TBD

TBD on Ning

Obamacare laid bare

Every disaster has its moment of clarity. Physicist Richard Feynman dunks an O-ring into ice water and everyone understands instantly why the shuttle Challenger exploded. This week, the Obamacare O-ring froze for all the world to see: Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”

The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism and (c) subterfuge.


Charles Krauthammer

(a) Those letters are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false. Why were they sent out? Because Obamacare renders illegal (with exceedingly narrow “grandfathered” exceptions) the continuation of any insurance plan deemed by Washington regulators not to meet their arbitrary standards for adequacy. Example: No maternity care? You are terminated.

So a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.

But perhaps Obama didn’t know. Maybe the bystander president was as surprised by this as he claims to have been by the IRS scandal, the Associated Press and James Rosen phone logs, the failure of the Obamacare Web site, the premeditation of the Benghazi attacks, the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone — i.e., the workings of the federal government of which he is the nominal head.

I’m skeptical. It’s not as if the Obamacare plan-dropping is an obscure regulation. It’s at the heart of Obama’s idea of federally regulated and standardized national health insurance.

Still, how could he imagine getting away with a claim sure to be exposed as factually false?

The same way he maintained for two weeks that false narrative about Benghazi. He figured he’d get away with it.

And he did. Simple formula: Delay, stonewall and wait for a supine and protective press to turn spectacularly incurious.

Look at how the New York Times covered his “keep your plan” whopper — buried on page 17 with a headline calling the cancellations a “prime target.” As if this is a partisan issue and not a brazen falsehood clear to any outside observer — say, The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who gave the president’s claim four Pinocchios. Noses don’t come any longer.

(b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained presidential spokesman Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.

Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.

Because what you really need is what our experts have determined must be in every plan. So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use.

It’s Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: “We’re the government and we’re here to help.”

You hide.

(c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health-care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.

Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.

So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.

And then when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you’ve learned the real meaning of “free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor — best, by subterfuge.


Views: 277

Replies to This Discussion

Single payer was the original model for what was then the American health insurance business up until the 70's or so.  Most states had a specific Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance entity in their state that were franchises to sell healthcare policies to their citizens.  There wasn't much competition in part because insurance industry didn't see the money as selling health insurance, in the day the money was in selling life insurance.  With one exception, the dreaded disease indemnity policies that paid you for getting cancer and such like.

Many of the then policies of Blue Cross and Blue Shield were major medical policies that primarily covered serious costs of services with inclusive deductibles.  Not to be overly generous to the spirit of the Blues, but they were incorporated mostly for the benefit of hospitals and a lesser extent doctors to insure that they got paid, something.

Then things changed.  The war changed a lot of it, WWII that is.  As wages were frozen as a war time necessity, recruiting labor was difficult when you couldn't pay more, so, benefits became a necessary part of recruiting, retaining and negotiating labor contracts which after WWII the unions held fast to as a part of the workers' compensation packages.  As time went on the benefits, particularly health and pension benefits became more and more of what was offered labor as the post war boom started rolling in the late 40's and through the 50's.  

This lead to expansion of coverage and decrease in out-of-pocket costs which enriched the Blues immensely as having such an exclusive product in such demand.  Some could say the Blues became greedy or just recognized marketing facts, but they expanded their franchise and access to include traditional insurance products such as life insurance and began to offer pension plans many time in collaboration with labor unions, the UAW being one of the most tied to the Blues.  But as the Blues showed the way with what other products could be covered by insurance schemes, the commercial carries began to aggressively move into health care to expand their own businesses and protect their traditional books of business from the Blues expansion.  

The result was, well, the result is where we are now, with 17% and growing cost to the Gross National Product.  In part there is a failure in any insurance scheme to just deal with the risk as a cost, the other is once the money is put into system, it just adds to how much more there is to be split.  There is no viable market for health care as need trumps risk, what is needed is immediate and what is paid is what is charged, more or less, and what is charged expands to what is paid.  It is all about revenue. and making that number as large as possible.  As to results, well, you get what you pay for, more or less.

Not exactly.  The original healthcare model of the 70's was Nixon's Healthcare for Profit (For CEOs and Corps --  F'k the sick peasants).  Then came the Republican plan which always seemed to stop the Democrats dead in their tracks and the the Rs never followed through with -- it was also called Hillary Care, Romneycare, Obamacare, and the ACA..

One payer or single payer -- or Universal Healthcare -- is what a majority of the free world has and that ~75% of Americans want.  Less than 50% want ACA, they wanted the silver bullet -- single payer Universal Healthcare at 1/2 the price and twice the effectiveness as government run for insurance co. and CEO profit -- the crap we have now even under ACA.  At least now the insurance co.s have to cancel their no pre-existing and we can cancel you if you get sick policies.  I was one of their victims, I'm sure glad Obama had the balls to stand up to the Corporations and the Republicans in their pockets, nothing but spokes in a Mafia-LIKE Corporate Wheel.

Too bad you don't know how to look it up.

Do you honestly expect an intelligent reply from the progressive left in this site A-4L? Best of luck.

Too bad you don't know how to look it up too.  

Let me just say  that I am not sure why it would be difficult to get a constructive discussion.

The people on this site seem like incredible people that are blessed with great intelligence.

When I was quite young I used to envision people having discussions about religion and determining which one was the more correct one or which was the better.

Since Love was the answer or the highest attribute above all others in most people's doctrine or religion, it seemed to me that the person with the greatest religion would prove it by being the person who loved the most!

Talking about politics is a sort of a cousin to religion in many ways.

I say that because political debate is usually centered on trying to expound on what is for the greater good for all of us to follow or be governed by etc.

So again it seems it would belittle my own search for the best and greatest answers to address everyone's well being by taking actions to denigrate the same people that I am trying to convince that I have their best interests at heart.

I mean, it would seem.....

And what do you base your statement on Lifesighs? How many is many people? 6 or 128, or is it as many as 300?

Quite a ways from the 7 million they need.

Very simple, a single payer system has the clout to say no we're not going to pay you $40 for a band aid and $300 for pills you sell to other countries for 20 cents. The medical costs in this country are high because of greed.

If that was the entire equation I would probably be for it.

It is not though.

No matter what system you put in place some human being or group of them end up with the final say which means that they have the power over the larger group of people.

Unless you can have a non interested party that can control these things or a system that addresses the reality of human nature you will still have corruption, and mischievous things take place.

If you want socialized medicine and part of your feeling contributing to your view is your repulsion of people being greedy, then why not just have communism? And I am not saying this to challenge your beliefs on any personal level but it is that I am interested in having discussions that get to the philosophies behind the policies that we feel are important to embrace.

I just think that if we take these discussions into forums that are more focused on educating and being really civil that it could be valuable as a way of enlightenment and opening more doors of understanding.

Most everyone that writes here is quite intelligent (myself may be the exception of course) and has so much to offer. I don't see how our multiple talents are best served by letting offensiveness cause conversations to dwindle into insulting dramas.

I see that a representative form of  government to be a plus. The more that one enlists the government into controlling more activities, the fewer choices the many varied and diverse layers of people get to enjoy.

I also don't see these things as always having black and white answers but having both black and white and many areas of grey.

"If you want socialized medicine and part of your feeling contributing to your view is your repulsion of people being greedy, then why not just have communism? And I am not saying this to challenge your beliefs on any personal level but it is that I am interested in having discussions that get to the philosophies behind the policies that we feel are important to embrace."

no political philosophy changes human nature. and that's why communism did not work. greed is still part of human nature. the only thing that changes that in reality is fear of the consequences of greed, i. e. make certain actions illegal and levy fines and jailtime. capitalism does work but the efficiency is more in the flow of money rather than the flow of goods and services and it does provide the best medical care money can buy. however if you are not bill gates and you depend on health insurance, it might be nice to have some standards in healthcare policies rather than finding out when you submit claims that the insurance company determines virtually every medical condition to either be pre-existing or not covered. it can't be news to you that there are a lot of insurance companies whose policies are just a step up from relieving you of your financial assets with a gun.

"I see that a representative form of  government to be a plus. The more that one enlists the government into controlling more activities, the fewer choices the many varied and diverse layers of people get to enjoy. "

a common confusion is evident here. a political form of government is not the same as the economic system. thus you can have nationstates with 'democratic socialism', states with modified capitalism and democratic processes, even states with essentially dictatorial political systems and laissez-faire capitalism. so it is pointless to argue the political system as tho it was the economic system. it is comparing apples and oranges

Problem, I don't know exactly how this website works. It says you wrote this 8 hrs. ago. I have clicked on my emails and did not find this before. Now I see it. So thanks for your responses. That is awesome! I have to look at it a bit. Kids need to take showers, and got stuff to do.

First thought though is to totally thank you!

I will look at them again and see if I have a reply.

:0)

"no political philosophy changes human nature."-Problem

Yes, Problem, We have huge agreement here!!!

And you may not realize how important hearing you state that is to me.

But it very much helps me to see that we may have more in common than I might have suspected before.

But a response like yours never comes up (at least in my experience) when people are busy busting each other's balls.

I love that I saw you say that. I don't think many people on the right listening to these conversations may have understood this about your real thinking.

And it is totally in line with your comments about others trying to typecast you in to derogatory categories. Makes complete sense to me.

Will look at the other part later and try and digest it.

Thanks so much!

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service