Economic Impact: Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Tom B, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. Tom B

    Tom B

    Economic Impact: Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
    A liberal explains the political calculus

    The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

    Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

    Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

    This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

    No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
  2. Americans are VERY alarmed over the staggering deficits. Pelosi may also risk the seats of a lot of moderate and liberal Dems if this strangles us further.

    The Government should stop trying to run things. I support some of the things, like making health care equitable:

    1) Making it illegal for insurance companies to dump anyone who is REASONABLE on time for coverage, and illegal to cherry pick patients (ie, take out quesions about weight, age, preexisting illnesses, gender, etc.).

    2) Make insurance cross all state lines. An insurance company has to serve the WHOLE state, not cherry pick wealthy or younger regions and avoid areas with poor or older citizens.

    3) Get rid of all mandates and let the insurance industry allow to offer packages of benefits. What the heck does a 23-year-old male working at Wal-Mart with no plans of marriage want with mandated prenatal coverage???

    4) Some states basically strangle off things like catastrophic coverage and enforce full coverage. That is one reason a lot of small businesses do not offer it and the poorer (cashier) cannot even afford cheap insurance.

    5) Controlling malpractice awards.
  3. If Americans were even half awake... they'd march on Washington and DEMAND the resignation of Obama, Peolosi [that CUNT], Reid, Fwank, Dodd, and others...

    We are FUCKED... Our children are FUCKED... our grandchildren are FUCKED... all so that Obama, et al, can wield influence and power... in exchange for promised "free ice cream".

    O bama
    B ig
    A ss
    M istake
    A merica

    WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!


    Bascially more "welfare" IMO. And sadly, the "have not's", who live in poverty continue to multiply at a rate that breeds even more poverty. Kids brought into the world who lack caring parents, have no support system fall into the same lifestyle as their parents, if you can call them that. Financially it's unsustainable and these handouts will lead the US into becoming a bankrupt nation.
  5. My kids and all my nieces & nephews are teachers(from university to preschool), and kidless. Their experiences have been the best contraceptive. One's third grade class make-up is mostly non-english speakers, it is impossible to educate in that environment, but he has to pass them...and, some of them might become politicians :D


    I volunteer in an after school program -- 98.6% of the kids get free lunch. Many are single parent, most minorities, bad home environment, poor study habits, no support system, etc.

    I don't fault the kids. Some are driven and good students. But so many have anger issues, on meds, parents berate them in public. And when they eventually drop out of school they become reliant on government handouts. Some then see "handouts" as a way of life.

    Anyone who teaches, especially in a challenging environment with under achieving kids, deals with a lot of stress from both the kids and the parents as well.
  7. Sterilization should be a REQUIREMENT to receive welfare.... not, "more kids [legit or otherwise] = more money from the state"...
  8. piezoe


    Most of you are in the minority nationally, as the polls indicate more are for the Obama Health care plan than against. However in some states, namely Southern ones, the plan is less popular and a small majority are opposed. The house votes for and against essentially reflect the sentiment of the representative's districts. A similar situation should apply to the Senate and the bill would likely pass with a simple majority and include the public option were it not for the 60 votes needed to keep a minority from blocking the legislation. Don't make the mistake, however, of thinking that a majority of US voters overall are opposed to the plan. They are not.

    Quite obviously the fate of the health plan is uncertain at this point. I believe the most likely outcome is a compromise that will disappoint both factions. Those Republicans that come from States were a majority favor the plan, and that includes a many of the states, are playing with fire when the vote the party line. Cao was the smart one.

    It is interesting to note that the plan as originally proposed with the public option had a good chance of delivering on its promises according to the analysis of the CBO, whereas it seems unlikely that any much watered down plan will accomplish the original goals of bringing health care costs under control and insuring most Americans. The cost to the government of the plan passed by the House is doable at less than $30/mo per person. In fact the cost seems almost trivial compared with other recent government expenditures.

    It's odd to me that in a country that spends as much as all other nations combined on "defense" that enough money to assure access to health care for millions and to introduce competition into the insurance market should be such a big deal. Perhaps the Republicans would go along with just the public option by itself (no subsidies for those not able to afford insurance). That would certainly call their bluff, as they are supposed to be the champions of free enterprise.:D
  9. spinn


    I do not personally know even one person who supports this.
  10. piezoe


    Supposedly when Nixon was asked about unemployment he answered, "what unemployment?, All my friends are working."
    #10     Nov 10, 2009