Americans want ever more Free Stuff as the Founding Fathers feared they would under Mob Rule

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 27th, 2014

Week in Review

Let’s imagine you buy your groceries a different way.  Instead of going to the store and picking things off of the shelves and paying for them at checkout imagine this.  You don’t pay the store.  A third party does.  Like it does for everyone else that shops at this store.  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  Let’s say people pool their money together for purchasing power.  And have this third party take that pooled money and use it to get better pricing.  Because of the large amounts they will be paying for.

So everyone pays in a monthly amount to their third-party purchaser.  Then goes to the store and takes what they want.  And at checkout they just sign an invoice to acknowledge they took this stuff.  And the store will submit the bill to the third-party purchaser.  Of course, there would have to be some rules.  Because if everyone pays a flat amount each month you can’t have someone picking up steaks every day when you’re buying hamburger for your kids.  So there are limits to what you can buy.  Requiring the third party to review every submitted invoice.  Requiring a very large staff to review every grocery store purchase to approve and disapprove line items on each and every invoice for payment.  To resolve billing and payment errors.  And to bill shoppers for any unapproved purchases they made.  Even if they didn’t understand that these items weren’t covered.

So, included with that monthly payment there must be an overhead fee.  To pay for all those people reviewing those invoices.  Those who bill shoppers for unapproved items.  Those who pay for the approved purchases.  And those who process payments from shoppers.  Still, things slip through the cracks.  People are getting unapproved purchases through the system.  Grocery prices rise.  The overhead costs at the third party grow due to new costly regulations.  Etc.  Such that on occasion the total amount of cash out at the third party exceeds the total of cash in.  Requiring them to raise the monthly amount everyone pays.

Sounds a bit more complicated than just going to the store and paying for what you want out of pocket.  And more costly in the long run.  But if someone else pays the third party for those monthly fees it’s a whole different story.  Say as a benefit at work.  Because without you having to pay anything it’s just free groceries.  At least, to you.  And you will demand that your employer pays for more stuff so it’s free to you.  Even though it’s not.  Because the rising cost of third party grocery purchases will cost your employer.  Which will limit your pay.  And other benefits.  Because in the real world nothing is free.  Even if people think that a lot of stuff is free.  Or should be free.  Like health care (see Nearly 7 in 10 Americans say health plans should cover birth control by Karen Kaplan posted 4/22/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

Among the various provisions of the Affordable Care Act, few are as controversial as the one requiring health insurance providers to include coverage for contraception. A new survey finds that support for this rule is widespread, with 69% of Americans in favor of the mandate…

Women, African Americans, Latinos and parents living with children under the age of 18 had higher levels of support for mandatory contraception coverage than people in other demographic groups, the survey found…

— 85% of those surveyed supported mandatory coverage for mammograms and colonoscopies.

— 84% supported mandatory coverage for recommended vaccines.

— 82% were in favor of mandatory coverage for diabetes and cholesterol screening tests.

— 77% backed the provision on mandatory coverage for mental health care.

— 75% supported mandatory coverage of dental care, including routine cleanings.

There’s a reason why the United States is a republic and not a democracy.  For the Founding Fathers feared a democracy.  And wanted responsible people between the people and the treasury.  For once people understood they could vote themselves the treasury they would.  And things like this would happen.  Mob rule.  Where the mob demands more and more free stuff while fewer and fewer people pay for that ‘free’ stuff.  And people in government anxious to win elections will keep giving the people more ‘free’ stuff that others have to pay for.  Until one day you end up with the health care system we have in the United States.  All because other people were paying for routine costs people could expect and budget for.  Things that if they paid out of pocket for would cost less in the long run.  Which would keep insurance what it was supposed to be.  Insurance.  And not turn it into a massive cost transfer scheme that only allowed the price of health care to soar.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS drops Life-Saving Drug as it would lead to more Rationing and longer Wait Times

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

In 1954 almost 35% of all workers belonged to a union.  Since then that number has fallen to about 11.3%.  As the high cost of union contracts chased manufacturing out of the country.  Today the majority of workers belonging to a union work in the public sector.  Where they enter contract negotiations with the taxpayers to secure better pay and benefits than most taxpayers have.  Of course during these negotiations the taxpayers have no say.  As politicians and unions hammer out these contracts.  Unlike trade unions.  Where the people paying the workers actually have a say.

This is another reason why national health care is the Holy Grail for the left.  They want to unionize all those health care workers.  Pay them more.  And deduct union dues from their pay to fund their political activities.  Leaving less money for patient health care.  But they’re okay with that.  But they’re not okay with a pharmaceutical company charging a lot of money for life-saving drugs.  Which, also, leaves less money for patient health care (see Breast cancer drug turned down for NHS use due to high cost by Sarah Boseley posted 4/22/2014 on the guardian).

A Herceptin-style drug that can offer some women with advanced breast cancer nearly six months of extra life has been turned down for use in the NHS because of its high cost.

In draft guidance now open to consultation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) blames the manufacturers, Roche, who are asking for more than £90,000 per patient, which is far more than any comparable treatment…

“We apply as much flexibility as we can in approving new treatments, but the reality is that given its price and what it offers to patients, it will displace more health benefit which the NHS could achieve in other ways, than it will offer to patients with breast cancer.”

Paying health care providers more will not improve the quality of health care.  Unless health workers are doing a half-assed job now.  Which I don’t believe they are.  But Roche is helping people with death sentences live another six months or so.  That’s a pretty remarkable thing.  If the NHS can’t afford this wonder drug perhaps they should use their own.  Of course they can’t.  Why?  Because they don’t have one.  For they didn’t pour hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this drug and the all those drugs that failed.

Developing a miracle drug is costly.  Money the pharmaceuticals pay up front.  Because their employees don’t work for free.  Which is why these drugs cost so much.  That high price pays for all of the costs that went into this drug.  For all of the drugs that failed.  And provides a return for investors.  Who give these pharmaceutical companies hundreds of millions of dollars up front just in the hope they may develop a miracle drug.  Which is the only way we should invest in these miracle drugs.  Because these investors will only take a chance on a good thing.  Unlike government.  Which has a history of backing the wrong investment time after time.  And pouring good money after bad.

It’s a tough choice to make.  Take health care benefits away from other patients to pay for a miracle drug for those dying from cancer.  Or let people die 6 months or so sooner.  One thing for sure, though, unionizing our health care workers won’t give either of these patients more health care benefits.  It will only leave less money for everything else.  Leading to rationing.  And longer wait times.  Because less money will pay for fewer things.  Making those other things scarcer.  Forcing people to wait longer and pay more for treatment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left wants a Health Care System like Britain’s NHS despite the NHS having Crippling Deficits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2014

Week in Review

Obamacare is not going well.  The say it is.  But it isn’t.  The White House can all of a sudden give us a number like 8 million enrollees when they said earlier they couldn’t tell until the insurance companies tell them.  And the other big question is this.  Are these enrollees?  Including all people who enrolled whether they paid or not?  Or are these only the people who paid?  Or are most of these people enrolling in Medicaid?  Those who won’t ever pay?  If that 8 million aren’t paying customers Obamacare is doomed.

So the financial foundation of Obamacare is likely very perilous.  Where the sick and poor are probably signing up more than the healthy with money.  And the delay of the employer mandate to sometime after the midterm election takes a bad financial foundation and makes it worse.  For they can’t keep delaying the funding parts until after elections.  Because someone has to pay for all of the subsidies.  As well as the high cost of the old and sick.  Which alone may bankrupt Obamacare (see Labour considers raising national insurance to fix £30bn NHS ‘black hole’ by Toby Helm posted 4/19/2014 on the guardian).

Radical plans to increase national insurance contributions to plug a looming £30bn a year “black hole” in NHS funding and pay the spiralling costs of care for the elderly are being examined by Labour’s policy review.

The Observer has learnt that the idea is among options being considered to ensure NHS and care costs can be met under a future Labour government, without it having to impose crippling cuts on other services in successive budgets.

Senior party figures have confirmed that a scheme advanced by the former Labour minister Frank Field – under which funds from increased NI would be paid into a sealed-off fund for health and care costs – is being examined, though no decisions have been taken.

Recent figures based on data from NHS England and the Nuffield Trust and produced by the Commons library suggest that NHS costs alone will go from £95bn a year now to more than £130bn a year by 2020.

Some have suggested that they designed Obamacare to fail.  So they can get what they really want.  Single-payer.  Or national health care.  Like they have in Britain with their National Health Service (NHS).  Which is running an enormous deficit.  Based on the above numbers it currently is 31.6% (£30bn/£95bn).  Which is just unsustainable.  But this is what an aging population will do.  When you have more people leaving the workforce consuming health care benefits paid for by fewer people entering the workforce.  Which should be a huge warning for the United States.  Because they have an aging population, too.

At the current exchange rate that £30 billion comes to $50.37 billion.  Is this what the US can expect?  No.  Because they have five-times the population Britain has.  So their deficit will be approximately five-times as big.  Or $251.85 billion.  That’s a quarter of a trillion dollar shortfall PER YEAR.  At least.  And $2.52 trillion over a decade.  So unless the Americans can somehow make their people less sick so they won’t consume health care resources the deficit alone for Obamacare will be more than twice the original CBO projection for the total cost over 10 years.  Which means the Americans will have to do what the British must do.  Increase taxes.  Charge for some health care services in addition to these higher taxes.  Or impose crippling cuts to services.  Hello rationing.  And longer wait times.

This is the absolute worst time to impose a single-payer/national health care system.  Just as the baby boom generation fills our health care system in their retirement.  It might have worked if we had kept having babies the way we did before birth control and abortion slashed the birthrate.  But we didn’t.  And now we have a baby bust generation stuck footing the bill for a baby boom generation.  Fewer paying for more.  And the only way to make that work is with confiscatory tax rates.  Or death panels.  Because you have to raise revenue.  Or cut costs.  There is just no other option.  Or people can work longer, pay out of pocket for routine, expected expenses and buy real insurance to protect themselves from catastrophic, unexpected medical expenses.  Which is actually another option.  And probably the only one that will work.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cuba is Slashing Jobs from the American Left’s Favorite Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

The American left loves Cuba.  A communist/socialist regime just a short boat ride from Florida.  Where they put people before profits.  And the left likes people.  Just as much as they hate profits.  And best of all Cuba has a national health care system.  American film maker and darling of the left Michael Moore even made a movie about how great that health care system is.  Sicko.  Which showed how there are no health insurance companies in Cuba. No.  Just a government that loves its people.  A large number of who for some reason risk their lives to float their way to Florida.  To escape that beautiful paradise Moore rhapsodizes about but never chooses to live in.  Which probably has something to do with this (see Cuba slashes more than 100,000 health care jobs by The Associated Press posted 4/7/2014 on the Star-Telegram).

Cuban authorities say they have eliminated more than 100,000 jobs in health care, considered one of the pillars of the 1959 revolution.

The cuts come as President Raul Castro tries to streamline government as part of a broader economic reform package.

The weekly labor newspaper Trabajadores said Monday that 109,000 health care positions have been cut…

Cuba’s health care sector is entirely run by the state. Authorities have said that like other areas of the economy it is plagued by inefficiency, redundancies and bloated payrolls.

This is what Michael Moore and others on the left want for America.  A health care system plagued by inefficiency, redundancies and bloated payrolls.  Which, of course, consumes so many of the limited health care resources that there is little left for patients.  This is national health care.  This is a government bureaucracy doing what it does best.  Incompetence and corruption.  And the left is fine with this as long as they get their hands on those health care dollars.  So they can create a vast, inefficient bureaucracy that is full of high-paying jobs to consume those health care dollars.  Allowing anyone working for the national health care service to get rich.  Just like those health insurance companies the left so hates.  Only without being able to do what the private health insurance companies have been able to do.  Create the world’s best health care system.

For the American people aren’t risking their lives to float to Cuba to get that health insurance-free national health care.  At least, not yet.  But with further economic reform President Castro may end up one day with a privatized health care system as the Americans move in the other direction.  Which could very well create a health tourism paradise in Cuba after all.  For Americans wishing to escape what President Obama and the Democrats are doing to the health care system they liked and wanted to keep.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Even with the Bribes Chinese Health Care is Better since Privatization

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

China has recently privatized their health care system.  Sort of.  They have private health care providers and a state health insurance that helps pay for it with a small patient ‘co-pay’.  Quality of care did increase.  But health care providers don’t get paid a lot in China.  And turn to other means of compensation that is not without its problems (see ‘Guardian angels’ to protect Chinese doctors from patients by Malcolm Moore posted 4/9/2014 on The Telegraph).

Hospitals in Beijing will recruit 1,500 “guardian angels” to protect their doctors from violent attacks by patients.

In recent years, angry patients have killed a number of Chinese doctors, often citing frustration at how they have been handled by the healthcare system…

Doctors and nurses in hospitals are violently attacked every two weeks on average, the state media said, by patients angry at long waiting times, high medical bills and haughty or uncaring doctors…

The government has promised to root out corruption in the healthcare system, and the Health Ministry said in February it would target patients who bribe doctors for better treatment.

Yes, bribes.  Or hongbao, as it’s called in China.  If you want some decent care in a Chinese hospital you have to slide an envelope with money in it to your health care provider.  Otherwise you’ll only get what the state health insurance will buy you.  Long waiting times, high medical bills (for what the state insurance doesn’t cover—a high deductible, if you will) and haughty or uncaring doctors.  Which tells you how bad the health care system must have been before they privatized it.  For it’s a lot better now than it used to be.

So China made their health care better by privatizing it (although it is still so bad that angry patients who paid good bribes for their loved one’s care are assaulting their doctors and nurses every two weeks on average).  While the United States is going the other way.  Towards more state control.  Pity the Obama administration can’t be more like China when it comes to health care.  And try to improve the quality of health care instead of making it worse.  Which they will likely do as their cost saving measure is simply to pay health care providers less.  Which will likely discourage doctors from entering the system.  Or remaining in the system.  Leading to longer waiting times.  And, perhaps, bribes.  At least from those who want good care for their loved ones.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Not Everyone signing up for Obamacare is paying for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2014

Week in Review

The big question in the Obamacare signups recently released by the Obama administration is this.  How many people have actually sent a payment into their insurance company?  For signing up for health insurance doesn’t mean you have health insurance.  You have to pay for it first.  With ‘first’ being key.  As anyone who has paid a health insurance premium knows.  You pay for next month’s health insurance this month.  That is, it’s cash before delivery.  As the insurance companies need the cash before they can pay any benefits.  This is the way all insurance has worked since the dawn of insurance.  First money goes into an insurance pool.  Then said insurance pool pays insurance claims.  The money must come first.  There’s just no other way for it to work.

So, is the money coming first with Obamacare?  As it turns out, the majority of it is.  At least, according to a leading federation of Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans (see Blue Cross group sees Obamacare premium payments at 80-85 percent by David Morgan posted 4/2/2014 on Reuters).

A leading federation of Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans said on Wednesday that it is receiving premium payments from 80 to 85 percent of its new Obamacare health insurance customers.

The estimate, released by the Chicago-based Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, reflects enrollment activity among 35 Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 47 of the 50 states, including plans sold by WellPoint Inc, from October 1 through February 1…

If the Blue Cross Blue Shield payment rates held true for enrollment across the board, between 5.7 million and 6 million of the 7.1 million would actually be enrolled in coverage.

So that means the Obama administration is overstating the enrollment numbers from 18.3% to 24.6%.  And between 1.1 million and 1.4 million haven’t paid for the Obamacare they signed up for.  Of course, that’s assuming that the 7.1 million were all new Obamacare enrollees into private health insurance plans.  And not those who signed up for Medicaid who will never write a check for their coverage.  Which will not help the insurance companies pay for the expanded benefits mandated by Obamacare.

So the Obama administration’s numbers are suspect to say the least.  As is the continued existence of the private insurers.  For if they don’t get 7+ million signing up for Obamacare (with a heavy concentration of the young and healthy who will file few claims) the cost of caring for the old and sick will bankrupt them.  Of course if this was the plan all along the Obama administration could at least claim something in Obamacare was working according to plan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Democrats think they can do National Health Care better than Britain despite the Obamacare Website Rollout Disaster

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

Those on the left settled for the Affordable Care Act.  It’s not what they wanted.  But they think it can, in time, give them what they want.  Single-payer health care.  Or a true national health care system.  Like they have in Britain.  Oh how the left would love to have a no nonsense National Health Service (NHS) in the United States.  A system totally funded by general taxation.  Because that would be better than Obamacare.  And far better than what Obamacare replaced.  Now those who think that are either lying to the American people.  Or are completely ignorant to what’s going on in the NHS.  For the highly esteemed NHS is on life support (see £10 each can save the NHS by Norman Warner and Jack O’Sullivan posted 3/30/2014 on the guardian).

A care and cash crisis is sending the NHS bust. In its present form, a shortfall of £30bn a year, or more, is expected by 2020. Paying off the nation’s deficit means five more years of further deep public expenditure cuts, whoever is in government. So, over-protecting an outdated, cosseted and unaffordable healthcare system inevitably means starving other vital public services, unless we choke off economic growth and worsen the cost of living with big tax increases. That might be worth contemplating if the NHS was offering brilliant care. But it isn’t.

Just look at the thousands of frail elderly people who get the care they need only by queuing in A&E and spending weeks in hospital – the most expensive and often the worst way to look after them. And let’s not forget that the NHS is sleepwalking through an obesity epidemic.

These are truths hidden from public view. Many politicians and clinicians are scared to tell people that our much-loved 65-year-old NHS no longer meets the country’s needs. Frankly, it is often poor value for money, and the greatest public spending challenge after the general election…

Our specialist hospital services should be concentrated in fewer, safer, better-equipped and more expert centres with 24/7 consultant cover and improved transport links…

A new integrated “National Health and Care Service” would pioneer a “co-producing” health partnership between state and citizen, with annual personal health MOTs agreeing responsibilities over the year for both services and the individual. At the heart of this relationship would be an NHS membership scheme, charging £10 a month (with some exemptions) collected through council tax for local preventative services to help people stay healthy.

This is one of several new funding streams urgently needed to renew impoverished parts of our care system but preserving a mainly tax-funded NHS that is largely free at the point of use. We have to escape the constraints of general taxation if we want a decent system…

Just 3.5% of the annual 500,000 deaths lead to payment of inheritance tax. We must expect the elderly, after their deaths, to contribute more. NHS free entitlements, such as continuing care, could be reduced or means-tested and hotel costs in hospital charged, as in France and Germany.

Britain has an aging population.  Fewer people are entering the workforce to pay the taxes that fund the NHS.  While more people are leaving the workforce and consuming NHS resources.  So less money is going into the NHS while the NHS is spending more and more money on patients.  Leading to a deficit that they can’t pay for without killing the economy.  Or taking money away from other government services.

If the NHS was providing quality health care they could probably justify taking money away from other areas.  But it’s not.  The one argument for passing Obamacare was that it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms.  But it’s not doing that in Britain.  The wait times are so long to see a doctor or get a procedure that people are going to the emergency room (A/E in Britain) and waiting for hours instead of waiting for months.  Further increasing costs and wait times.  And frustrating patients.

So what is the solution to a failing national health care system?  Close hospitals and make people travel further for treatment.  And charge them £10 ($16.64) monthly in addition to some of the highest tax rates they already pay to fund the NHS.  So, to summarize, to make national health care work in Britain they need to close hospitals, make people travel further for care, charge them more money and make them wait longer for treatment.  Which is basically the argument against the Affordable Care Act.  It would lead to rationing.  And longer wait times.  Worse, the quality of care will decline.  As it has in Britain.  As it will in the United States.  For we also have an aging population.  And we have about five-times the people they have in Britain.  Which will make our problems five-times worse than theirs.

What’s happening in the NHS is no secret.  Any proponent of national health care no doubt looks at Britain and their NHS.  So they must be familiar with how it’s failing.  Yet they press on for a similar system in the United States.  Why?  If it won’t improve our health care system why do they want national health care?  This is the question we should be asking the Democrats.  Why?  Of course they will say Britain just isn’t doing national health care right.  After all, they’ve only been doing it for 66 years.  So what do they know about national health care?  While we, the liberal Democrats will say, will get national health care right from the get-go.  Because we are just so much smarter than everyone else in the world.

Of course the British could, and should, fire back with, “Yeah?  How did that Obamacare website rollout go?  You’d think that someone who is so smart that they could do national health care right from the get-go could actually build a sodding website that works.”

But, of course, they didn’t.  And the website was the easiest part of Obamacare.  A one and done thing.  And if they couldn’t do that right do we really want these people anywhere near our health care?  No.  Especially when the British are struggling with national health care after trying it for 66 years.  For national health care is apparently more difficult to do than building a sodding website that works.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

California Insurance Exchange uses Tax Dollars for Health Care to help Obamacare Applicants register to Vote

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

Some see amnesty as a Democrat voter registration drive.  Because people will remember who helped them become legal citizens.  The Democrats.  And will vote Democrat.  Some have also said the Affordable Care Act is another Democrat voter registration drive.  As Obamacare gave enormous sums of money to people running the insurance exchanges.  To set up and maintain those exchanges.  And to do something with all of that data they collected.  Such as making sure these people signing up for these ‘Democrat’ benefits (the Affordable Care Act was passed along purely partisan lines) register to vote (see California to Send Voter Registration Cards to Obamacare Applicants by McClatchy News posted 3/25/2014 on Governing).

Heading off a lawsuit over compliance with a federal voting rights law, California officials have agreed to help millions of state residents register to vote.

Under a deal announced Monday by several voting-rights groups, the state will send voter registration cards to nearly 3.8 million Californians who have applied for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act…

The Department of Motor Vehicles and state offices that aid low-income mothers and the disabled are also among the agencies required to provide registration services…

A spokeswoman for the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, said the network had already taken “some interim steps,” including providing voter registration information and links to the secretary of State’s office on its website.

It’s probable that these people would not have voted in the next election had they not signed up for mandatory health insurance.  But they did.  And now are receiving voter registration information.  From the good people who signed them up for their health insurance.  No doubt Democrat supporters.  Will they coach these people on how to vote as well as registering them to vote?  Will someone explain to them that if they want more free benefits they need to vote Democrat?  Perhaps.

It’s how you buy votes.  You give people something.  And keep giving them something as long as they keep voting for you.  At least, that’s what they say at election time.  “I fought to increase Social Security funding while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make you risk your retirement in the stock market.”  “I fought to increase Medicare spending while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make it wither on a vine.”  Etc.  So is it improbable to think someone is telling them to be sure to vote Democrat so the Republicans can’t take away your health insurance?  To use tax dollars for health care to register Democrat voters?  Not really.

The Democrats ran an ad showing a Republican pushing Granny off a cliff in a wheelchair.  ‘Rogue’ IRS agents took it upon themselves (or so the Obama administration claims) to harass Tea Party groups to prevent their fund raising, suppressing their free speech in the 2012 election.   And, of course, the Democrats lied to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act into law.  If you like your health insurance and doctor, they said, you could keep your health insurance and doctor.  So when it comes to getting what they want they appear to be rather pragmatic.  Where the ends justify the means.  No matter how unsavory, or legally questionable, those means are.  Which would make the insurance exchanges the perfect voter registration mechanism.  At least for one not bothered by the unsavory or legally questionable.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Some in Canada consider a Parallel Private Health Care System to reduce Wait Times

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

People don’t want Obamacare.  And they are getting angry.  Making the Democrats very nervous.  Especially those up for election this fall.  Which is why there is yet another delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act.  To make voters less angry this fall.

This law was never popular.  The American people never wanted it.  The only reason why we have it is because the Democrats pushed it through when they had control of the House, Senate and White House.  And bought off a few recalcitrant Democrat senators (the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, etc.) to garner the 60 votes necessary to force this unpopular law onto the American people.  So the Democrats could put us on a path towards single-payer.  Which President Obama is on the record preferring.  Single-payer.  But accepted the Affordable Care Act as a means to that end.  So we can one day have a health care system like they have in Canada.  Because things are so much better in Canada (see Waiting times cost B.C. patients $155.5 million last year: Fraser Institute study by Bethany Lindsay posted 3/25/2014 on The Vancouver Sun).

Waiting for medically necessary surgeries cost British Columbian patients about $155.5 million in lost time last year, a Fraser Institute economist claims in a new study.

It estimates that the total cost to Canadian patients of waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist was $1.1 billion in 2013, up from $982 million in 2012. Quebec had the highest cost at $267.7 million.

Author Nadeem Esmail said the report explores a consequence of waiting for care that Canadians don’t often consider…

Esmail said that in order to address the problem of long waiting times, he’d like to see Canada allow more private sector participation in the provision of health care, including the development of a parallel private system…

Overall, British Columbians waited a median 10.4 weeks for treatment after their first appointment with a specialist last year, compared to 9.6 weeks across Canada, according to the study.

Imagine that.  The Republicans were right.  A single-payer health care system leads to rationing of health care resources.  And sick people waiting for their turn for fewer, rationed health care resources leads to, of course, longer wait times.  This is what the Democrats want to force on the American people.  Even when some in Canada are suggesting a parallel private health care system to reduce wait times down from 10 weeks or so.  Which is why the Democrats had to be as devious as possible to pass Obamacare into law.  With shady backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid.  And then lying through their teeth about being able to keep the health insurance and doctors you liked and wanted to keep.  A lie so bold it earned President Obama the Lie of the Year from PolitiFact.

Will this anger boil over this November at the 2014 midterm elections?  Will voters remember how the Democrats lied and made backroom deals to change a health care system we liked and wanted to keep?  Apparently President Obama thinks so.  Which is why he violated the law once again and extended the enrollment period for Obamacare.  Without having Congress rewrite the law.  To make this latest change in the Affordable Care Act (and the 30 or so that preceded it) legal.  But then again, when the media keeps giving the president a pass on his law-breaking activities what incentive does the administration have to act lawful?  It’s kind of like Vladimir Putin taking Crimea.  The way Putin sees it no one is going to do anything when he breaks the law so what incentive does he have to abide by international law?  If anything he’s probably puzzled why President Obama is saying anything at all.  For what’s a little law-breaking between two law breakers?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It Appears Obamacare was Designed to Fail so they could give us a Single-Payer System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats have longed for national health care.  Because if the government controls health care they control one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Which means one-sixth of the U.S. economy would flow through Washington.  That’s a lot of money.  And a lot of that can flow into politicians’ pockets.  Allowing them to spend more than they ever had before.  And the best thing about it is that once they get control of it they can scare the people into raising taxes.  “Unless the people tell their Congress members to raise tax rates we will have to make cuts in the national health care budget.  Which means some people won’t get the tests they need.  The treatment they need.  Or the surgery they need.”  Imagine the fear that’ll put into the American people.

So when President Clinton entered office his administration tried to give us national health care.  Hillarycare.  But the people said in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want national health care.  By voting Republicans in everywhere during the 1994 midterm election.  That was the end of Hillarycare.  And President Clinton moved to the center.  While the Democrats noted that if they were going to pass national health care into law they would have to be devious.  Which is what Obamacare apparently is.  A devious plan to get us to a single-payer system against our will (see Why Is the ObamaCare Mandate So Toothless? posted 3/19/2014 on Investors).

Health Care: Some think Democrats designed ObamaCare to fail so they could get to a single payer system. Seems a bit extreme. But it does help explain why they made the individual mandate so easy to avoid…

In fact, of the 30 million uninsured expected in 2016, 19 million will be exempt from the individual mandate, according to the Congressional Budget Office…

On top of this, ObamaCare includes various “hardship exemptions” — some of which appear to be so laughably easy to qualify for that it’ll be a shock if any uninsured pay the tax penalty…

The form even encourages people who “aren’t sure” to “ask for an exemption…”

What’s more, those who don’t qualify for an exemption could avoid the penalty simply by not paying it. Democrats specifically barred the IRS from charging civil and criminal penalties, imposing liens or seizing assets and bank accounts to collect unpaid ObamaCare penalties. It can take it only from a tax refund…

This leaves the question of why Democrats would make a key pillar of the ObamaCare structure so incredibly weak.

Were they worried about the political consequences of making the unpopular mandate too strict, not realizing it would undermine their reform? Or did they know that an ineffective mandate would ultimately wreck ObamaCare, hoping its demise would push the country toward a single payer system?

In other words, were Democrats dangerously incompetent or unbelievably cynical? Neither is a particularly good defense, but each underscores the need to scrap ObamaCare entirely and start over.

The health insurers were all for Obamacare.  At first.  Mandatory health insurance?  Cha-ching.  Easy money.  The government forcing people to buy their policies?  It’s like they died and went to insurance heaven.  But government is full of devious bastards.  The health insurers let their greed cloud that fact.  And now they may pay the ultimate price.  For with all of these mandate exceptions the young and healthy aren’t buying health insurance they won’t use.  Only sick people who will use that health insurance are buying it.  So the health insurers have far too much going out in claims and far too few premiums coming in.  Which won’t help a health insurer stay in business.  But, then again, that may have been the plan all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries