by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
As we get into blame season surrounding the extension of the debt ceiling, let’s make sure we remember – and remind anyone who will listen — what actually caused the government to shut down just a few short months ago.
The Democrats insisted that the Republicans accept a pure Continuing Resolution (CR) as a first and final offer with no negotiation along the way.
In contrast, the Republicans (after a number of initial offers were rebuffed and ignored with no discussion), made a final offer of 1) simply delaying the individual mandate for one year (which is effectively now happening) and 2) subjecting Congress to ObamaCare as the existing law actually requires anyway.
The Democrats refused even this more than reasonable –and in hindsight quite astute — offer causing the Government to shut down.
In what possible world can the shutdown be blamed directly on the Republicans?!
_______________________________
Now What?
Did you like what you read?
If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.
I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.
If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.
Thanks for visiting Tax Politix
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
With all the talk abuzz about an inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy, I wager that her platform might quite likely include repealing Obamacare. Hillary is certain to declare late in the spring so that she can positively impact the midterm elections to benefit the Democrats.
What would Hillary gain from a repeal-Obamacare platform? Here’s three things:
First, a “repeal-Obamacare” position would effectively neuter the Republican narratives of anyone running in 2014 (and possibly beyond). All the hand-wringing and fundraising, all the sob-stories and alarm bells about Obamacare would be utterly weakened if Hillary was out there saying the exact same thing.
Think about it: any Republican candidate on the same policy page as Hillary Clinton would be disastrous for that candidate. The Republicans are hoping for strong gains in 2014 — possibly even taking the Senate — and are banking on a fledgling Obamacare to do it. This objective could not be achieved with Hillary added to the mix arguing that Obamacare is not good legislation.
Second, a “repeal-Obamacare” position from Hillary would give vulnerable Democrats a free pass to sever close ties and loyalty to Obama. Obama is toxic right now; his popularity is in the mid ‘30s and his signature legislation is overwhelmingly disliked across the country. With Hillary jumping in, Democrats would be able to rally around a more popular and likeable Democrat (what Democrat doesn’t like the Clintons?). They could distance themselves from Obama and Obamacare without hurting the Democrat brand for the elections; Hillary enhances that brand right now much better than Obama can.
Finally, Hillary herself was intimately involved in health care reform after Clinton’s election in 1992. The legislation she helped champion via the Taskforce For Health Care Reform was aptly dubbed “Hillarycare”.
Twenty years later — in comparison to what we’ve seen of Obamacare, does Hillarycare looks so bad? Maybe not to some people. Is this the alternative solution and finally Hillary’s day in the sun? Possibly, but not likely.
It is much more plausible that Hillary would take healthcare reform even further than Obamacare. Knowing the growing disdain for mandates and the insurance system that seems helplessly broken right now, Hillary would likely lobby instead for a single-payer system.
This is a dream of many progressives and Democrats. It would be presented as a “simplified” alternative solution to the byzantine problem that is Obamacare, at a time when the Republicans lack their own, strong Obamacare alternative.
Whatever the case, running on repealing Obamacare is a win-win for Hillary. She gets to directly impact and help the midterm elections for the Democrats. 6 years after her primary defeat against Obama, Hillary will emerge as the better, wiser, and more likeable Democrat (revenge is a dish best served cold?). And finally, Hillary will have the unprecedented opportunity to finish the healthcare reform she started two decades ago, since practically anything will be seen as better than Obamacare now.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS
As a Jewish guy, I hardly pay attention to the leaders of other religions, but Pope Francis has won my admiration since his election this past spring. So it was somewhat dismayed when I read his recent Papal Exhortation published last month. In one section, Pope Francis seems to very nearly reject the idea of “trickle down economics”, a position that, if indeed true, would be devastating to the world.
Being in finance and business for decades, it has become abundantly clear that free markets are the best path to prosperity. So what to make of Francis’s thoughts?
My Catholic friends tell me that Francis’s discussion follows the the same path of Catholic Social Teaching — under which economics loosely falls — from the last several Popes, and therefore he hasn’t said anything new or different on the topic. This sentiment was echoed in Peggy Noonan’s piece published in the WSJ regarding Francis’s publication. Noonan was cautiously optimistic that Francis wasn’t rejecting free markets and she welcomed the conversation he has created.
On the other side of the aisle, Francis was blasted by some fiscal conservatives over a particularly thorny paragraph:
“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”
Here, it’s easy to see on the surface that the language Pope Francis employs — that trickle-down theories “have never been confirmed by the facts” of being successful — can be confusing. This is a very valid criticism. Certainly, the world has seen economic gains in numerous places where trickle-down economics has been practiced, including Pope Francis’s Argentina, but he seems not to discuss them.
A second reading suggests that “Free markets aren’t what Francis is criticizing here, but rather the lazy idea that “trickle down” economics somehow lifts people from poverty by its own volition, much as a sale at Wal-Mart somehow lifts people from poverty. Does it?
Francis — as well as any causal observer of any video showing Wal-Mart shoppers fight over $500 televisions — would disagree. Francis condemns a consumerist culture that is merely keeping up with the Joneses as it were (or in Francis’ words, “ we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle”) and simply views human beings as participants in the spectacle of consumerism as something abhorrent… “they fail to move us” as Pope Francis rightly mentions.
So what do the leaders of conservative finance and economics do about Pope Francis? Obviously he will be writing more during his pontificate. Clearly, the world is watching and his remarks and actions speak volumes not just to Catholics any more.
It’s worth it to remember that Pope Francis is not an economist first and foremost. That being said the sweeping generalities seen in his exhortation were ripe for wide interpretation. Don’t forget, the liberal media is always waiting in the wings for a statement or a sentence (this time paragraph 54) that “shows” the Pope is on their (liberal) side — in this case the issue was economics.
Pope Francis is a speaker of freedom, and in that should be included economic freedom. We have a potential opportunity to educate the Pope and ally with him about the truth about economics and the free market. Will the world listen?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Today, the architect of Obamacare, Zeke Emanuel, modified another one of Obama’s promises. This time, he explained the “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” now actually means “if you want to, you can pay for it,”.
During Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to whether the promise would be upheld. Here’s the exchange, courtesy of The Weekly Standard.
“The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to,” said the Obamacare architect.
“No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
“He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
“It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
“Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits….“
Here’s the problem. Right on the White House website, there is a document called “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check”. . There it states: “It’s never been more important to dispel these outlandish rumors and myths. Learn the facts and share them with your friends, family and neighbors.”
Then it has a “Reality Check” list. The very first bullet item says this:
“You Can Keep Your Own Insurance
Reform isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”.
Notice that it doesn’t say, “if you like your doctor, you might have to pay more”
This isn’t the only place on whitehouse.gov that has the Doctor Promise. On the FAQ page entitled “Putting Americans In Charge of their Health Care”, it says:
“Q
: Will the government take my choice of doctor away?
A: No.
Nothing about the President’s proposal will interfere with the choice of doctors you have today. The legislation will not cause you to change the coverage you have at work today”
Here’s the screencap:
In fact, the Doctor Promise goes all the way back to at least 2009. On whitehouse.gov, you can find Obama’s weekly address from August 8th, 2009, where he states,
“So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
So, since at least 2009, we’ve been hearing the simple promise, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. Yet today we hear a modified version of that Promise, much like the recent caveat to the “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” promise”.
Now we find out the caveat to the Doctor Promise. Here’s the rest of the interview with Emanuel from earlier today. The exchange with Wallace finishes up:
“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.
“And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel.
Caveat emptor, indeed.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” ~
~Federalist #62
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, POLITICS
The NY Post had a good piece today by William McGurn on the state of the union (pension system) in Detroit, making the case for Detroit to switch to defined contribution plans for their union workers. McGurn is right on the mark that the such a move is critical for the city’s revitalization. Dispensing with this one particularly enormous financial burden which has added greatly to the city’s fiscal insolvency would change the city’s finances for the better going forward. However, he seems skeptical that such a radical change could ever be achieved.
There is a way to implement a change to a defined contribution system. Even though the city of Detroit is billions of dollars in debt, the emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, has the opportunity to make to make it happen.
Orr is currently at odds with the unions over the total amount that union’s two pension system are underfunded. Using the actuarial projections provided by the unions, the funds are only short by $650 million, while Orr’s calculations show that the underfunding is a good $3.5 billion. Who is right? Orr believes he is correct and some independent studies seem to back his assertions. In actuality, it doesn’t necessarily matter who is correct, because the conflict actually provides a solution for the city.
If the unions wish to argue that their pension liability is merely $650 million, the city should wholeheartedly agree to fully fund their request — with one important condition. The unions must either a) agree to a fixed annual contribution to the defined benefit plans going forward, or b) (the better solution) cease using a defined benefit plan and move to a defined contribution plan going forward for all of their employees. In either case they must take full ownership, responsibility, and management, from here on out.
Once the unions pensions are fully paid up with the $650 million from the city, they will be in a position to take over the management of their funds. Let the unions use their expertise and earn the 8% that they maintain should be readily achievable. If they can do it, their members will continue to thrive-as-usual, ultimately collecting the pensions that have been promised to them for work up to this point. If they can only earn 3-4 or 6%, it will be on them to explain to their own members why their numbers are suddenly now off.
Even though $650 million sounds like a large number to pay off and fully fund the union pensions, it is a small amount to pay for the fiduciary freedom that comes with not having to manage an incredibly complex, risky, and fiscally unsound system. Such a move will contribute greatly to the long term health of the city of Detroit.
by | FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
The great bait-and-switch of Obamacare (“you can keep your plan and your doctor”) was intentionally orchestrated by the architects of the legislation. There were thousands of policies offered nationwide that were good and even very good but now they can’t be sustained under the new Obamacare policy requirements. These regulations are so narrow that it intentionally made obsolete or non-compliant the vast majority of health care policies in that were currently in existence, thereby requiring the insurers to cancel those offerings.
There are 10 essential benefits to Obamacare that every policy now must have. Most of them are routine and were likely found in some form on the vast majority of plans pre-Obamacare. Forbes recently compiled a list of these required items:
1) Ambulatory patient services – Care you receive without being admitted to a hospital, such as at a doctor’s office, clinic or same-day (“outpatient”) surgery center. Also included in this category are home health services and hospice care (note: some plans may limit coverage to no more than 45 days).
2) Emergency services – Care you receive for conditions that could lead to serious disability or death if not immediately treated, such as accidents or sudden illness. Typically, this is a trip to the emergency room, and includes transport by ambulance. You cannot be penalized for going out-of-network or for not having prior authorization.
3) Hospitalization – Care you receive as a hospital patient, including care from doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, laboratory and other tests, medications you receive during your hospital stay, and room and board. Hospitalization coverage also includes surgeries, transplants and care received in a skilled nursing facility, such as a nursing home that specializes in the care of the elderly (note: some plans may limit skilled nursing facility coverage to no more than 45 days).
4) Laboratory services – Testing provided to help a doctor diagnose an injury, illness or condition, or to monitor the effectiveness of a particular treatment. Some preventive screenings, such as breast cancer screenings and prostrate exams, are provided free of charge.
5) Maternity and newborn care – Care that women receive during pregnancy (prenatal care), throughout labor, delivery and post-delivery, and care for newborn babies.
6) Mental health services and addiction treatment – Inpatient and outpatient care provided to evaluate, diagnose and treat a mental health condition or substance abuse disorder (note: some plans may limit coverage to 20 days each year).
7) Rehabilitative Services and devices – Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices to help you gain or recover mental and physical skills lost to injury, disability or a chronic condition. Plans have to provide 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab.
8) Pediatric Services – Care provided to infants and children, including well-child visits and recommended vaccines and immunizations. Dental and vision care must be offered to children younger than 19. This includes two routine dental exams, an eye exam and corrective lenses each year.
9) Prescription drugs – Medications that are prescribed by a doctor to treat an illness or condition. Examples include prescription antibiotics to treat an infection or medication used to treat an ongoing condition, such as high cholesterol. At least one prescription drug must be covered for each category and classification of federally approved drugs.
10) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease treatment – Preventive care, such as physicals, immunizations and cancer screenings designed to prevent or detect certain medical conditions. Also, care for chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes.
The bulk of this list consists of items that were not necessarily mandatory on any insurance plan, but were fairly common in some form or another. For instance, maternity care might have been an add-on some plans, included on others, but was relatively common in the industry. However, there are two items in particular on this list which are recent healthcare innovations not widely found. Therefore, their inclusion as criteria for assessing whether a health plan was “good” or “not good” rendered most current insurance plans incomplete — and therefore obsolete — for Obamacare. They are 1) “rehabilitative and habilitative care” and 2) “pediatric services”.
On the matter of rehabilitative and habilitative services, the new Obamacare essential makes a distinction between Rehabilitative Services (which help to recover lost capacities) and Habilitative Services (which “help people acquire, maintain, or improve skills and functioning for daily living”). Statereforum.org, a site devoted to health reform implementation, concurs that Habilitative services — a word not readily familiar to many people — are “a set of benefits not traditionally covered by private health insurance”.
When Health and Human Services made their final decisions this past November on the 10 Essentials for health plans, it “recognized that many health plans across the country do not recognize habilitative services as a distinct group of services. HHS proposed a flexible policy that allows states to define habilitative services if their benchmark plan fails to do so”. In the Federal Register published on November 26, 2013, it was specifically noted that this flexibility “will provide a valuable opportunity for states to lead the development of policy in this area and welcome comments on this proposed approach to providing habilitative services”. In other words, HHS created an benefit requirement that most insurance plans didn’t cover and isn’t even uniformly defined in the industry. Because nearly all plans lacked this “essential item”, most existing health insurance plans have been declared non-compliant.
With regard to pediatric services, it has typically been a matter in the healthcare industry that dental and vision coverage — particularly for children — are not to be included as part of a health insurance policy. Those that do have almost always have it as an add-on where you get services elsewhere, and only a few of the largest companies even bothered to offer it. This “must have” was never a part of a normal healthcare environment, and by making this one of the compliance items, it too has rendered nearly all plans incompatible with Obamacare regulations.
It has become clear that few existing health insurance policies pass the Obamacare litmus test. This carefully engineered attack on the “bad apple” health care industry was to induce a large-scale shift of citizens onto the exchanges (to pay for Obamacare) after their insurance was inevitably canceled. “If you like your plan you can keep it”, was a hollow promise all along. With the website calamity, Obamacare has utterly backfired — but the citizens are left holding the bag of higher costs, canceled plans, and an uncertain future. There is a sense of irony that the Obamacare “benefits” have done nothing to benefit anyone.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Obamapologists have been pointing to the shrinking budget deficit as proof that the economy is heading in the right direction. There is a sense of desperation afoot to find something, anything, that can be positive news upon which Obama can rebuild his reputation. For the non-economists out there, a declining deficit does indeed sound indicative of a healthy economic rebound. However, the main reasons for this current shrinking deficit have absolutely nothing to do with Obama, nor do they affect the economy in the way it is being spun.
The first major reason for the deficit reduction has to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government entities have given at least $140 billion, its “profit”, to the US Treasury so far in 2013. But this “profit“ was principally interest collected on mortgages which a) should have been earned by the private sector which the government took over by underbidding the private sector using taxpayer money, and b) by basically deciding that the private shareholders of Fannie and Freddie shouldn’t receive any part of the profit even though they had purchased – with their own money – substantial shares in the companies. These profits were required to be handed over to the US Treasury after the 2008 bailout conservatorship was amended with this change in 2012. Whether or not such action was legal is another question entirely.
The second large source of revenue was the frenzy of end-of-year tax paying in 2012. Remember the fight over the “Fiscal Cliff”? Because of the very substantial increase in individual tax rates for higher income earners, these individuals were able to accelerate 2013 income (including salary and bonuses) and dividends into 2012 to get the lower rate. Even more importantly, individuals that had gains on stock and real estate that they might not ordinarily have sold for years, all were dumped by the end of 2012 to get the lower rates. It should be noted that tax rates on dividends and capital gains for high income earners went up 59% – so much for Obama’s “the wealthy can pay just a little bit more”. The FY of the federal government runs October 1 to September 30, so those tax transactions, necessitating taxes to be paid by April 15, 2013, were recorded in the current fiscal year.
The Fannie/Freddie contribution and the end-of-the-year tax activity account for substantially all of the revenue increase and corresponding deficit reductions. They are one-shot deals, and are therefore not an indication of a rapidly growing economy.
Moreover, the most important thing to remember is that even with a lower deficit right now, Obama is still running huge annual deficits. Certainly no credit for deficit reduction should go to the Obama Administration, when total deficits still run over 4% of the GDP and are overwhelmingly higher than any of his predecessors in the history of our country (except during World War II). If true and lasting spending cuts, including entitlements, are not soon brought under control, we will be rapidly moving towards becoming Greece.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, POLITICS
De Blasio’s recent mayoral victory was a sad day for New Yorkers. Electing him was proof that the constituency in NYC is morally, philosophically, and educationally bankrupt. And if the mayor sticks to his positions that he declared as candidate De Blasio, NYC will be financially bankrupt as well.
A strong argument can be made that the entire election was a public service union push. For four years now, the public service unions have waiting to negotiate their contracts until Bloomberg was out of office. The time has come for the unions. De Blasio, from a position of patronage, will roll over and give the unions huge back-end and retroactive pay increases and benefits both undeserved and unaffordable. New York City could easily find itself in the same fiscal categories as Detroit and Chicago.
Why have the unions been willing to work without a contract for virtually all of the Bloomberg tenure? A little known clause of the anti-strike Taylor Law is the Triborough Amendment.This provision mandates that if a contract expires before a new contract is in place, the benefits of the expired contract continue, unchanged, until the new contract is finally negotiated. NYC is the only place in the country that has such a clause, which renders it difficult to negotiate anything from a position of austerity.
Bloomberg understood the ever-expanding costs of public service union wages and benefits, and sought to restrain them during the economic downturn. Over the past four years, the unions have steadfastly refused to engage in contract negotiations that would bring their costs in line.Why should they? They could continue to accrue the unaffordable and unreasonable benefits of the expired contract that they could have no hope of getting with Bloomberg under a new contract. Then they could help elect a new mayor who is philosophically aligned, financially naive, and seemingly irresponsible enough to give them what they could only dream of in a new contract.
De Blasio won the election by a huge majority, despite the fact that he is so far left as to be an avowed supporter of the likes of Cuba and the Sandinistas. He clearly espouses policies — such as higher taxes, more spending and regulation, attempts at government imposed income redistribution, and curtailment of police activity — which will ultimately hurt the poor and economically disadvantaged more than anyone. And if he tops it off with crony contracts with the public service unions, New Yorkers will have dug themselves a hole virtually impossible to get out of.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Are you a genetic lottery winner? Too bad.
The legislative name for Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. This name was chosen precisely to appeal to Americans to consider buying a health insurance plan from a government-run exchange. Who doesn’t like the idea of something that is “affordable”? By using that term, it suggested that the current system of health care was the opposite –“unafforable”. But the Affordable Care Act was merely a red herring for what the government really thought about the healthcare system — that it was discriminatory, and could be used as another vessel for wealth transfer.
Yesterday’s interview transcript between Chuck Todd and the Architect of Obamacare, Mr. Jonathan Gruber, M.I.T. should be screaming from every newspaper this morning. But there was hardly a blip on the radar screen. Real Clear Politics has the video. Mr. Gruber revealed the singular truth about the real reason our government created and passed Obamacare — it was not about an “affordable” new system; it was about a “discriminatory” old system, and the government “fix”. Here’s what Gruber described:
“We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price.
That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance“.
Where to start?
The most glaring and insulting concept in his statement is the idea that someone is a “genetic winner” and “a lottery winner” that has been “paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination”.
The idea of a “genetic winner” is incredibly chilling. Brave New world-ish even. It completely removes the idea of personal responsibility in the health equation. We are somehow only and entirely healthy or not because of superior genetics, and therefore those who are should be financially punished for it due to a government-imposed standard of “fairness”.
The next absurity goes hand-in-hand with that — the idea that people who “won” the “genetic lottery” are paying artificially low prices for insurance. By what standard is something “artificially low” (or not)? The government standard! Not the insurance market. The government tells us something is artificially low and therefore needs to be corrected. It is their justification to punish the “winners”, a form of reparation of to those who the government considers “genetic lottery losers”. Pay up! It’s not fair you have been paying too low of a price!
Gruber also describes in detail how the government has decided the system is discriminatory: “where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. At every point in time — present, past, and future — the system discriminates. If you might get sick in the future, you cannot have insurance now! Such a statement defies all logic. But it doesn’t matter. The groundwork is laid bare: our health care discriminates.
What is the solution? Gruber explains that the only way to level the playing field and be fair is to force the “genetic winners” to pay their fair share (sound familiar?).And finally, finally, Gruber tells us, “In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance”.
A fixed system now. Because the government decided the system was “broken”. It was the fault of the genetic lottery winners and the artifically low prices who discriminated against those who did not have insurance. Are you a genetic lottery winner? The government finds you contemptible.
Of course, there was no distinction of the uninsured between those who could not get insurance or who chose not to have insurance either. The Uninsured were discriminated against. And that needed to be fixed — by the government. We’re here to help.
The Affordable Care Act is only about being affordable to some. It is revealed to be another giant wealth transfer. Take the genetic lottery winners, kick them off their freely chosen policies, put them on the more expensive Obamacare government exchanges, and subsidize those who have been discriminated against to make it fair for all.
Fairness is yet again the objective of, and gift from, the government — no matter the cost to our wallets or our dignity.
