implement this provision of the Act] oversight committee shall make a recommendation to the legislature. The [commissioner’s] commissioner and any other state official in any agency, department and subdivision and any government in New Hampshire shall not have authority to implement this provision [shall extend only] until such time as the general court can take legislative action to amend Title XXXVII as it deems appropriate.
3 New Section; Prohibition. Amend RSA 420-N by inserting after section 6 the following new section:
420-N:7 Prohibition. The state of New Hampshire and all of its agencies, departments, and subdivisions and any government in New Hampshire shall not plan, create, participate in or enable a state exchange for health insurance including, but not limited to, the exchange requirements of the Act. In addition, the state of New Hampshire and all of its agencies, departments, and subdivisions and any government in New Hampshire shall not contract with any private entity to plan, create, or enable a state exchange for health insurance including, but not limited to, the exchange requirements of the Act.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
asdf
