Today, around 10:00 Eastern, just about two hours, the Supreme Court will be issuing their ruling on President Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Some opponents have called this bill socialist, some have called it a life preserver for the proverbial drowning little old lady. I think it’s neither.
—–
Socialism, when applied as an economic principle, advocates either collective or governmental ownership. It can also be described as a system of living in which there is no private property, where every means of production are owned and controlled by the government.
When the government controls the means of production, and owns all property, there is no free market, and prices of goods and services are controlled by the government.
Take Venezuela for example. Gasoline in Venezuela is $0.18 per gallon. 18 freaking cents. I could fill up my 2006 525i for $3.24! No wonder the Venezuelans rioted the last time the government tried to raise the price of gasoline.
But Venezuela is broke. Their per capita GDP is somewhere around $12,000, while the per capita GDP of the United States is hovering near $49,000.
Plus, our flag looks better.
As Herbert Spencer said; “All socialism involves slavery.” If people don’t own anything, what’s their motivation to work? Just to support others. Mr. Spencer’s concept of “survival of the fittest” might be applied to explain why socialist economies haven’t lasted.
I am seriously digressing here. My bad.
What President Obama wants to do with or to healthcare, depending on which word you want to use, is certainly not Socialism. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a socialist at all.
I believe President Obama wants a fascist economy.
Fascism revolves around government-regulated private property, and private enterprise contingent on service to the nation. When private enterprise does not prove itself to be efficient, are failing, or not serving the nation, the government either stifles the enterprise through regulation or takes over.
Fascists want private enterprise to fail, so they, those in power, can step in and “save the day” for the people, endearing themselves to the dumb masses.
What Mr. Obama has proposed for healthcare is fascist. Not socialist.
The socialist government would shut down Blue Cross, Humana, Kaiser, United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, and every single other health insurance corporation. They would have shut those private organizations down, and instituted their own ideal “insurance company.”
Instead, Mr. Obama has decided that private enterprise is simply not serving the people well enough, and they need to change their ways. He wants to force you and I, private citizens, to buy a product we may not want, nor need. He wants to punish you and I if we don’t buy this mandatory product.
I could go on and on about this healthcare bill, but I won’t go much further. I will admit that healthcare is broken. I know it, and so do you. We work on the front lines of healthcare. We see the indigent patients who can’t afford to see a doctor, and we see those that prefer to have big televisions and iPhones instead of paying their bills. It’s usually more of the latter than former.
The Affordable Care Act will do nothing but astronomically increase the cost of providing healthcare in the United States, and will only lead to increased government dependence and healthcare rationing.
When a product is limited, and prices are forced low, the product either runs out, or is rationed.
How long would it take for a 70-year old man to receive a hip replacement in Winnipeg?
—–
I predict a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, and the dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg.
Patatos, patahtos. No matter what you call it, Obamamed still sucks, will bankrupt the economy, and destroy healthcare.
Nice opinion, now explain exactally HOW it will do those things.
The Congressional Budget Office has done a pretty good job of explaining that already.
Let’s not forget that the mandate is a conservative idea pushed by the heritage foundation and their minion politicians since the 90′s. Let’s not forget that Mit Rmoney was the first to actually implement the individual mandate idea. Let’s also not forget that the original ACA President Obama proposed had a Public Option. Let’s not forget how the republicans blocked the entire bill unless the public option was dropped. Yeah, those champions of capitalism wouldn’t want to see competition in the free market would they? The for-profit insurers might have to offer a better service at a better price; nobody wants that huh?
Are you in favor or against a universal healthcare system, one that provides for ALL US citizens and is affordable, that adds to the economy by taking the burden off employers? One that may add to your yearly taxes but just a percent above what you’re already putting into Medicare taxes, while dropping the premiums you pay to for-profit greed driven insurance middlemen. One that has an overhead of 7% like medicare rather than 23% like the for-profits? What are your ideas to reform our healthcare system, or do you prefer what we have/had before?
Since you “work on the frontlines of healthcare” you must know intimately how services are reimbursed, and I’m expecting detailed descriptions of how you would address the number of people dying from lack of access to healthcare, the bankruptcies from medical costs, etc… I know this sounds hostile and argumentative, but I’d like to really get your ideas on how to fix our system, not just hyperbole and preconceived notions about how everyone is scamming the system. Not to mention your inaccurate views of healthcare systems outside the US. Just watch the “Sick Around the World” PBS special, you can Google it and watch for free, it’s also on Netflix, it is a great portrayal of all the good and the bad of other countries systems that do it better than us.
So it appears that I was wrong, and may have some egg on my face. That’s okay with me, because that’s how our government works.
I’m really surprised that Roberts joined the liberal wing of SCOTUS. I guess that means Obama can’t “blame Bush” anymore, since the Bush appointee upheld the Obama signature legislation.
The battle was lost, but the war still rages.
simply, because I an on my phone, if you can’t afford it, you dont get it. You carry whatever insurance you can afford, life saving treatments that comply with EMSALA, but thats it.
If I dont want or feel a need to carry insurance then I should not be required to, and I accept the risk that should something happen, I could end up dead or crippled because I can’t pay for treatments.
“I accept the risk that should something happen, I could end up dead or crippled because I can’t pay for treatments.” Problem is, that since I DO pay for insurance and you don’t your non-payment and subsequent bankruptcy is passed along to me and I end up paying your unpaid bills through higher premiums. The Affordable Care Act requires you to man up and take some responsibility for yourself by either buying something you need (until we change the system) or pay a fee (tax, fine, pentalty, whatever) to cover the costs you will incur.
Personal responsibility is what is lacking and what the “mandate” requires.
The myth of rationing is hilarious as well and is based on a supply side economic theory that has been proven wrong for decades. When the now insured seek out primary care it will be at a physician’s office, not an ER, meaning all those $3200 MRIs are no longer happening. Costs go down on day 1. Now the scanner is available sooner for those who need it, care is accessible sooner.
CCC I see your concern about the big bad government mandating that you step up and do the right thing for yourself by taking responsibility for your own care.
I think those who refuse to buy insurance should simply carry a necklace that reads “I’ll take care of myself” and we can leave them to their own devices.
Besides, the penalty doesn’t kick in until a family of 4 makes more than $92,000, the determined income to be able to afford private insurance in the current market. That excludes over 60% of the population.
Is this perfect? no, but it beats the alternatives presented so far.
HM
HM; thanks for the reply.
I will take care of myself and my family, just as I always have, like most responsible people do. My issue is my government forcing me to either purchase a product or pay a penalty.
When not purchasing the product requires those that do pay to pay more, you betcha. Or, like I said, we can leave you to die like the folks at a recent Presidential debate cheered for.
#1 reason for bankruptcy is healthcare bills. Until we can take the profit out of healthcare, we’re stuck making sure folks are at least paying into the system for when they use it, which they will. Now we can move most of their care out of the acute setting and into preventative care.
I still prefer my government demanding I think of myself and others instead of jailing my daughters for family planning.
And I forgot to mention, brave to post such statements on your blog, I still refrain from it for obvious reasons.
HM
I think you and I could solve this problem better than this bill has. But you are on ge west coast, and I’m nowhere near there. Much less an airport.
And I’m scared of flying.
Thanks for the encouragement. I’ve been off a bus for a while, so the inspiration has been lacking.
If I am injured, then I pay for what I can afford, if I can’t afford it I dont get it, I don’t see how that would be passed on to you
Its a novel idea I know, only spend the money you have
So if you need an extensive ICU stay for a major accident or illness, you’re OK with being kicked out onto the street to die if you can’t pay for the treatments and hospital stay? No, I’m not being sarcastic; in a lot of cases, that is exactly the choice for people without insurance: go bankrupt because of the treatment, or not get the treatment and die.
Oh wait, that will never happen because most paramedics and doctors have ETHICS and won’t let people die in the streets even if they it is legal for them to do so. Why the hell do you think that our Emergency Rooms have been flooded for decades? Because PMDs expect to be paid, and all the uninsured know that the ED will treat them even if it’s not a true emergency because doctors don’t walk away from sick people.
“When the now insured seek out primary care it will be at a physician’s office, not an ER, meaning all those $3200 MRIs are no longer happening”
Justin, I love you, but this has to be THE most naive thing you’ve ever said. Ever. I still can’t believe it came off of your keyboard.
Everyone offers opinions, statistics, and studies and pontificates on matters such as this, driven by various underlying sociopolitical beliefs.
What everyone is going to find out is what the actual result of this will be in the short and long run. Congressperson Pelosi had it absolutely right when she said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.”
By the time we find out what is in it, it will be permanent and irreversible. I’m not arguing the point, just pointing out that it is so. There will be consequences. They will be observable. They will affect all of you and everyone else in a negative way. The sociopolitical beliefs and desires of people and he power of government cannot affect economic laws such as the law of supply and demand. There is plenty of observable historical evidence for this over the past century in numerous countries.
Wait and see. Come back in five years and post, not on what you believe, but what has been the actual result.
Are you insinuating that I will be around in 5 years?
One can only hope.