The Government Bureaucracy will make Health Care as Abysmal as the Obamacare Rollout

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Government wants to run everything.  And they think they can fix anything.  But few people want to deal with the government.  No one enjoys renewing their driver’s license.  Or dealing with any other government bureaucracy.   Because they know it will not be a quick or an enjoyable experience.  They’d much rather go to a store or a restaurant.  Any place in the private sector where the customer is king.  This is what people prefer.  And yet here we are.  Turing over our health care to the people we least like having to deal with.  But really now, how bad can it be (see HHS official resigns with scathing letter, rips ‘dysfunctional’ bureaucracy by Kellan Howell posted 3/15/2014 on The Washington Times)?

A top Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official resigned, accusing the agency of fostering a “dysfunctional” environment on the way out…

Mr. Wright wrote that his research was rewarding but that it only accounted for 35 percent of his job. The rest of his time was spent “navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy.”

According to Mr. Wright’s letter, tasks that took a couple of days at a university research center, required weeks or months and that the budget was micromanaged by senior officials.

If you ever wondered why the rollout of Obamacare was so abysmal this is why.  Because HHS is abysmal.  As all government bureaucracies are.  A bunch of career bureaucrats who are more interested in maintaining their beloved bureaucracy than making the customer king.  For the more complex and convoluted their bureaucracy is the more their jobs are secured.  And the bigger they grow the more funding they can get.  Bureaucrats love that.  Because there will always be a place for them in the government.  So they will never have to get a job in the private sector.  Where people hire based on merit.  Where they only keep people who have value.  And fire anyone doing a horrible job.  Like the kind of job the people who rolled our Obamacare did.  Which is why they want nothing to do with the private sector.  Preferring to stay snug and warm in the cocoon of their bureaucracy.  Comforted by the fact they can remain there no matter how incompetent or irrelevant they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Repealing Obamacare has a larger Scientific Consensus than Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2014

Week in Review

If you’re a fan of alpine skiing you probably were disappointed with the Sochi games.  Because it was too warm.  In fact, they were the warmest Winter Games ever (see It’s Official: Sochi Was the Warmest Winter Olympics Ever by Eric Holthaus posted 2/24/2014 on Slate).

In what was painfully obvious to each and every viewer, the just-completed celebration of snow sports in the southern Russia resort city of Sochi was the warmest Winter Olympics ever.

The Olympics were plagued by spring-like weather: Skiers landed in puddles at the bottom of their runs, snow was trucked in from more northern mountains, and tourists were caught sunbathing between events.

A comprehensive analysis by American meteorologist Matt Lanza, updated on Monday, showed Sochi was head-and-shoulders the warmest Winter Olympics since at least 1950, as far back as reliable weather records go.

Now, to be fair, Sochi had a head start. It has the warmest average climate of any winter Olympics venue in history. But it was even warmer than normal this month in southern Russia: The highest temperature recorded during the games was a whopping 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Six days were in the 60s.

Of course there are those that are saying this is further proof that the planet is warming.  Because of manmade carbon emissions.  And they have the data to prove it.  Because they have ‘reliable’ weather records going all the way back to 1950.  Some 64 years ago.  That is, they have reliable data covering 0.0000013% of the climate history of the planet.  So there you have it.  The science of manmade global warming is settled.  At least they say there is a scientific consensus.

It’s a pity we can’t use such ‘scientific’ sampling like that to determine whether or not to repeal Obamacare.  Because if we did all we would have to do is find 2 people out of one million who say it should be repealed.  For 2 out of one million is 0.000002%.  Which is greater than 0.0000013%.  And the odds of finding 2 people out of one million that would want to repeal Obamacare are pretty good.  Just as good as the odds of finding a favorable weather pattern in 64 years out of a total of 5 billion years of weather to settle the science of global warming.  But the left would never repeal Obamacare if only 0.000002% of the people wanting it repealed.  For they’re refusing to repeal it now even though a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows 42% of those asked want a full repeal of Obamacare.

For the left 0.0000013% settles science when it comes to their junk science.  But 42% is only a statistical anomaly when it goes against their political agenda.  Showing how ridiculous both global warming and Obamacare are.  And how arrogant and deceitful they are when it comes to their political agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

More Budget Cuts increase Wait Times to see Doctor in the National Health Service

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The problem with national health care is that it is zero-sum when it comes to budgeting.  There is one big pie of funding that they divide throughout the system to pay for all of its parts.  But anyone who has ever paid attention to a budget debate in Washington has seen that there is never enough in the pie.  And no one is ever satisfied with their slice of the pie.  Worse, every department will spend every last cent in their appropriation lest they reduce next year’s appropriation by the amount of any unspent funds in this year’s appropriation.  No matter how wasteful that spending is.  Such as for conferences in Las Vegas.  Or extravagant office parties at home.

Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) is straining under the cost of an aging population.  More people are leaving the workforce than are entering it.  Which means fewer people are paying taxes.  Just as the number of people using the resources of the NHS is growing.  Forcing the NHS to do more with less.  Which has everyone complaining about their chunk of the NHS budget (see ‘Unprecedented’ cuts see GPs warn half of Britain will be unable to get appointments by Charlie Cooper posted 2/23/2014 on The Independent).

More than 34 million people will fail to secure an appointment with their doctor at some point this year, the GP’s professional body has claimed, blaming “unprecedented” cuts to funding for family practices.

The Royal College of General Practitioners said that the profession was “on its knees” and called for GPs to get a larger share of the NHS budget.

However, the Department of Health dismissed their findings – which would imply that more than half the UK population will miss out an appointment this year – as “complete nonsense” and accused the college of “sensationalising” the issue.

General practice has seen its share of the NHS budget – which totalled more than £109bn in England last year – significantly eroded in recent years, from 11 per cent in 2005/06 to 8.5 per cent in 2011/12…

“GPs and practice nurses want to provide high quality care for every single patient who seeks a consultation, and over the last decade we have increased the number of patients we see each year in England by 40m,” she said. “However [we] can’t keep doing more for less…”

“The GP survey showed the vast majority of patients are satisfied with their GP and rated their experience of making an appointment as good,” the spokesperson said, adding that GPs had been given an extra £50m to modernise services and stay open longer.

Whenever you want to see your doctor you need to make an appointment.  In the NHS that could take a few weeks.  Which is driving a lot of people to the A/E (accident and emergency departments).  Because they are sick now.  And don’t want to wait 2 weeks to see a doctor to get an antibiotic for their strep throat.

If you read the comments following the linked article you can get a feeling of what the British people think about the NHS.  And an idea of what Obamacare may lead to.  They love their NHS.  But are exasperated by it.  Some think the doctors are too greedy.  But there isn’t a mad rush to become a doctor to relieve the doctor shortage.  So whatever the pay is it isn’t enough to get people to join the profession.  Which ultimately increases the wait times to see a doctor.

The problem is that aging population.  People who remember a kinder and gentler NHS remember one before the baby boomers retired and overloaded the system.  Who are living longer into retirement.  Consuming more of the NHS’ limited resources than people did before the baby boomers retired.  Had Britain (and every other advanced economy) not reduced its birthrate around the Sixties they would not have this problem now.  But they did.  So they are.  As we will, too.  And every other advanced economy with an aging population will.  Making it a very bad time for national health care.  Yet President Obama and the Democrats have given us Obamacare at precisely this time.  Which is guaranteed to make health care in the United States worse.  If you don’t believe that just read the comments following the linked article.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

For an Idea of what National Health Care would be like just ride Metro-North

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

People don’t want national health care.  Which is why President Obama lied when he said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”  Because if he told the truth and told people they would lose the health care plans and doctors they liked and wanted to keep they would have opposed the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) with a passion.  For they would have seen the Affordable Care Act as nothing but a prelude for national health care.  A health care system run by government.  And we know how well government runs things (see The Perils of Metro-North by Lynnley Browning posted 2/20/2014 on Newsweek).

The high-profile trains, run by the state of New York entity Metro North Commuter Railroad, convey middle-class commuters but also a sizable chunk of the 1 percent, all along a 74-mile stretch between New Haven, Conn., and New York City — to hedge funds in Connecticut and to global banks, consulting, design and advertising firms in Manhattan. But these days, the rail’s increasingly delay-plagued service to one of the planet’s largest metropolises seems less an odd contrast of Third World and First World and more a taste of Dante’s Inferno…

Epic frustration and stress have reached an inflection point for the estimated 136,600 weekday riders on Metro-North’s New Haven Line, the transportation lifeblood of America’s monied and professional class living in Connecticut and working in New York (though some riders reverse commute to hedge funds in Greenwich and banks in Stamford). Long plagued by outdated cars, sketchy, aging tracks and accusations of mismanagement, the commuter rail has seen its dwindling reputation tarnished further in recent months by mishaps and delays, some lasting hours in freezing, unheated cars…

The entire line needs $3.6 billion in urgent repairs, according to the Regional Plan Association, an independent think tank.

Trash and piles of metal parts line many tracks. Smelly cars dating to the 1970s shake passengers in stiff seats from side to side like livestock. Floors are perpetually grimy, and train cars are in short supply. Expensive equipment sits idle. “One day the toilet flooded and the water was just seeping into the vestibule,” recalls Noelle Villanueva, a trader at First New York Securities who commutes from Fairfield, Conn., a large commuter town.

Engineers – the people driving the trains – occasionally “overshoot” their stops and, if the tracks allow it, have to back up, leaving commuters like Lamorte to wonder if the people behind the wheel are asleep, or drunk. Trains come in unannounced on the wrong platform, sending riders to scamper like voles across crumbling overhead passageways to the correct platform. A 117-year-old bridge spanning the Norwalk River, in Norwalk, Conn., sports gaping holes beside the tracks. “They have a rescue boat, but the guy’s usually 1,000 feet away, fishing, so you’ll be dead by the time he gets to you,” says Bill, an ironworker for Metro-North. (He declined to give his last name, citing a fear of retaliation…)

Commuters are increasingly wondering when someone else might die. Late last July, as temperatures soared near 100 degrees, a train near Westport broke down in the afternoon, leaving passengers, including several pregnant women, trapped in unairconditioned cars whose doors and windows would not open…

The lack of communication – think digital signs at stations that almost uniformly announce “Good service” – irks riders, some of whom pay $400 a month and more.

Passenger rail is a horrible economic model.  The costs are so great that it is virtually impossible for it to work without government subsidies.  But in places like the island of Manhattan there are few viable transportation options.  For though costly it can move a lot of people into and out of a very congested city.  But the problem with passenger rail in big cities is all the other big city problems that come with it.  Unions, lack of competition, corruption, etc.  It’s so bad that even when some of the 136,600 weekday riders pay $400 a month (the equivalent of a car payment) the money is so mismanaged that wear and tear adds up on the system over time to the tune of $3.6 billion.  Which is why people don’t want national health care.  They don’t want a health care system operated like Metro-North.  Which is why they are so mad at President Obama for his lie about Obamacare.  And taking away the health care plans and doctors they liked and wanted to keep.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Businesses and Jobs tend to move from Countries with High Regulatory Costs to ones with Low Regulatory Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

A business is an investment.  Business owners invest capital and labor to make money.  Just like people buy government bonds to make money.  Of course, investing in government bonds is safe but it doesn’t create any jobs.  So we prefer when investors invest in a business.  Because a business will create jobs.

So where would investors prefer to risk their money?   That depends on the expected return on investment.  Historically there was always more money to be made in a business.  But higher regulatory costs have reduced that return on investment.  Leading a lot of investors to turn to government bonds.  Or to move their businesses to another country.  One with a less costly regulatory environment (see The rich world needs to cut red tape to encourage business posted 2/22/2014 on The Economist).

Singapore has come out on top as the least burdensome for the past eight years (see chart 3), whereas many EU countries are bumping along near the bottom. Of the 148 countries surveyed in 2013, Spain was ranked 125th, France 130th, Portugal 132nd, Greece 144th and Italy 146th.

Americans who complain about the Obama administration’s unhelpfulness towards business will also note ruefully that over the past seven years their country has slipped from 23rd to 80th place…

Broadly speaking, in recent years emerging markets seem to have been cutting their red tape whereas the rich world has been strengthening its regulatory regime…

But not all labour laws are equally useful. In much of Europe the problem is that regulations designed to protect existing workers from unfair dismissal often make employers reluctant to take on new ones. One international executive recounts the tale of a French worker who had been with his employer for just three years but was entitled to five years’ compensation for dismissal. “We wouldn’t put anyone in France if we can possibly avoid it,” the executive said…

The danger is that, once European companies come to expand capacity again, they may do so outside the euro zone, where employment contracts are more flexible and wages and social costs are lower…

The EU not only has inflexible labour markets and high costs; it has slower growth prospects than most emerging markets. That will tempt many businesses to move elsewhere. “Western Europe is at a severe disadvantage because of the costs when you have to restructure your operations,” says Martin Sorrell, the boss of WPP. By contrast, Singapore has a low tax rate, a light regulatory regime and an enviable location at the heart of Asia. Sir Martin thinks some multinationals will eventually move their headquarters to the city-state.

The best way to protect workers is with a robust economy.  Not regulations.  If you lower the tax burden and regulatory costs the return on investment on businesses will soar past the return on investment from government bonds.  And investors would put their money into businesses to make more money.  This is how you help workers get better pay and benefits.  You create such economic activity that there are more jobs than people to fill them.  Forcing employers to offer higher wages and better benefits.  The way it was when the United States became the number one economy in the world.  Not the way it is currently in the EU.  Or the United States.  Where the Great Recession lingers on.  Thanks to an anti-business economic climate.  And the mother of all costly regulatory policies.  Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama is no Captain James Tiberius Kirk

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

Captain James T. Kirk didn’t command the Enterprise because of his political connections.  No.  He commanded the Enterprise because he was the best damn captain in Starfleet history (see Five Leadership Lessons From James T. Kirk by Alex Knapp reposted 2/23/2014 (originally posted 3/5/2012) on Forbes).

In his many years of service to the Federation, James Kirk embodied several leadership lessons that we can use in our own lives. We need to keep exploring and learning. We need to ensure that we encourage creativity and innovation by listening to the advice of people with vastly different opinions. We need to occasionally get down in the trenches with the members of our teams so we understand their needs and earn their trust and loyalty. We need to understand the psychology of our competitors and also learn to radically change course when circumstances dictate. By following these lessons, we can lead our organizations into places where none have gone before.

President Obama is no Captain James Tiberius Kirk.  President Obama is a committed ideologue.  And will not consider exploring and learning other knowledge.  For this committed Keynesian will not even consider learning the classical economics that made the U.S. the number one economy in the world.  He will not work with the Republicans.  When it came to the stimulus he shut them out completely with the statement that he won the election.  And elections have consequences.  After his “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” lie of the year (2013) he’s not earning much trust and loyalty these days.  His foreign policy has made Iran and Russia stronger.  As well as emboldened militant Islam.  So he doesn’t understand our competitors.  At all.  Finally, the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) has been a disaster.  But is he radically changing course?  No.  He’s exceeding his Constitutional authority by rewriting the Affordable Care Act to try and push the more painful parts of Obamacare past the 2014 midterm elections.  To make people less angry at him and the Democrats when they vote this fall.

Captain James T. Kirk never put himself or his agenda ahead of the mission.  Which is why he was a great leader.  Whereas President Obama is beholden to an ideology.  And will sacrifice anything for that ideology.  Our economy.  Our health care system.  Even our leadership position of the free world.  Something Captain Kirk would never do.  Because he was not beholden to an ideology.  Which made him a great leader.  Unlike President Obama.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Marine Insurance shows why Obamacare won’t Work

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

As ships began to ply the world’s oceans some of them did not make it to their destination.  Instead, they ended up on the ocean floor.  The financial loss for a ship lost at sea was enough to bankrupt a shipper.  Which greatly inhibited early transoceanic trade.  But then the good men at Lloyd’s of London began selling marine insurance out of a London coffee house.  Spreading the risk of a large financial loss across all shippers.  Where each shipper paid a small fee (i.e., an insurance premium) to cover the financial loss for the few ships that sank.  It was an excellent system.  Mitigating the risk of the very risky transoceanic trade.  It worked so well we still use it today (see Ship loses more than 500 containers in heavy seas by Tim Lister posted 2/22/2014 on CNN)

On any day, between 5 million and 6 million containers are on the high seas, carrying everything from potato chips to refrigerators. But not all of them make it to their destination, as the crew of the Svendborg Maersk have just found out.

Their Danish-flagged ship was in the Bay of Biscay last week as hurricane-force winds battered the Atlantic coast of Europe. Amid waves of 30 feet and winds of 60 knots, the Svendborg began losing containers off northern France. After the ship arrived in the Spanish port of Malaga this week, Maersk discovered that about 520 containers were unaccounted for. Stacks of others had collapsed.

It’s the biggest recorded loss of containers overboard in a single incident…

The Through Transport Club, which insures 15 of the top 20 container lines, has put the loss at fewer than 2,000 containers a year. But other industry sources say the number may be as high as 10,000. That would still represent far less than 1% of the containers traversing the world’s oceans. Maersk, one of the world’s largest lines, says that its highest annual loss in the last decade was 59 containers.

If we crunch some numbers we can see how insurance works.  Let’s make some assumptions.  Conservative ones.  Let’s assume the low end of 5 million containers.  And the high end of lost containers (10,000).  This puts the total loss of containers at 0.20% of the total shipped.  Which means that 99.8% of all containers shipped reach their destination.  So the insurance pays for a very small number of lost containers.  Now let’s assume an average value of $250,000 per container.  That makes the value of all containers shipped $1.25 trillion.  And the value of containers lost $2.5 billion.  Or 0.20% of the value shipped.  Which is a small fraction of the total.  If we spread this amount over each container shipped that comes to an insurance premium of $500 per container.  A small price to pay to avoid a $250,000 loss.

This is why marine insurance works.  Because it’s insurance.  Where shippers pay a small premium to insure against a very large possible financial loss.  Which is why Obamacare won’t work.  Because Obamacare isn’t insurance.  Neither was health insurance before Obamacare.  Because people expect a free ride.  If they have ‘insurance’ they don’t want to pay for anything.  Which isn’t how insurance works.  That would be like shippers having someone else pay for their marine insurance.  And then expect to ship things across the ocean for free because they had insurance.  Marine insurance doesn’t work like that.  And neither should health insurance.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Democrats believe Millenials are such Idiots and Floozies that they could fool them into Paying for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

It’s no secret that the Democrats benefit by having an ignorant electorate.  People who don’t know history or understand economics will more easily fall for their lies.  Especially when they victimize their base and demonize the opposition.  Republicans.  It’s a winning formula.  And it has won President Obama reelection.  Despite all the warnings from those who know history and understand economics.  Who warned us about what Obamacare was going to do to us.  And the urgency of repealing it before it became too entrenched.  But the naysayers said nay.  Uh-uh.  And your mother is a whore.  Demonizing the opposition with abandon.  And laughing at the snarky little jabs on late-night television.  Of course it’s different now.  As the young and healthy have learned that the Affordable Care Act was predicated on their paying the health care tab for the old and sick.

So Obamacare care went from the fair and just Affordable Care Act to the unfair and unaffordable care act.  Stunned by push back from their normally useful exploitable base the Obama administration pushed back against the pushback.  Warning the Millenials that they risked not being cool if they didn’t buy health insurance (see Obama’s pathetic pitch to millennials by David Pasch posted 2/14/2014 on the New York Post).

How do you market the Affordable Care Act to Millennials? If you’ve got a good answer, tell the White House right away. It’s tried everything to get us to sign up for health insurance on the federal exchanges — and most of its attempts have been off-tune, off-putting, or just downright dumb.

The latest effort involves former NBA star Magic Johnson. Sorry: While Johnson commands respect for his athletic and personal achievements, he’s the not the best candidate to market anything to Millennials. He retired in 1991. Anyone under 23 never even saw him pick up a basketball.

There’s also the “Brosurance” debacle…

The ads depict Millennials as idiots and floozies. One ad shows college kids doing keg stands; another shows a couple about to hook up, with the tag: “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control…”

Other campaigns have been weird, sad or both. One print ad urged us to go to healthcare.gov by telling us that “Mom loves her comfy jeans.” So did that kid in college who played World of Warcraft, but he never made me want to buy health insurance. Then there’s the “pajama boy” campaign, which convinced anyone over 30 that Millennials are insufferable. And another ad targets women with a not-so-catchy tune sung by cats and dogs…

To be fair, Millennials aren’t always laughing at the administration’s ads. Sometimes we’re laughing with them — when they feature celebrities and comedians who we’ve actually heard of, like Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman or Will Ferrell.

But the real joke is on us. ObamaCare just isn’t a good deal for my generation.

The problems start with how much plans cost. Insurance rates have skyrocketed for Millennials since the exchanges opened in October. According to the Manhattan Institute, the average 27-year-old man is facing a 97 percent premium hike and the average 27-year old woman a 55 percent increase.

It is hard to believe that these are the same people who put a campaign together that defeated Mitt Romney during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And the incompetence and cover-up of Benghazi (it was a spontaneous uprising by people angered over a YouTube video who pulled pre-sighted mortars from their back pockets).  One wonders how you go from the 2012 campaign to “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” and “Mom loves her comfy jeans.”  I just don’t see these influencing the electorate to vote Democrat.

Why is the premium hike for men almost twice what it is for women?  Because the Affordable Care Act now forces men to buy insurance to cover a reproductive system they don’t have.  For in the name of fairness women can no longer be charged more than men for health insurance.  So they charge men more.  It doesn’t lower the cost of women’s health insurance though.  For it is still rising 55%.  So where is all that money going?  To pay for the old and sick.

The Democrats believe Millenials are idiots and floozies.  For they have worked tirelessly to dumb down our public schools and higher education.  So they can more easily lie to those they think of as idiots and floozies.  It’s as if you can hear them say, “Look, we gave you free birth control.  Isn’t that worth an extra car payment a month?”  Based on the enrollment numbers of the Millenials, apparently not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Abysmal Rollout of Obamacare going According to Plan to bring us to National Health Care?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The roll out of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) has given us a plethora of unintended consequences.  From freezing new hiring.  To pushing full-time workers into part-time.  To people losing the health insurance and doctor they liked and wanted to keep.  To higher insurance premiums. To higher deductibles.  To higher co-pays.  Taking a health care system that the vast majority of people were satisfied with and making it worse.  To accommodate a small percentage of the population who were uninsured.  If that wasn’t bad enough it doesn’t even look like some of the people who signed up for Obamacare are paying their insurance premiums (see Next problem for Obamacare: deadbeat enrollees by Rick Newman posted 2/14/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).

The  New York Times has discovered  that only about 80% of people purchasing health insurance through the federal online marketplace or a similar state-run exchange paid their first month’s premium. There’s no single source of such data, but the Times canvassed insurers participating in the program, such as Aetna (AET), Wellpoint (WLP), Humana (HUM) and Blue Shield of California. All said that the first-month payment rate ranged from 75% to 80% or so, far lower than for typical plans. If enrollees don’t pay the first month’s premium, their insurance never goes into effect.

That doesn’t mean, however, that one-fifth of the people signing up for Obamacare are blatantly refusing to pay. Technical problems with some of the exchange websites may have left people enrolled in an insurance plan without knowing it. Some may never have received a bill or confirmation of their enrollment. Others may have unwittingly signed up for two different policies, while paying for only one.

To make the Affordable Care Act work required a huge health care cost transfer from the old and sick to the young and healthy.  The young and healthy, incidentally, made up a sizeable portion of the uninsured.  Because they were young and healthy and felt invincible.  And invincible people don’t need to buy insurance.  So Obamacare needed the individual mandate to force these people to buy insurance against their will so they could pay for the old and sick.

Of course when they raised the price of health insurance to cover pre-existing conditions it wasn’t the young and healthy that ran to the Obamacare exchanges.  It was the old and sick.  Adding too many old and sick to the insurance pool.  And not enough of the young and healthy.  Those who would pay without consuming any benefits.  Because they are young and healthy.  Causing the insurers to pay more out in benefits than they receive in premiums.  Forcing them to raise their premiums.  Which will, of course, kick off the death spiral as people drop out because they can’t afford those higher rates.  Which will, in turn, force the insurers to raise their rates again.  Hence the death spiral.   And as bad as all of that was now it looks like about 20-25% of those who ‘signed up’ either didn’t or are simply choosing not to pay.  Making the financial predicament of the insurers far worse.

Of course if your plan was to force single-payer (i.e., national health care) onto the people against their will then everything is going according to plan to destroy the private insurance market.  Leaving only the government to step in and provide single-payer (i.e., national health care).  Which should fill everyone with confidence after seeing how well they rolled out the Affordable Care Act.  And no doubt will impress us even more with the rollout of single-payer (i.e., national health care).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »