• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare: Impact on the Family

    The recent health care debate has shown that many in Congress do not always vote in favor of what is best for their constituents. Families, specifically, will suffer many negative repercussions from the passage of the health care bill.

    Heritage’s Chuck Donovan explains the immense impact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will have on families by decreasing family choice, undermining the role of parents, penalizing marriage, and undercutting freedom of conscience.

    More Families Covered but Less Family Choice: “Families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines. The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.”

    Undermining the Role of Parents: “PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new ‘Personal Responsibility Education’ (PRE) program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.”

    Penalizing Marriage: “The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples. This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises. Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a ‘divorce of convenience.’”

    Undercutting Freedom of Conscience: “As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring ‘that health care professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.’ A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.”

    The health care bill will have a major negative impact on many American families. To learn more about the impact of the health care bill, visit Side Effects.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Obamacare: Impact on the Family

    1. Billie says:

      It's funny obama says he'll support what works and get rid of what doesn't.

      To understand the mentality of obama and the like minded, his idea is, what works for "his" agenda (all that fails the people) he will support and build on. What doesn't work for his agenda (all that succeeds in favor of the people) he eliminates.

      When Obama said "change," no one bothered to ask "change" for the better or worse. And he didn't bother to say. When obama said he wants to "help" America," no one bothered to ask build or destroy? he didn't bother to say. Keep in mind all possible specifics of all the president proposes as he doesn't bother to say.

      • Keith says:

        If you people have been researching this topic for decades and have all of the wonderful solutions to the growing cost of healthcare ( due to treatments not cures) or greed, then why didn't you all due your own reform? Obviously y'all knew how jacked up the healthcare system was prior to Obama-care. Sounds hypocritical to me!

    2. Drew Page, IL says:

      Obamacare brings with it a mixed bag of good and bad things, depending on your personal circumstances. Among the good things is the fact that many who were unable to obtain an individual health insurance policy, due to a pre-existing condition, will soon be able to do so. In addition, those who fall between the cracks of qualifying for Medicaid and being able to afford health insurance will be subsidized to the degree where they can afford it. Defining the term "afford" however, may be a bit difficult and will have to be based on family income and the number of qualified dependents in a family, because some who say they can't afford health insurance actually can.

      Approximately 60% of Americans who have health insurance today get it through their employer, or through a Taft-Hartley Health and Welfare Trust set up by a union and participating employers. Under such plans, pre-existing condition limitations are, for the most part, a thing of the past. Since the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was passed many years ago, employees and their dependents who have a pre-existing condition may switch into a health plan of a new employer with pre-existing conditions limits waived, provided there has been no lapse of coverage for more than 63 days. Further, most employers offer dual choice health plans that include an HMO option. HMO plans do not have pre-existing conditions limitations. Once a person with health insurance turns 65, they can enroll in Medicare with no pre-existing condition limitations. Medicaid also covers pre-existing conditions.

      Another 9% of those with health coverage get theirs by purchasing an individual health insurance policy. These all carry pre-existing condition limitations. The reason for this is that without such limitations, people could go without health insurance until they became seriously ill or i njured, then buy health insurance to pay their medical bills and then, when their treatments were complete, drop the insurance, only to go through the same routine if and when they or one of their family again needed medical treatment. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that any insurance company who would permit someone to exchange $2,000 or $3,000 of premiums in exchange for covering medical bills ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 would be out of business in short order.

      This is exactly what happened in the State of Massechusetts, where insurance companies there have refused to issue any new health insurance policies. Massechusetts reports that over the past year only 40% of those buying individual health insurance policies kept them for 12 months or longer. 60% dropped the policies after the insurance companies paid for their medical expenses. Those dropping the policies knew that when they wanted to obtain health insurance again, the insurance companies would have to cover them, regardless of any pre-existing condition. The claims for those who kept the insurance for less than 12 months were six times (600%) higher than the average of claims for those who kept their coverage for over a year.

      Another 20% of the population are covered under Medicare or Medicaid, where pre-existing conditions are covered. The remaining 10% of the population are uninsured. Overall, 90% of the population is insured for health care. The remaining 10% (uninsured) nonetheless are covered when they reach an emergency room, at least until their condition can be stabilized.

      I grant you that no one wants to be in the category of uninsured, where ongoing care and maintenance prescription drugs are not available. But it seems that we could have addressed that 10% with something less draconian than the 3,000 page, $2.5 trillion Obamacare plan.

      If left unchanged, Obamacare will, by default, turn into a single payer, government run and controlled health care system. If insurance carriers are forced to insure individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions, they will pull out of the market place. The government, as much as it might like to, cannot dictate that a business stay in business if it's losing money. When individual health insurance policies are no longer available, those who relied on them will have no other option but to insist that the government once again step to the plate to solve their problems. Further, with the additional tax burdens are regulatory impositions Obamacare places on insurance companies and employers, employers will find it much easier to pay the fines for not providing insurance than to pay the actual premiums the insurance companies will charge. Employers will get out from under the burden of higher premiums and government regulations, telling employees to get their health coverage from one of the many proposed insurance "exchanges" to be established under Obamacare.

      To those who have no health insurance, anything provided by Obamacare will be better than nothing. Good luck trying to get these folks to buy insurance, even Obamacare. More than likely, the Supreme Court will rule that such a mandate is unconstitutional. These folks undoubtedly pay no federal income tax and therfore any applicable fines for not purchasing Obamacare would only result in a reduction in their "income tax credit", or welfare payment, the chances of which are slim and none.

      Once we all have to succomb to Obamacare and all the "greedy" insurance companies are gone, where will you take your complaints when the government decides to increase your deductibles and copayments, pay your medical providers (like doctors, hospitals and pharmacies) less, tells you that your needed treatment isn't covered ans/or refuses to pay your claim? To whom will you appeal when your provider says it isn't economically sound to expend hugh amounts of limited medical resources to extend the life of an elderly, chronically ill person? President Obama has already gone on record with his opinion about this, saying that in some cases it is more realistic to provide inexpensive pallative care (pain pills) than to expend limited resources in heroic efforts to extend life in such situations.

      The government already does this with Medicare and has been doing so for years. The reason most people on Medicare don't notice this is because they buy Medicare Supplement plans from private insurance companies that pick up the deductible and copayments. So as the government pays less, the Medicare supplement insurance companies have to pay more and increase their premiums, leaving you and the government to lay the blame squarely at the foot of the "greedy" insurance companies.

      The 10% of the population who had no coverage will accept this because it's better than nothing, they won't be paying for it and they will have the satisfaction of knowing that everyone else is in the same boat (misery loves company).

      So in order to improve the life of those who find themselves in this condition, everyone else is going to have to give up what they have and take the same thing. Now where does this end, or does it end? Will the 50% of us who do pay income taxes find ourselves having to provide for all the needs and wants of the 50% who don't?

    3. Lloyd Scallan - New Orleans area says:

      The faster we all understand that Obama is the “greatest deceiver” to ever occupy
      the White House, the faster we will get him out of that House. Billie has it right. Every word Obama says or reads has to recognized as just another deceptive
      lie to fool the American people.

    4. DKID says:

      hes over his head! spend spend spend spend our money what does he care he,s exempt from everything.awesome liar ! ,cover your ears and close your eyes and dream with hussian and get aboard the the train chooooo choooo they just passed another 12 million to extend jobless benefits , oh yea spend baby spend!

    5. Billie says:

      To those who have no health insurance, have gotten health care for free. Insurance is a privilege of choice to have, (in the past) to the responsible ones who wouldn't think to give their health care up to GOVERNMENT and coercion and corruption. I'm a big enough girl, to make my own decisions and choices necessary to take care of myself and my health condition. Why would any decent person want to hand their personal responsibility to themselves. to GOVERNMENT?

      What makes anyone think the ones who have gotten health care for free will be obligated to pay for obamacare? There's something in that bill that protects the irresponsible at the government force obligation of the responsible.

    6. Centaur 255, Purcell says:

      It also comes back to a central question: who makes the decision for the family? Is it the government, who benefits from centralizing power, or is it the parents, who benefit from…actually building the family?

      This is a critical question for Americans to evaluate and face head-on: who do we want at the helm? Is it government–Republican or Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Constitutionalist, it doesn't matter–or is it parents?

      Visit http://www.parentalrights.org for more info on how to protect the rights of parents from the abuse of government.

      Search for the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,

      Centaur

      "The time is right." ~ Centaur

    7. BED says:

      Obamacare is nothing but another social-engineering, social experiment that our community-organizing president and his far-left liberal friends thinks should work because it has a good, moral purpose and anything that attempts to do good things must work – especially because it is THEIR idea. They have this view that they are the smartest academics in the room and whatever they say must work. It reminds me of the misguided and ill-informed Progressives who went to Russia after the Revolution, who were quickly disillusioned at what they saw and the fact things weren't going exactly as they theorized in their elitist discussions.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×