Category Archives: Socialism

Updated: Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Obamacare …

Constitution, Democrats, Free Markets, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Political Economy, Regulation, Socialism

“Adding an 800-pound governmental gorilla into the healthcare marketplace, under any name, is still a net, enormous loss of your healthcare freedom and choice—not a gain,” avers Robert Bidinotto. “We need to stop this fraud in its tracks.”

Bidinotto is talking about the “Co-ops,” of which I have written: they “will offer a good deal of co-optation and not many options. Those who’re smitten by B.O.’s Svengali-style hypnotism will welcome the news that he and the secretary of Health and Human Services will be running their cozy ‘co-op.”

Writes Robert:

The Sunday papers are announcing that the White House is going to “retreat” on the so-called “public option” — i.e., a government healthcare option to compete with the private insurers. Instead, they are getting bipartisan support for establishing a publicly funded healthcare “co-op.”

See here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRqy6w7DFAB0

But this is no “retreat.” The co-op arrangement is simply the public option by another name, and by a more circuitous, stealthy route — with the same ultimate objective: nationalized healthcare.

Understand that the “co-op” would be funded by the government (i.e., the taxpayers). More importantly, to get admission into the co-op, insurers would have to abide by the new governmental regulations regarding coverage, treatments, premiums, etc.

Ah, but this still would be “private,” right? Not according to Health and Human Services Sec. Nancy Sebelius. See this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Here is her “money quote” from that article about the co-ops, which gives away the White House’s game:

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Make no mistake, then: This is no liberal “retreat” from governmental healthcare. The new “co-op” is explicitly intended to be “a competitor to private insurers.” While ObamaCare would inject this new government entity into the healthcare marketplace, it simultaneously would

* impose onerous, costly new mandates on private insurers,

* mandate participation by unwilling individuals and small businesses, under penalty of whopping fines,

* outlaw any private insurers that refused to adopt the new government-imposed rules, and

* compel taxpayers to fund the arrangement.

Eventually, inevitably, the only private insurers that could survive this arrangement would have to operate like branch offices of the Medicare program — simply administering government “mandated” coverage, services, treatments, medicines, etc.

Rather than “single payer” socialized medicine, then, this would be more like fascist medicine: a merely nominal “private” system, in which a handful of big healthcare insurers and providers took their marching orders from the federal government.

Robert has compiled a comprehensive list of links on the healthcare Obamination:

THE PENDING BILLS:

Text of HR 3200, the main House bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200
(Note that each section listed is a link to the text in that section)

Text of the initial Senate bill:
http://help.senate.go/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

COSTS OF OBAMACARE:

Here is Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) June 15 letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy analyzing his Senate committee version of the healthcare legislation, which proposes “health insurance exchanges.” It concludes that this would add one trillion dollars to existing federal deficits over a decade, with a net decrease in the number of uninsured of only 16 million out of the 47 million currently claimed to be uninsured:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Here is the CBO’s more recent letter, demolishing the argument that “preventive medicine” and “wellness” options will lower the overall costs of Obamacare. In fact, says the CBO, these measures will raise costs:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Here is the CBO’s July 17 assessment of H.R. 3200, one of the House bills, projecting a net deficit increase of $239 billion over ten years, with far greater costs after 2019. This analysis, of course, is limited solely to financial cost considerations; it says nothing of the other onerous, coercive provisions of the bill, including skyrocketing taxes on “the rich,” and “employer mandates” on small businesses. Nor does it discuss the inevitable negative impact of the legislation on the supply of healthcare (e.g., doctors, hospitals, etc.):

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Here is the CBO’s June 16 letter to two senators, which outlines more generally the budget impact of an expanding federal role in healthcare, after factoring in increased subsidies and universal coverage. Pages 2-3 of the supporting document say this would lead to a “permanent increase of roughly 10 percent in the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare,” and actually “cause national spending on healthcare to increase.” The CBO then assesses an array of potential cost-saving mechanisms. However, some of the most fruitful of these—i.e., changing the tax-exempt status of employer-provided health insurance, and tort reform—have already been taken off the table by congressional Democrats. Nor will the current rush to pass legislation give Congress enough time to properly weigh and assess these options and determine their likely unintended consequences. The potential for real long-term savings is thus bleak, and the CBO projections of budget-busting long-term cost increases remain:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-HealthReformAndFederalBudget.pdf

OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT OBAMACARE:

A section-by-section analysis and critique of major provisions in House bill 3200:

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

“Five Freedoms You’d Lose Under ObamaCare,” from Fortune magazine

dex.htm”>http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

A concise presentation, in Time magazine, of basic internal contradictions in ObamaCare claims:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973-1,00.html

Two important articles offering everything you need to know about government healthcare rationing:

1. “The Road to Rationing” — showing how the idea of “a right to healthcare” leads inexorably to socialized medicine. Outstanding!
http://atlassociety.org/cth-43-2217-road_to_rationing.aspx

2. “Rationing by Any Other Name” — showing the difference between market “rationing” of goods and services, and political rationing of goods and services.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/rationing_by_any_other_name.php

A systematic refutation of numerous claims made by President Obama during his New Hampshire “town meeting” on healthcare:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hennessey-memo-debating-portsmouth.pdf

An article explaining that what Democrats are advocating is not insurance, but the elimination of the basic principles of insurance, as such — and the substitution of a new governmental welfare entitlement for insurance:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/05/obamas_war_on_health_insurance_97767.html

A brief compilation of comparative medical care statistics from the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain, demolishing many myths about the alleged superiority of nationalized healthcare:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Links to statements by leading Democrats and prominent Obamacare supporters, all acknowledging that various “public option” proposals, including the “co-op” and “insurance exchanges,” are mere stepping stones toward the eventual implementation of “single-payer” nationalized healthcare, and the elimination of private healthcare insurance:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/you_want_context_drudge_will_g.asp> — President Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/30/barney_frank_admits_public_option_would_lead_to_single-payer_system.html — Barney Frank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk> — Obama, Frank, and Cong. Jan Shakowsky

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheri-and-allan-rivlin/5-steps-to-major-health-c_b_249516.html — writers in the liberal Huffington Post

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5cb3998e-3ee2-494a-ac7d-763a37a6643c – a senior editor of The New Republic

A top Atlanta eye doctor weighs in on government medicine, speaking from experience:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacare_and_me.html

A Washington Post editorial staff member raises serious, non-exaggerated concerns about the “end-of-life counseling” provision in the House bill:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

20 Questions to Ask Your Congressman on Healthcare:

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1126>

OBAMACARE vs. FREE-MARKET REFORMS AND PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES:

A Washington Post report quantifying the huge impact of “defensive medicine” in increasing healthcare costs, yet noting the refusal of Democrats and the lawyer lobby to any efforts at tort reform, which could dramatically reduce these unnecessary healthcare costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html

Links to comprehensive information about the various government proposals, and also to a host of free-market alternative plans that Obamacare proponents refuse to consider:

http://healthcare.cato.org/obama-congressional-plans

http://www.heartland.org/suites/health%20care/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html?mod=djemEditorialPage (what to do about people with pre-existing conditions)

FROM THE MERCER VAULT:

The Authentic Ass-troturfers
8/14/2009
Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured
8/7/2009
Code Blue! How Canada Care Nearly Killed My Kid
7/31/2009
Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists

Update (August 18): I’m indulging Robert Bidinotto and posting this: “How American Health Care Killed My Father.” Robert dubs this long, drawn-out essay the best he’s read in the topic. I completely disagree; it’s boring, discursive, takes ages to buildup to a point, and is full of linguistic redundancies (“cements in place”). I could read no more when the writer left off the dead grandpa and picked-up with the wisdom of his grandma, having still not made a material point.

In any case, you be the judge, and do distill any worthwhile, “new” insights for us. As someone who’s able to make crucial points in 850 words, I think prolixity ought to be punished, not lauded.

Update III: Ass-troturfers

Conspiracy, Democrats, Economy, Healthcare, Media, Propaganda, Pseudo-intellectualism, Reason, Socialism

I’m talking about the media. The job of the press is to report events, not blanket the facts with conjecture and interpretations that end up becoming part of the narrative and serving to fuse fact with fancy. I refer to the way town hall attendees against Obama Care are being discounted as stooges for “corporate interests.”

It was wicked when the neocons presented antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan as something other than what she was. And it is execrable now that MSNBC is tarring impassioned Americans on the Right as something other than what they are. It doesn’t matter with which small or large groups these protesters, left and right, seek solidarity and solace. What matters is the case they present against socializing medicine. The rest is just ad hominem, which is where discourse in the US is at.
I don’t care if George Soros, as alleged by this neocon outfit , came to back Sheehan. Her cause was just. She spoke extremely well against the ongoing travesty in Iraq.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow intoned like a solemn commissar about corporate agents and their little foot soldiers conspiring against state health care. The forces of darkness against the forces of light. She arrived at her scoop by following a few links on the internet and ominously reading out some posts, which she framed as secret memos. Unlike comrade Keith, at least Maddow obeyed the journalistic imperative to interview one of those evil corporatists. And how delightful he turned out to be. “Do the oil companies fund us? No, but I’d love them to. I urge them to support us.” And so he went.

She looked confused. (Rachel’s inner voice: “When will all this free exchange of funds be outlawed? Oh pretty please, Obamby.”) But at least she was a good sport, which is more than one can say about Chris Trickle-Down-The-Leg-For-Obama Matthews and other Obamaheads.

I must say, Maddow is so smarmy and self-satisfied. I can’t bear to watch her coiling and uncoiling as she expounds ominously on conspiracies that are really unremarkable events and associations.

Update I (August 10): The woman of the frozen face and equally unsupple mind—Nancy Pelosi—has teamed up with the Ring Leader, Steny Hoyer (House majority leader), to label and libel 50 percent of Americans as “un-American.” As if the number of podiums the parasitical class monopolizes were not enough, the parrot press has given another sizable platform to this excuse of a team: “‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate.”

Pay attention to how the dastardly duo:

• Conflates the political will with the will of the people. (“Health coverage for all was on the national agenda as early as 1912… Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care.”)
• Dishonestly fails to acknowledge that the protests mirror the polls:

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds that more Americans disapprove (50%) than approve (44%) of the way U.S. President Barack Obama is handling healthcare policy. There is a tremendous partisan gap in these views, with 74% of Democrats but only 11% of Republicans approving. Independents are more likely to disapprove than to approve of Obama’s work on healthcare.

• Contends that health care drives our economy. In truth, production should drive a healthy economy, not consumption of services. The former enables the latter.
• Sell yet another government program as salvation for the nation’s ills. If you believe them, you deserve what they dish. The problem is, you intend to force your choice on me and mine; sell me into serfdom, using the power of the state to get your way.

Update II (August 11): SVENGALI SHIFTS INTO CAMPAIGN MODE. Obama showed his hand by emphasizing during his Town Hall that it was not to the converted that he was preaching, but to a randomly selected group of people.

Naturally, MSNBC took him at his word, reporting enthusiastically on how little resistance BO met. Outside the Obama town hall the country was roiling—still is. Inside the Barack Bubble the debate was flatlining like Nancy Pelosi’s brain waves.

Tucker Carlson, who works for MSNBC and has certainly worked the political system, was unable to back-up the line the Obama organ—also his employers—was peddling. Most presidential town halls are screened and packed with supported, said Carlson. BO has just joined the rest in lying about the practice.

As BO’s charmed political life continues—suspended as he is in a third dimension—one of the few honest Republicans, Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, confronted a more realistic setting. I say honest, because all Republicans bar a handful fit in the camp to which Specter defected.

In any event, Specter provided some much-needed comic relief. When asked by a patriot what he was going to do “to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution,” Specter replied: “When you ask me to defend the Constitution, that’s what I’ve been doing.”

That’s rich.

Note how Specter, like a true pol, “vowed he would never support any bill that increased the federal deficit or took away a person’s right to choose their health care coverage.”

And indeed, once the lumbering juggernaut of government-run health care becomes a fait accompli, Specter and his ilk will be perfectly correct to say that when they signed off on this violation of rights and usurpation of authority, he was promised the “reform” would not become a public plan.

This is just how the Hildebeest and her Democratic warmongers excused their vote to give George authority to go to war in Iraq: “We were betrayed; we had been told the power would not be abused.”

These people are beyond contempt.

Update III (August 12): TAMRON TITS-HALL is an MSNBC host. Tits-Hall’s beauty is inversely related to her brain power. (The combination of beauty and brains is as rare as it is lethal, I paraphrase Peter Brimelow.) But in the Age of the Idiot she fits right in. (Whereas some MSNBC babes are lovely, Foxette News anchors, I would argue, sport the porn look. They are molded in the Hugh Hefner mold: vulgar but fit for You Know What. This Fox News aesthetic is one of the few issues of disagreement with my good friend, Prof. Paul Gottfried. I think the pea brain Kirsten Powers is a dreadfully plain girl. Alex Witt, on the other hand, has going for her that Lara loveliness from “Dr. Zhivago.”)
But I digress. Here is Tamron; a beauty. Here are her fans; brainless..

I arrive, after that bit of titillation, at Tamron’s portion of the week (that’s what we Jews call a weekly segment read from the Hebrew Bible in synagogue). First she and David Shyster peddled the propaganda that healthcare protesters had been bussed in by political operatives. Now they concede that these angry “un-American” Americans are simply stupid. Tits-Hall, who could never be called simple (read what her fans say about her clever cleavage), believes “these people,” clearly alien to a member of the “multicultural noise machine,” don’t know that Medicare and Medicaid are run by government; and they don’t get that INsurance (why do Americans place the emphasis incorrectly on the first syllable of this word?) is a third-party entity.

And this is reportage in the age of the idiot.

Your retort to Tits-Hall:

• From the fact that VA hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid are government-run, it doesn’t follow that incorporating more of the industry into the state gulag is insignificant, negligible, or that protest is rendered meaningless. Tits-Hall is one big non sequitur, which should be your most used word in the Age of the Idiot.
• The fact that there is already one mediating entity between doctor and patient does not mean that another, subject to all the wrong incentives, ought to be introduced.

Don’t count on Tits-Hall or Shyster to comprehend a reasoned argument.

That Oh-So Original Argument From Hitler

Democrats, Fascism, History, Republicans, Socialism, The State

The Argument From Hitler (TAFH) is so tired. Come to think of it, tired is a good word for the Republicans. Funny guy and host of Fox News’ late-night laugh “Red Eye” drives home the ludicrous nature of the TAFH by sealing his Gregalogues thus: “If you don’t agree with me, you’re worse than Hitler.” But then Rush Limbaugh is not smart enough to poke fun at himself. Economically, fascism and socialism are evil twins. The Republicans have more of the first in them; the Democrats more of the last. Both parties are made up of consummate statists. Ultimately Rush’s weary TAFH shuts off a more serious deconstruction of Democratic ideology. In any case, here goes Rush:

“Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.

They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that’s the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It’s all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that’s being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.”

Co-op Or Co-optation?

Barack Obama, Democrats, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

As members of the two-party monopoly come together to hammer out a “compromise” on how best to send the health care we have to hell in a handcart, I thought you ought to know a bit about the co-op option; it is, after all, the buzzword being bandied about to replace the less-than soothing “public option” phrase. A co-op is “simply government-run health insurance by another name.” Over to Cato’s Michael D. Tanner:

“Now, if this was really going to be a co-op like rural electrical co-ops or your local health-food store — owned and controlled by its workers and the people who use its services — it would be a meaningless but harmless diversion. America already has some 1,300 insurance companies, so it’s hard to see what one more would add, but it would be unlikely to do much harm.

But these aren’t true co-ops. The members wouldn’t choose its officers — the president would. Plus, the secretary of Health and Human Services would have to approve its business plan, and thus could force it to offer whatever benefits, premiums and reimbursement schedules Washington wants. Finally, the federal government would provide start up, and possibly ongoing, subsidies.

[This is a] ‘co-op’ run by the federal government, under rules imposed by the federal government and with federal funding…

The Senate compromise also drops the job-killing employer-mandate that businesses provide their workers with health insurance or pay a penalty — and substitutes a more regressive employer mandate.

The compromise would have no specific mandate for employers to provide insurance. But any employer who failed to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own.

It is hard to see how this is different from any other employer mandate — except that it will hurt low-wage workers most.

Business owners care about the total cost of hiring a worker, not how that cost is apportioned between wages, taxes, health insurance or other benefits. If they have to pay the cost of subsidizing health insurance for their workers, employers will simply offset the added cost by lowering wages, reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits (such as pensions), cutting back on hiring, laying off current workers, shifting workers from full-time to part-time or outsourcing.

It will ultimately be the worker who pays the subsidy’s cost. The government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand, and taking it back with the other. Does that make sense for any reason other than ‘compromise?'”

The complete Tanner piece here.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and the author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.