So the Most Equal Comrade and all his snot-nosed devotees are wrong about their ultimate point: This monstrosity is by no means a done deal.Obamacare isn’t bad because it didn’t hit 9 million in Obamacare-compliant exchange purchases, nor because it didn’t include 39 percent young adults among its purchasers. It’s bad—horrible, actually—because it requires private citizens to buy a product of the federal government’s choosing for the first time in our nation’s entire history; because it funnels unprecedented amounts of power and money to Washington, D.C. and away from everyday Americans; because it incentivizes employers not to hire people and to cut hours for millions of people they’ve already employed; because it bans millions of people’s health insurance policies (except when Obama lawlessly un-bans them); because it causes people who like their doctors not to be able to keep their doctors; because it raises health costs; because it requires young people to subsidize maternity coverage and pediatric dental care for 60-year-olds who have no need or desire for such coverage; because it effectively bans doctors from expanding existing doctor-owned hospitals or building new ones, makes it difficult for doctors to stay in private practice, and tries to corral them into hospitals where they can more easily be controlled; because it will raise federal spending by a projected $2 trillion over its real first decade; because it will cut projected Medicare funding by a whopping 10 percent over that same decade, siphoning that money out of Medicare to (partially) pay for Obamacare; because it particularly goes after Medicare Advantage funding; because it stifles medical innovation; because it disrespects religious freedom; and because it mandates communal funding of abortion.In short, it’s bad because it raises health costs, undermines liberty, costs jobs, and seeks to put American medicine under the control of the same folks who brought you healthcare.gov.It might seem surprising, therefore, that Obama would have chosen to declare victory yesterday, imperiously proclaiming that “the repeal debate is and should be over.” In reality, however, his words might actually be true—just not in the way he intended. The American people hated Obamacare even before the Democrats willfully passed it, they hate it now, and they never stopped hating it in between. There’s strong evidence that the debate is, indeed, over—and that Obama and his allies have lost.According to Real Clear Politics, since July 4, 2009, 458 polls have been taken on Obamacare. Twenty have shown Americans liking it, five have shown ties, and 433 (95 percent) have shown them disliking it. Perhaps even more strikingly, 299 (65 percent)—including the five most recent polls—have shown Americans opposing Obamacare by double-digits.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Best articulation of why FHer-care is horrible that I've seen in some time
From Jeffrey H. Anderson at The Weekly Standard:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1) because it requires young people to subsidize maternity coverage and pediatric dental care for 60-year-olds who have no need or desire for such coverage
ReplyDeleteWhat is insurance but pooling of the risk so the many who do not have claims subsidize the few "unfortunates(?) who do? The young carry the burden for the old in every health insurance plan known to man.
And da man rakes a profit for his own pocket.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to sell insurance to people, you expect to make a bit of money. Otherwise, you'd find another occupation.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but it is a bastardization of true insurance.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but that's what that industry has always been called. How does "true insurance" work?
ReplyDeleteI deserve your rebuff. Pure insurance would have been a better choice of wording. It is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
ReplyDeleteAh, but there is one hugely important - indeed, indispensable - question: Is this equitable transfer to be coercive, that is, imposed by government, or voluntary, that is, a product offered by private companies to anyone who wishes to buy it (and, of course, meets the criteria for doing so)?
ReplyDeleteSocial insurance is any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics:
ReplyDeletethe benefits, eligibility requirements and other aspects of the program are defined by statute;
explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund);
it is funded by taxes or premiums paid by (or on behalf of) participants (although additional sources of funding may be provided as well); and
the program serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is subsidized heavily enough that most eligible individuals choose to participate. Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits. In the U.S., programs that meet these definitions include Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs. Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits.
Read more at wiki
Are you privy to any polls indicating that Americans hate Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs? Of course you will call them cattle.
ReplyDelete"Either compulsory or subsidized." Bingo! bad and wrong always!
ReplyDeleteCArp all you want but the US Supreme Court had other opinions and that is why we still have these social insurance programs.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court always makes wise decisions consistent with the Framers' intent, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThat's really rich that you would wax dismissive about the "cattle" term. That's exactly what people are who would trade in their freedom for government-provided "social insurance."
ReplyDeleteLotta cattle on the planet, given all the countries who offer universal health care to their citizenry. What are you and your ilk? Buffalo?
ReplyDeleteAnd you know you are calling every American citizen since 1937 a cow (or bull as the case may be). You will be stampeded if you try to rid the country of OASI, Medicare and other social insurance programs. Oh give you a home, where the buffalo roam, but exactly where is your freedom lover's utopia without social insurance programs on God's green earth?
ReplyDelete