FT219: “Obamacare will give us rationing and long wait times like America’s other national health care: the VA.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 25th, 2014

Fundamental truth

Our Veterans have been Wounded and Maimed and we thank them for their Service with the VA

Where do the rich and famous go when they go to a hospital?  They can afford the best.  So you will hear hospitals like Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Mount Sinai, etc.  The crème de la crème of the best health care system in the world.  But one name you won’t hear?  Any VA hospital.

Rich and famous people have something our veterans don’t.  Choice.  They can choose to go to the crème de la crème of the best health care system in the world.  While our veterans have no choice but to go to the dregs of the best health care system in the world.  Very often the worst place you can go in the United States for health care.

It’s sad, really.  For our veterans have given more than any other American.  They have put themselves in harm’s way.  Had people shoot at them.  Lob hand grenades at them.  Had mortar rounds and artillery rounds land near them.  And had improvised explosive devices (IED) detonate around them.  Our veterans have been wounded and maimed and faced the hell of combat.  And our thanks for their volunteering to do this for us?  The VA.

Our VA Hospitals are so bad because they know our Military will be good Soldiers and Wait

There aren’t a lot of VA hospitals around.  So some veterans have to travel to get to one.  And when they get there they have to wait.  As there are a lot of other veterans in the waiting room with them.  Because there aren’t a lot of VA hospitals around.  But that’s not the only waiting they’re going to do.

If they need surgery or treatment there will be even more waiting.  A lot more waiting.  Because there aren’t a lot of VA hospitals around.  Or a lot of VA health care providers.  Or a lot of VA diagnostic equipment.  Which means they have to ration out health care in our VA hospitals.  And when you ration health care you make people wait longer for treatment.  An alien concept for the rich and famous.  Who get what they want when they want it.  Because they have choice.

Our veterans, on the other hand, continue to be good soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen.  And wait.  Just like the old military joke to ‘hurry up and wait’.  Where they will get up before dawn to wait on the tarmac for 4 hours to board an aircraft.  So we’ve trained our military personnel well in waiting.  Perhaps this why our VA hospitals are so bad.  Because they know our military will be good soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen.  And wait.

VA Hospitals are run so poorly that Veterans are dying as they wait for this National Health Care

The sad thing is that some of our veterans are waiting so long that they are dying (see A fatal wait: Veterans languish and die on a VA hospital’s secret list by Scott Bronstein and Drew Griffin posted 4/24/2014 on CNN).  Because rationing leads to longer wait times.  And longer wait times lead to more deaths.  And this is why the VA hospitals (America’s national health care) are the dregs of the best health care system in the world.

The American left wants national health care.  They want VA hospitals for everyone.  Except them, of course.  For they will be going to the hospitals the rich and famous go to.  But it’s VA hospitals for the rest of us.  Where they will ration health care.  Increase wait times.  And provide some of the most inefficient health care service.  Another reason veterans have to wait so long is that the VA still uses paper records.  Like they did before the 1970s.

The left settled for Obamacare.  They wanted national health care but accepted Obamacare as a stepping stone to national health care.  For they think the government can run health care better than the private sector.  Even though they’ve been running the VA for decades without ever modernizing it.  The government runs the VA hospitals so inefficiently that veterans are dying as they wait for this rationed national health care.  But these same people who can’t bring the VA into the 20th century say they can improve the crème de la crème of the best health care system in the world.  But if they do the VA poorly they will do all national health care poorly.  Because the government just can’t do anything well.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare is even less Consumer-Friendly than Cable/Television/Telephone Television

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Currently there are no market forces in health care.  Which is why health care costs are so high.  When buyers and sellers meet they always agree on a price that makes them both feel like winners.  Just watch an episode of one of those pawn shop shows.  The seller wants a higher price.  The buyer wants to pay a lower price.  As they move towards each other they arrive at a price that makes them both happy.  The seller gets an amount of money he values more than the thing he’s selling.  And the buyer is getting something he values more than the money he’s paying for it.  Making them both feel like winners.

It’s not like this in health care.  Because there is a third party between the buyer and seller.  Either an insurance company.  Or the government.  Just like there is a third party between networks’ programming content and the consumer.  The cable/satellite/phone company (see Why Your Cable Bill Keeps Going Up by Evan Weiner posted 4/12/2014 on The Daily Beast).

The television networks and the television carriers, whether it’s through cable, satellite or phone lines, carriers seeming are always fighting these days over the cost of programming and what rights’ fees should be. The rights’ fee is what a television carrier pays for a networks programming. The carrier then passes that cost along to consumers and tacks on an additional fee because they too feel the need to be compensated for bringing the program into a home.

The injured party is the subscribers who have little course to affect the talks unless they decide to drop their provider for another, and there is no guarantee switching to another provider will end TV blackouts…

Thanks to the 1984 Cable TV Act, cable subscribers have really no say in what they want for their needs. The cable carrier was allowed to establish tiers of services. The consumer could take a local, basic tier alone or basic and basic extended but would have no choice in what they wanted to buy and were forced to take whatever the multiple system operative wants to give them or they opt out of having cable TV. The same apparently holds true for satellite TV and the phone companies.

Cable/satellite/telephone television is like Obamacare.  As consumers can’t keep the programming they liked and wanted to keep.  As it is for Obamacare.  Where people who had health insurance they liked and wanted to keep could not keep it.  Instead, a third party, the government, forced them to buy a tier of health insurance they did not want.  Only they do not have the option to opt out of Obamacare.  Because buying health insurance is mandatory.  Unlike cable/satellite/telephone television.  For as much as we may hate our cable/satellite/telephone companies at least we don’t have to buy from them under penalty of law.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cash Flow

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 24th, 2014

Economics 101

New Complex and Confusing Regulatory Policies require Additional Accounting and Legal Fees to Comply

There have been demonstrations  to raise the minimum wage.  President Obama even called for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.  He also wants employers to pay salaried people overtime.  There have been demands for paid family leave (paying people for not working).  Unions want to organize businesses.  To get employers to pay union wages.  Provide union health care packages.  And union pensions.  Obamacare has made costly health insurance mandatory for all employees working 30 hours or more a week.

Environmental regulations have increased energy costs for businesses.  Sexual harassment training, safety training, on-the-job training (even people leaving college have to be trained before they are useful to many employers), etc., raise costs for businesses.  New financial reporting requirements require additional accounting fees to sort through.  New complex and confusing regulatory policies require additional legal fees to sort through them and comply.

With each payroll an employer has to pay state unemployment tax.  Federal unemployment tax.  Social Security tax (half of it withheld from each employee’s paycheck and half out of their pocket).  Medicare tax.  And workers’ compensation insurance.  Then there’s health insurance.  Vehicle insurance.  Sales tax.  Use tax.  Real property tax.  Personal property tax.  Licenses.  Fees.  Dues.  Office supplies.  Utilities.  Postage.  High speed Internet.  Tech support to thwart Internet attacks.  Coffee.  Snow removal.  Landscaping.  Etc.  And, of course, the labor, material, equipment and direct expenses used to produce sales.

The Problem with Guaranteed Work Hours is that there is no such thing as Guaranteed Sales

The worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression has created a dearth of full-time jobs.  In large part due to Obamacare.  As some employers struggling in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression can’t afford to offer their full-time employees health insurance.  So they’re not hiring full-time employees.  And are pushing full-time employees to part-time.  Because they can’t afford to add anymore overhead costs.  Which is hurting a lot of people who are having their own problems trying to make ends meet in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Especially part-time workers.

Now there is a new push by those on the left to make employers give a 21-day notice for work schedules for part time and ‘on call’ workers.  And to guarantee them at least 20 hours a week.  Things that are just impossible to do in many small retail businesses.  As anyone who has ever worked in a small retail business can attest to.  You can schedule people to week 3 weeks in advance but what do you do when they don’t show up for work?  Which happens.  A lot.  Especially when the weather is nice.  Or on a Saturday or Sunday morning.  As some people party so much on Friday and Saturday night that they are just too hung over to go to work.  Normally you call someone else to take their shift.  Then reschedule the rest of the week.  So you don’t give too many hours to the person who filled in.  In part to keep them under 30 hours to avoid the Obamacare penalty.  But also because the other workers will get mad if that person gets more hours than they did.

The problem with guaranteed work hours is that there is no such thing as guaranteed sales.  If you schedule 5 workers 3 weeks in advance and a blizzard paralyzes the city you may not have 5 workers worth of sales.  Because people are staying home.  And if no one is coming through your doors you’re not going to want to pay 5 people to stand around and do nothing.  For with no sales where is the money going to come from to pay these workers?  Either out of the business owner’s personal bank account.  Or they will have to borrow money.  It is easy to say we should guarantee workers a minimum number of work hours.  But should a business owner have to lose money so they can?  For contrary to popular belief, business owners are not all billionaires with money to burn.  Instead, they are people losing sleep over something called cash flow.

Cash Flow is everything to a Small Business Owner because it takes Cash to pay all of their Bills

To understand cash flow imagine a large bucket full of holes.  You pour water in it and it leaks right out.  That water leaking out is expenses.  The cost of doing business (see all of those costs above).  A business owner has to keep that bucket from running out of water.  And there is only one way to do it.  By pouring new water into the bucket to replace the water leaking out.  That new water is sales revenue.  What customers pay them for their products and/or services.  For a business to remain in business they must keep water in that bucket.  For if it runs out of water they can’t pay all of their expenses.  They’ll become insolvent.  And may have no choice but to file bankruptcy.  At which point they’ll have to get a job working for someone else.

Cash flow is everything to a small business owner.  Because it takes cash to pay all of their bills.  Payroll, insurance, taxes, etc.  None of which they can NOT pay.  For if they do NOT pay these bills their employees will quit.  Their insurers will cancel their policies.  And the taxman will pay them a visit.  Which will be very, very unpleasant.  So small business owners have to make sure that at least the same amount of water is going into the bucket that is draining out of the bucket to pay their bills.  And they have to make sure more water is entering the bucket than is draining out of the bucket to pay themselves.  And to grow their business.

This is why business owners don’t want to hire full-time people now.  Because full-time people require a lot of cash (wages/salary, payroll taxes, insurances, training, etc.).  They’re nervous.  For they don’t know what next will come out of the Obama administration that will require additional cash.  For every time they want to make life better for the workers (a higher minimum wage, overtime for salaried employees, guaranteed hours, etc.) it takes more cash.  Which comes from sales.  And if sales are down future cash flow into the business will also be down.  Leaving less available for all of those holes in the bucket.  So they guard their cash closely.  And are very wary of incurring any new cash obligations.  Lest they run out of cash.  And have to file bankruptcy.  Which is why they lose sleep over cash flow.  Especially now during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

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: , , , , , , , , ,

Canadian Hospitals suffer from Overcrowding in British Columbia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

The left likes to say we’re idiots here in the United States.  Because every other advanced economy has national health care.  Of course, every other advanced economy doesn’t have the best health care system in the world.  No.  That honor goes to the United States.  And perhaps NOT having national health care is the reason why we have the best health care system in the world.  For those national health care systems have their problems.  Even the system north of the border the American left yearns to have.  The Canadian single-payer system (see New B.C. seniors advocate to focus on needs of growing elderly population by ROB SHAW posted 3/19/2014 on The Vancouver Sun).

Isobel Mackenzie, a longtime Victoria seniors care administrator, was named Wednesday as the province’s first seniors advocate, more than 16 months after the office was first announced…

There are more than 700,000 seniors in B.C. and that’s expected to double to 1.4 million over the next 20 years…

Mackenzie said she’s not sure if her office will get involved in how hospital overcrowding is affecting seniors care, and sidestepped a reporter’s question at her press conference Wednesday about the case of an elderly man who had spent eight hours waiting in a hospital emergency room…

“Obviously, health care is a priority and home care – giving support to people so they can stay at their home and healthy,” she said.

Logan said the government tried an “experiment” of providing funding to United Way but they’ve been “overloaded with requests.”

All of the advanced economies share something in common.  They all have an aging population.  Thanks to birth control and abortion people in the advanced economies stopped having babies after the Sixties like they used to have.  Which is why the seniors are now the largest growing sector of the population.  We have fewer people entering the workforce to pay the taxes that support a greater number of people leaving the workforce.  And thanks to modern medicine, these people are living long into retirement.  Which is why Canadian hospitals in British Columbia are overcrowded.  Which lead to longer wait times and the rationing of care.  Things common with national health care.  And these things are only going to get worse as their aging populations age further.

This is the future of Obamacare.  For the Affordable Care Act is already proving unaffordable to those who have to pay.  And people are losing the health insurance and the doctors they liked and wanted to keep.  A lot of doctors are opting out of Obamacare.  Leaving fewer in the system to treat a larger number of patients.  Which will, of course, lead to longer wait times and the rationing of care.  Just like in Canada.  And in every other advanced economy with a national health care system.  Which is why the United States is the only advanced economy without a national health care system.  Because Americans don’t want longer wait times and the rationing of care.  And they don’t want the Affordable Care Act.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries