Tag Archives: obamacare

Taking His Ball and Going Home

17 Dec

So now Howard Dean and Markos, at the Daily Kos, want to kill Obamacare. It seems that, without a public option, they no longer are concerned with helping all those poor folks dying because of a lack of insurance. I never believed they gave a damn about those people, but I’m glad they could confirm it for me. For the far left, it was never about reform and improving access. Instead, it was all about bigger government and more control over people’s lives.

If Howard Dean really cared about people, he’d call for the current bill to be rewritten, rather than scrapped, so that it reflects the free market reforms that have been put forward by many opposed to Obamacare. Those reforms would pass and they wouldn’t benefit the insurance companies, unlike the current bill which mandates coverage. Even if Dean didn’t believe those free market reforms would help, they certainly wouldn’t hurt. Unlike Obamacare, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, encouraging health savings accounts and allowing employees to take their plans with them when they change jobs, would not negatively impact coverage or add to the deficit.

Unfortunately for the American people, progressives don’t really care about the poor and uninsured. Sadly, they’re only interested in using those people in order to guilt you into supporting a bill that you know is bad policy. It’s not unlike the left and their exploitation of the troops during the Iraq War. They didn’t really care about bringing the troops home, but they did want to use the deaths of troops to attack Bush; that stopped being an issue for them once a Democrat started sending those soldiers to war. Now the left is exploiting the uninsured in attempt to win another political victory. This is a chance to use the left’s words against them to push real free market reforms that might actually help reduce costs. If they don’t pass those free market reforms, but do pass an insurance mandate, it’s clear that their concern for the uninsured is just as disingenuous as their concern for the troops.

Cross-Posted at The Anticrat
Cross-Posted at Feed Your ADHD


Democrats are Sick

10 Dec

The entire Democratic caucus in DC must be suffering the effects of swine flu, because their ideas for health care reform just keep getting worse. In the latest deal, brokered by Senate Democrats, Medicare would be expanded to uninsured Americans over the age of 55 and insurance companies would be required to spend 90 percent of the money they collect on beneficiaries. While both of these provisions sound great to a bleeding heart, the unintended consequences could prove devastating.

By expanding the eligibility for Medicare to people age 55 and older the Democrats are ballooning the size of this program when it is already running a projected 89 trillion dollar deficit.* I find it ironic that Democrats are attempting to expand a program that they, less than a week ago, said was home to more than 500 billion dollars in waste. A program is dysfunctional and their solution is to make it bigger? Yeah, that’s a great idea. The expansion of an already bloated entitlement program is never advisable, but to do so during a deep, and likely long, recession is insane.

But hold on, because the craziness doesn’t end there. The provision in the latest manifestation of DemCare, which would require companies to pay out 90 percent of their revenue to beneficiaries, is going to stick it to already struggling Americans. Let’s say, as a hypothetical, that an insurance company is taking in 80 million dollars. If we assume this company is paying out 70 million to beneficiaries, that would leave ten million left for operating costs and profit. Under the new deal being worked out in the senate, this company would have to raise their total revenue to 100 million in order to maintain the ten million dollars for profit and operating costs. This 90 percent provision all but guarantees that the cost of insurance will rise, rather than fall. Either insurance companies will see less profit or they’ll be forced to increase their revenue by raising premiums. Which do you think is more likely to occur?

*While this is a peak estimate, almost all projections place Medicare’s future deficit well into the tens of trillions.

From My Cold, Dead .. OUCH!!

3 Sep


So a clearly malnourished lefty protester decided to snack on the finger of a rival protester. While this is disturbing, it’s also rather surreal. The offending cannibal has yet to be identified, but there are suspects. The list includes the usual culprits including Mike Tyson and Bono. I personally believe the most likely culprit is Rahm Emanuel. Rahm lost half of a finger years ago and I don’t put anything past a politician that will send a dead fish to a pollster.

Some on the left took this as an opportunity to highlight the virtues of medicare. Let’s hope this strategy does not spread, because I’d hate to be stabbed just so the left could praise the speedy response of the ambulance. Obviously this incident does show us that medicare is a truly great program. I mean who hasn’t had their finger bitten off by a crazed lefty and wished the government was there to help?

I truly cannot wait to discover the identity of the finger biter. Speculation remains rampant as to which group he may be with. It really doesn’t matter which lefty group the biter belongs to, because they’re all pretty much flesh eating zombies.

The question remains as to why the lefty screwball decided to snack on the older gentleman. I like to think things went down like this…

Older gentleman opposed to Obamacare: Listen here, kid, you can have nationalized health care when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Lefty Nutbag: *chomp*

Older gentleman opposed to Obamacare: Jesus Christ, you stupid little shit, I’m not dead yet!

Lefty Nutbag: It tastes like … CHANGE

Teddy’s Death Panel Van

26 Aug

death panel van3

You have to love loathe the Democrats for not even waiting until Ted’s body was cold before they tried to make him a martyr for the cause of Obamacare.

UPDATE: The tumor that killed Ted Kennedy deserves a medal. This is the man Democrats honor ..

I was deeply moved to hear Newsweek’s Ed Klein tell guest host Katty Kay about Kennedy’s love of humor. How the late senator loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes, and was always eager to know if anyone had heard any new ones.

Is Ted Kennedy The First Victim of Obamacare?

26 Aug


Is Ted Kennedy the first victim of Obamacare? Was it determined by bureaucrats in the Obama administration that Senator Kennedy could be more effective in death than he was while alive? Did Obama pull the plug on Kennedy in order to get sympathetic support to pass Obamacare?

I’m sorry I have to ask these questions, but it’s disturbing how quickly the left saw this as a chance to further Obamacare. Am I the only one that finds it disturbing how people who supposedly loved Ted Kennedy can be so thrilled and eager to use his death to further a legislative agenda? I mean the man isn’t even cold and they are already trying to sell Obamacare as necessary for the sake of Kennedy’s legacy. That’s what I’ve never liked about the left. They tend to see people as means to an end .. even in death.

P.S. If any legislation accurately represented the legacy of Ted Kennedy, it would be a law concerning the attempt to cover-up a death you caused.

P.P.S. I’m not actually accusing anyone of killing Ted Kennedy. I’m simply using the question as a rhetorical device in order to point out the gruesome behavior of the left, while lightly mocking the woman who asserted that Palin was behind Michael Jackson’s death.

A Note to Arthur Frommer

26 Aug

you suck

On August 19th, 2009 Arthur Frommer posted a piece concerning guns in Arizona as he had witnessed on a news report. In it, Mr. Frommer stated the following, “I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there.” The following is my response to Mr. Frommer.

Dear Mr Frommer,

Your irrational response to this situation is both disheartening and disturbing. You are disturbed by the sight of guns being carried in the open, but you’ve never expressed such concern over violent crime in the cities and states with stringent gun laws. Perhaps if you would engage in rational thought rather than affective thinking you would realize that gun restrictions, that you appear to be concerned with, only create the illusion of safety. A rational person would examine the statistical data and realize that gun laws do not have an appreciable effect on crime. This is because gun laws ignore the fundamental truth that criminals commit crimes. If an individual is willing to break the laws concerning assault or murder, it is irrational to believe that a law concerning gun possession would somehow cause them to abandon their criminal mentality and become a law abiding individual.

What you, and most other gun control activists, engaged in was an emotional reaction to a stimulus that you’ve been conditioned to associate with death and violence. I would recommend that you try a little exposure therapy and actually spend some time at your local NRA supported sportsman group and get to know the true face of lawful gun ownership. I’m a lifetime member of the NRA, a proud gun owner, and somebody that has never violated the law. You’re an elderly gentlemen, Mr Frommer. If you should be afraid of anything it’s a government run health care system that, burdened by debt, forces bureaucrats to ration health care services to those who are deemed less valuable.

While I find the actions of those brandishing weapons to be imprudent, they have every legal right under our constitution to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights responsibly and peacefully. You may find the free exercise of an individuals rights under the 2nd Amendment to be disturbing, Mr Frommer, but I’m far more disturbed by the Obama administration. An administration that created a program which advocated for private citizens to inform on those that challenged the presidents legislative agenda. Perhaps you should consider the effects of a powerful government targeting individuals, when it comes to the future of our Republic, before you overreact to a handful of misguided individuals.

Free Radical Thought on Health Care

17 Aug

free radical thought

The government run insurance option will enjoy the benefit of not having to operate like a real business. Like all government programs it will be able to supplement its continued operation through tax payer subsidies. This will put private insurers at a disadvantage and will eventually put them out of business.

Any federally run insurance option will likely run a mild deficit at first, but this early drain will be nothing when compared to the massive costs that will result when private insurers are no longer able to operate. At that point there will be 300+ million people under the government insurance program and it will not be able to sustain quality coverage. The costs will simply be too high, like they are for European nations and Canada, which will result in cost savings measures. These cost saving measures will include rationing of health care services, because government programs never cut the superfluous jobs of union protected bureaucrats.

Once cost savings measures are required there will be increasing push to standardize universal care in order to reduce costs. This is dangerous in medicine, because health care is highly personal and runs contrary to cold impersonal touch of government run bureaucracy. With private insurers driven out of business, there will be no alternative to those who are victimized by the new system. Without the US, where will victims of Canada’s health care system go to as a last resort?

Quality of health care will decline, because the high cost of going to medical school will not be worthwhile if the doctor turns out to be no better than a civil servant. This system will all but guarantee that the only individuals who can afford to be doctors in the US are those who were educated in developing nations. There are talented doctors from overseas, but it is naive to think there wont be a noticeable differences. This has been demonstrated in the UK where they increasingly rely on foreign doctors and nurses to provide health care services for their population. Obama’s plan to subsidize education costs is a horrible response to this situation, because it does nothing to reduce the actual cost of an education. It simply redistributes the burden of paying for that education. This doesn’t put pressure on schools to operate more efficiently and keep costs down. It’s no coincidence that as we’ve seen government backed grants and loans explode, so has the cost of a college education.

Compared to the US, the UK and Canada are rather healthy. This is due to their lifestyles, which differ greatly from ours. If the UK and Canada, with largely healthy and homogeneous populations, cannot successfully operate a nationalized health care system then it is certain that the US, with our rather unhealthy and heterogeneous population, cannot.

None of the above implies that the current insurance industry is functional. There is not enough competition in medicine and far too much overhead. There needs to be greater flexibility for insurance providers to operate in all states and significant pressure on the broader insurance industry to stop using government regulation to undermine competition.

Health care reform is not complicated. A simple reintroduction of free market forces into the insurance industry is all that is required. Currently the insurance industry has utilized government regulation to protect their profits and undermine sources of competition. This has been a role that government has been far too comfortable playing for far too long. If legislators were interested in driving down health care costs, they would take a page from organizations like CATO and REASON. These groups would recommend returning insurance to its proper role as a protector against the costs of catastrophic care. By limiting insurance to this role, it would return consumers to their rightful position as the force that pressures health care providers to reduce costs and improve efficiency. In order to retain their customers, and their bottom lines, health care providers would be forced to become efficient, innovative and responsive. This would make routine medical care more affordable, which would increase access for more Americans.

The same forces could be used to accomplish the goals of reforming the insurance industry. By forcing insurance companies to compete with rivals in other states, the market for insurance would expand and efficient practices would gain broader adoption. With the adoption of efficient operation and reduction in the bureaucratic burden, health insurance would become more affordable and available to lower income Americans. A segment of the population would likely remain that would be unable to afford care and this could be addressed with vouchers that would allow the individual to shop for their own insurance, while not disrupting the market.

These reforms do not require the creation of a new government bureaucracy or regulatory agency. As a result, they will likely not be adopted. Legislators know that the way to gain support from influential unions is to expand their ranks by creating more bureaucrats. This can only be accomplished by establishing new government agencies that can employ workers via bloated administration structures. The most effective lobbyists these days are government agencies and those they employ. It’s little wonder that no federally operated government agency ever accomplishes the task it was created for and shrinks. At the most, they simply change their name periodically. The health care reforms Democrats have proposed are largely concerned with creating busy work rather than actually improving the health care system and expanding health insurance coverage. Real reform isn’t complicated, but it takes courage to do what’s in the interest of the American people rather than the insurance industry and unions.