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: , , , , , , , , ,

Is the Road to National Health Care through Incompetence or Deviousness?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 19th, 2013

Politics 101

The American Left is always trying to Expand the Role of Government in our Lives

Hillary Clinton tried it.  When her husband was president.  Give us national health care.  But there was terrific blowback.  Because people didn’t want it.  For they were afraid it would take the best health care system in the world (it’s the United States the richest people in the world go to for their more serious health problems) and do, well, what Obamacare is doing to it now.

The American left is always trying to expand the role of government in our lives.  To make people more dependent on government.  Because once they are they will soon discover something very beneficial to the left.  They will learn that they need government.  And once they do they will keep voting for the party that promises to expand government ever more.

This is why the left so wants national health care.  For it makes people need government.  To stay alive.  And that pays big dividends at those annoying things that come around every 2 years that the left hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  Elections.

The Lesson the American Left learned from the Failure of Hillarycare was to Lie Better

Liberals are a bunch of elitists.  They think they are better and smarter than the rest of us.  Which is why they feel they have the right to tell us how to live our lives.  For in their eyes we’re just too stupid to know what’s best for us.  Much like the British nobles felt about their petulant North American colonists.  They’d have preferred we appreciated all that the Crown was doing for them.  Thank them.  And shut the hell up.  This is the mindset of the American left.

The British Crown did not like their American colonists questioning the established order of power.  Neither do liberals.  For they believe that they are a privileged class.  And should live under a different set of rules.  Like they continue to show us all the time as they implement Obamacare.  As they forced the majority of Americans to lose the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep waivers went out to those connected to the liberal ruling class.  And actual members of the ruling class.  Such as those Congressional staffers getting illegal subsidies for their gold-plated health care plans while ordinary Americans lost their bare-bones plans because the Affordable Care Act made them unaffordable.

Was this an unintended consequence of the Affordable Care Act?  Well, being that the promise that if you like your health insurance, doctors and medicine and wanted to keep them but now can’t as the year’s biggest lie, it makes one think.  If they lied why did they lie?  To do what was best for the American people?  Or was it because they learned a powerful lesson from the failure of Hillarycare?  That the people don’t want national health care.  So if that’s what you want you can’t tell the American people that.  No.  You lie to them.  Which is why President Obama and his fellow Democrats lied.  Because they knew the American people didn’t want the [deleted expletive] they were shoveling.

The American Left looks upon us with the same Contempt as the British Nobility looked upon the American Colonists

Originally the Affordable Care Act included a public option.  National health care for those who opted for national health care.  But this just didn’t pass the smell test.  For there were Democrats who had one of those nasty things they hated coming up.  An election.  And these Democrats knew that their constituents, though they voted Democrat, would not go for national health care in sheep’s clothing.  So they had to remove the public option from the bill.  For it was just too painfully obvious what their ultimate intentions were.  Which left them with Plan B.

People like their health insurance, doctors and medicine.  And you’re not going to usher in national health care when they have these things.  For they know that the VA and Medicaid (examples of national health care already in America) is second-class health care.  I mean, those rich people coming to the United States for their more serious health problems aren’t demanding to get into the VA or Medicaid programs.  So to get national health care you first have to destroy the private health insurance system.  And candidate Obama told the SEIU that it may take awhile (see The Fix Is In: From ObamaCare Set-Up To Single-Payer Solution by Larry Bell posted 11/26/2013 on Forbes).

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”

So is the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act just incompetence?  Or is it part of a devious plan to get what they always wanted?  National health care?  By first destroying the private health insurance that gave people the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep?  If it’s incompetence that isn’t good for the American people.  For these same incompetent people will now be in charge of our health care.  With our lives literally hanging in the balance.  Or are they just devious?  Which also isn’t good for the American people.  For it means they look upon us with the same contempt as the British nobility looked upon the American colonists.  Who only cared about what was best for their privileged class.  And not the American people.

The problem the left has is one of timing.  Yes they hold the American people in contempt and believe they are privileged.  But because of elections they have to be careful about letting these truths out.  Because if they lose the Senate and don’t get the House back in the next election it could throw a wrench into their plans.  They need to destroy the private health insurance industry.  But doing so will make people hate them.  And vote against them.  So on the one hand they have to get people dependent on government as soon as possible.  To get them to need government.  But if they move too fast they may anger the people so much that they may lose in the upcoming thing a privileged class hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  An election.  Which may cause them to lose their power.  This is the dilemma the left faces in the rollout of Obamacare.  The degree to which they [deleted expletive] the American people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Government as Usual, Making a Bad Financial Situation Worse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 8th, 2011

The Federal Debt is Bad; what we’re Adding is Worse than can be Imagined

If you thought the debt was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet (see U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions by Dennis Cauchon posted 6/7/2011 on USA Today).

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product.

The current outstanding U.S. debt is $14 trillion and change.  So, in addition to that debt, the U.S. has to borrow an additional $61.6 trillion sometime in the future.  Meanwhile they debate deficit reduction in Washington.  And the Obama administration is desperately trying to get the Republican-controlled House to raise the legal debt ceiling.  By a whopping $2.4 trillion.  You don’t have to be a whiz kid to see that something bad financially is coming this way.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

It’s those social democracy things.  The same things that are bankrupting countries in the European Union.  Free health care.  And free pensions (with everyone living longer people are collecting far, far more than they ever paid into these programs).  Which just goes to show that free things are very expensive.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $527,000 per household. That’s more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

Imagine yourself living as you are.  Working hard to pay your bills (mortgages, car loans and other debt).  And then adding another mortgage to the mix for a magnificent half-million dollar home.  Only without the home.  Just the mortgage payments.  If you’re not good at imagining that’s okay.  Because you’ll be living it within 20 years.  Can it get worse?

The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund’s key asset: federal IOUs.

Why, yes.  It can.  While you struggle to pay these enormous bills you can think about this.  Your civil servants.  The people that work for you.  They will be making about $173,000 more in retirement than you.  Their boss.  That ought to put a smile on your face.  And a skip in your step.

Here Comes National Health Care

And it’s going to get worse.  Because national health care is coming (see Study Sees Cuts to Health Plans by Janet Adamy posted 6/8/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after the bulk of the Obama administration’s health overhaul takes effect in 2014.

The findings come as a growing number of employers are seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers, unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the law’s requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts below $750,000 per person a year.

But the law doesn’t allow for such waivers starting in 2014, leaving all those entities—and other employers whose plans don’t meet a slate of new requirements—to change their offerings or drop coverage.

Bill Clinton lost the 1994 midterm election because he campaigned as a moderate and governed as a liberal.  With Hillarycare being the poster child of his liberal agenda.  Barack Obama lost the 2010 midterm election because he campaigned as a moderate and governed as a liberal.  With Obamacare being the poster child of his liberal agenda.  The people spoke.  Then.  And now.  They don’t want national health care.  That’s why Hillarycare failed.  And why they watered Obamacare down to be something short of national health care.  But Obamacare will serve its purpose.  It will kill the private health insurance market.  Setting the stage once and for all for national health care in the United States.

In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey found that 30% said they would “definitely or probably” stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high awareness of the overhaul law.

The Obamacare legislation was something like a thousand pages long.  Guaranteed to confuse.  In fact, it was so confusing that Democrats voted for it without reading it.  Republicans read as much of it as they could.  And because they saw what was in it they voted against it.  Those who take the time to read it don’t like it.  Including the 50% of employers surveyed.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March 2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven million people who otherwise would have had access to coverage through their job won’t have it owing to the new law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160 million people projected to have employment-based coverage in 2019.

So let’s crunch some numbers.  Private insurers can’t cap benefits below $750,000 per person per year.  Some 6-7 million people will lose their insurance because of Obamacare.  So if the government has to pick up the costs for half of the lower amount (3 million) of these people consuming $750,000 each that comes to…$2.25 trillion.  That’s a lot.  Now let’s say the 160 million who have employment-based coverage lose it.  And that half of them need $750,000 in benefits.  That comes to…$60 trillion.  How about that?  That’s about the same as the amount of the government’s unfunded financial liabilities. 

So, in addition to the $14 trillion or so in debt, there may be another $120 trillion that we’ll have to borrow.  And that’s a little more than the $2.4 trillion the Obama administration is desperately trying to get the House to approve.  And warn about dire consequences if the Republicans refuse to do so.  This reminds me of that scene in Jaws where Chief Brody was throwing out that chum to attract the shark.  It worked.  The shark appeared.  Only it was a lot bigger than Brody thought it’d be.  He told Captain Quint, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”  Because fighting a $120 trillion debt with a $2.4 trillion dingy is going to lose the battle.  And by ‘lose the battle’ I mean the United States will end up like Greece.  Only without anyone big enough to bail her out.

OPEC not increasing Oil Production, no Help for Depressed Economies

That’s some pretty doleful news.  Maybe there’s a white knight rushing to the rescue.  Perhaps the economy will rebound and go gang busters.  Maybe the United States will grow itself out of this debt sinkhole (see OPEC Keeps Lid on Oil Production Targets by The Associated Press posted 6/8/2011 posted on The New York Times).

OPEC decided on Wednesday to maintain its crude oil output levels and meet again within three months to discuss a possible production increase.

The decision was unexpected and reflected unusual tensions in an organization that usually works by consensus.

Saudi Arabia and other influential oil-producing nations had pushed to increase production ceilings to calm markets and ease concerns that crude was overpriced for consumer nations struggling with their economies.

To quote a line from Planes, Trains and Automobiles, they have a better chance of playing pickup sticks with their butt cheeks.  The moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico put pressure on supply.  Then the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa added more.  The recession had kept oil down for the last year or so.  But with supply being squeezed that wasn’t going to last.  It’s back up.  With an assist from Ben Bernanke.  Whose quantitative easing devalued the dollar and sparked some inflation.  For we buy and sell the world’s oil in U.S. dollars.  So consumer prices are up.  While high unemployment and flat wages continue to make life hard for the American consumer.

Those opposed were led by Iran, the second-strongest producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries…

Iran and Venezuela came to the meeting opposing any move to increase output, which would have probably lowered prices for benchmark crude from the present levels of around $100 a barrel.

But OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia, which favors prices of around $80 a barrel, wanted higher production levels — and served notice that it was prepared to raise production unilaterally, to close to 10 million barrels a day from its present daily production of about 8.7 million barrels.

How about that?  Our enemies want to keep the price of oil up.  While our friends want to bring it back down to $80 per barrel.  Yet the Obama administration demanded that Mubarak step down from power in Egypt (a move the Saudis did not like as Egypt was anti-Iran and kept a lid on radical Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood) while doing nothing to help the democracy movement in Iran.  And Obama himself has a close and personal relationship with the Venezuelan dictator.  Hugo Chavez.

Policies like these will do little to bring the price of oil down.  Or make the economy rebound and go gang busters.  So there’s little hope of the U.S. growing its way out of their unfunded financial obligations. 

Monetary Policy doing more Harm than Good

And it doesn’t help to have Big Government Keynesians trying to fix things (see Sizing up the Fed’s few options by Cyrus Sanati posted 6/8/2011 on CNNMoney).

At the time the Fed began its second round of quantitative easing, inflation was low, so Bernanke felt comfortable instituting a program that would see $600 billion injected into the economy. After all, how much inflation can $600 billion cause when the country has a national debt load of $14 trillion and a personal debt load of $30 trillion?

Inflation has jumped in the last three months at a much faster pace than historical averages. The consumer price index rose by 6.1% annually during the April quarter, and core CPI, which excludes food and energy, rose by 2%. Such an accelerated move in inflation would be explainable if there was strong economic growth, but that’s not the case.

Higher prices without economic growth.  We saw this in the Seventies.  Under Jimmy Carter.  His treasury secretary, Paul Volcker, raised rates to reduce inflation.  Interest rates soared.  But he tamed inflation.  And he didn’t do it with quantitative easing.  He did it by doing the exact opposite.  Bernanke could learn a lesson from Volcker.

“If you’re Bernanke and you are seeing this rapid acceleration in core inflation and a high unemployment rate, you got to be thinking to yourself, ‘Gee, my models aren’t working right,'” says Drew Matus, senior U.S. economist at UBS Investment Research. “This should cause more caution in the part of the Fed and it is this caution that will keep them from doing QE3.”

Yes.  The models don’t work.  They’ve never worked.  And never will.  Because monetary policy is not the be all and end all of economic activity.  Think of it this way.  Say there is a restaurant not doing well.  The Keynesian would help that restaurant with monetary policy.  It would lower prices on the menu.  To make the menu items cheaper (like making money cheaper to borrow from a bank).  The only problem is that this restaurant has problems.  People aren’t going there.  The food is bad, the service is poor and it’s dirty.  Lowering the menu prices isn’t going to fix those problems.  So lowering prices is not going to bring the people back.  Just as making money cheap to borrow won’t bring the consumers back to the market.

People need Disposable Income and Responsible Government

Unemployment is high.  A lot of people have no jobs.  Or disposable income.  Meanwhile, prices are going up.  Leaving even less disposable income.  Businesses aren’t going to borrow cheap money to hire people to expand production.  Because current production levels are already in excess of current demand.

People need disposable income.  Inflation is taking that money away from the people.  And two things are driving inflation.  High oil prices (demand greater than supply).  And bad monetary policy (a devalued dollar increases the price of oil and everything else).  We need to fix these things.  We need to drill.  We need to increase American production of oil.  And we need to stop printing money.  We need to do these two things ASAP.

Then we need to address the insanity of spending money we don’t have.  And stop it.  Sooner or later, we have to address entitlements.  Actually, later may no longer be an option.  With $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the pipeline.  And with Obamacare potentially adding another $60 trillion.  That’s just too much.  Trying to pay this will kill economic activity.  It will require more taxes, more borrowing and more printing.  Everyone of which will increase the cost of doing business or investing.  Which will ultimately kill jobs.  Giving people even less disposable income.

Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”  That’s why they designed the republic to have disinterested, responsible people between the treasury and the people.  But that was then.  When disinterested, responsible people were in government.  Perhaps not everyone, but enough to keep the republic solvent.  Today most serve themselves.  The treasury is just a tool to buy votes.  And to hell with the consequences because most of them will be dead by the time the republic ends.

So don’t expect them to do the right thing anytime soon.  Because doing the right thing will not make their lives better.  Only ours.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

It Ain’t 1996 – Obama’s path to Reelection isn’t Quite the same Road Clinton Traveled

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 24th, 2011

Obama Doesn’t have the Healthcare and Economic Edge Clinton Had

Clinton was lucky.  Hillarycare (Clinton’s attempt to ‘nationalize’ healthcare) was a disaster.  It crashed and burned.  So it was off the table come reelection time.  And he had a smoking hot economy.  He had both a real estate bubble and a dot-com bubble.  Now, strictly speaking, bubbles aren’t good things.  Because they burst.  And recessions follow the bursting.  But until they burst, you got a smoking hot economy with low unemployment numbers.  Just the kind of things that gets presidents reelected.  REDSTATE has a list of other things, but let’s focus on items 3 & 4 in their list (see Why 2012 Is Not 1996 by Dan McLaughlin posted 1/24/2011 on REDSTATE).

3: Obamacare passed; Hillarycare didn’t: As unpopular as the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was, it wasn’t a major issue in the 1996 campaign because it had failed and, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, it wasn’t coming back…Not so Obamacare, which remains very much a live issue.

4: The Economy: The unemployment rate is the most obvious of numerous economic indicators showing the U.S. economy in bad shape in 2011: unemployment, as low as 4.3% when voters elected the Democrats to control Congress in November 2006, was 6.5% when Obama was elected and 8.5% when he was inaugurated, and he expended much political capital arguing that his “stimulus” package would fix this with federal spending on “shovel-ready” projects; instead it peaked at 10.6% in January 2010, and remains above 9% a year later. These are very high numbers historically; since 1960, the unemployment rate has been above 6% on election day five times, and the only time the party in power wasn’t booted was 1984, when the 7.2% rate was the lowest it had been since before President Reagan took office and had plunged more than three points in two years. By contrast, the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.4%, down from 7.4% when Bill Clinton was elected. If Obama can’t make the argument that Presidents Reagan and Clinton made – that they were not only making major headway on unemployment but in better shape than they were when elected (in Reagan’s case, the slight drop in unemployment was accompanied by an enormous drop in interest rates and inflation and a stock market boom) – he’ll face an electorate that is much more suspicious of entrusting him with the economy for four more years.

Historically speaking, history will favor who is not Obama in 2012 on these two issues.  And they’re about the biggest issues you can have.  A recession that just keeps on keeping on.  And a massive explosion in new spending.  Which can’t possibly help anything economic.

Old People and Jobs:  One Unpleasant Tradeoff

And there you have the ultimate showdown.  Obamacare versus the economy.  More spending and even more taxes.  Or less spending, less taxes and more jobs.  On one side you have emotional tugs of the heartstring (we have to help those poor uninsured people).  The other you have reality (we can’t raise taxes or borrow anymore without ending up like Greece).   

Obama may go Clinton.  And Clinton scored some big points with Welfare reform.  Obama has a chance to reform Medicare.  It is, after all, a part of Obamacare.  Gutting Medicare.  But Medicare is not welfare.  Those old people are a powerful voting bloc.  Will anyone, especially a Democrat, throw himself onto that ‘third rail’ (see Health care and the contest of credibility by Michael Gerson posted 1/25/2011 on The Washington Post)?

With Jack Lew and Gene Sperling in charge of its economic policy, the administration’s Clintonian direction is clear. It will seek higher revenue, cuts in defense, spending caps and more aggressive health-care price controls. When measuring deficit reduction, the last is the most important. It is the combination of cost inflation, an aging population and expansive health entitlements that push America toward the fate of Greece. Unless this problem is addressed, no tax increase or cut in discretionary spending will cause federal outlays to flatten at a sustainable percentage of the economy.

Higher revenue means higher taxes.  This is why Obamacare ‘reduces’ the deficit.  It has more new taxes than new spending in it.  But it’s a poor way to reduce the deficit.  If you have a problem because you’ve spent too much on your credit cards, what’s the easiest way to fix that problem?  Increase your revenue (i.e., your salary)?  Or cut your spending?  Of the two, you have far more power over spending cuts than you do on increasing your revenue.  So the smart money always goes on spending cuts to cut any deficit.  If you’re spending too much you just stop spending so much.  Pretty simple and straight forward.

But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is spending on old people (Medicare and Social Security).  We’re spending a fortune on increasing the life of the old so they can keep on collecting social security.  You’d have to be an idiot to not see the problem with that in an ‘entitlement-based’ government.

“The fact is,” says Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “Medicare is going to crush the government, and if Republicans leave it unreformed then the debt picture is very, very ugly. They might never – literally never – show the budget reaching balance. Not in the 10-year window and not if they take their graphs out a hundred years. Obama could probably show balance just past the budget window in the middle of the next decade because of the massive Medicare cuts he proposes, even if in practice they will never actually happen.”

Incidentally, those “massive Medicare cuts” he proposed was how he got CBO to favorably score Obamacare.  Without those cuts Obamacare would never have gotten any traction because of the massive cost.  Even with the massive tax increases.

So you see the grim picture? 

The Democratic approach to Medicare cuts would give doctors and providers less and less money while expecting them to cover the same services. “In reality,” says Levin, “providers won’t just provide the same care for less money – some will stop taking Medicare patients, some will go out of business, and some will reduce the level of care or amenities. That’s what we see in every system that takes this approach to cost control: waiting lines, dirty, unsafe hospitals with horrible food and amenities.”

And this is nationalized healthcare.  Healthcare for everyone.  All at an equally horrible standard.  Unless you’re in the government, of course.  Or are affluent enough to fly somewhere where there still is quality healthcare.

Pity the Poor Democrat son of a bitch Running in 2016

Obamacare benefits don’t really kick in until after the 2012 elections.  So when rationing kicks in and the ‘death panels’ start thinning the herd, it will be after the 2012 elections.  This may help.  The quality of our healthcare (Medicare and Obamacare) won’t really really suck until later.  However, taxes, regulations and mandates (and waivers) are kicking in before the benefits.  So the economy will still be in the toilet.  There might still be some tricks in the election bag to pull off reelection.  Who knows?  But one thing for sure.  Pity the poor Democrat son of a bitch running in 2016.  Because he or she will have to answer for the unprecedented mess their predecessor gave us.  Perpetual recession.  And horrible healthcare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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