3 Things You Probably Don’t Know About ObamaCare’s Welfare State

The Democrats who wrote the ObamaCare law believe there are two types of people in America: 1) People who need to be screwed over and 2) People who need to be put on welfare. What may surprise you is just how many people are discovering that they are now both.

Here are 3 things that most people don’t know about ObamaCare:

1. It makes health insurance more expensive for EVERYBODY

suprisedcat123“My premium is now HOW much?”

Yes, this first point does make Obama a liar when he swore that “premiums will drop for the average family by $2,500 a year”. So what about all those things the propaganda media outlets are reporting that premiums are lower than expected and that people are now finally getting affordable coverage? Yes, if you throw your critical thinking skills out the window, a lot of what Democrats say sounds very good. First of all, when the news proudly announces “premiums are lower than expected”, they are NOT saying “premiums are lower than they are now.” They know that Democrat voters are so desperate for good news from their side they won’t question what they are told and/or aren’t smart enough to be able to tell the difference.

To normal people, the reasons health insurance premiums are soaring are obvious. After all, ObamaCare pretty much throws your healthcare customization options out the window by demanding insurance companies to cover everything under the sun, even if you don’t need or want it. You see, in a free market, a single guy wouldn’t need pregnancy insurance. Of course Obama, in his infinite wisdom, decreed: too bad. You’re paying for it if you want it or not. So using our common sense, we can see how it is impossible for health costs to go anywhere but up.

“But”, you may ask, “but what about those people with pre-existing conditions? Aren’t insurance companies now forced to accept their applications and are forbidden from charging them more?” Yes, that is true. But of course, if they are already sick, it’s not health INSURANCE that they’re getting now is it? The concept of “insurance” is to protect yourself in case something bad happens.

Yaris Smashed by Rock“Uh, hello Geico? I need to get insurance . . . how do you define pre-existing condition exactly?”

There is a reason you can’t buy home owner’s insurance AFTER your house burns down. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is not “insurance” but actually a form of welfare. Which brings us to point number . . .

2. ObamaCare “subsidies” is really just another word for “welfare”.

Since prices for health insurance are obviously skyrocketing, going up by 200% – 600% for some people, how is Obama going to try to hide this fact and sell it to his fan base? Simple: he puts them on welfare. Of course, Democrats are smart enough to use a different, nicer sounding word:  subsidies. In all practical aspects though, they are exactly the same. Government raises taxes, takes people’s income and redistributes it back to their loyal supporters. When the government finally lumbers up with a working website (it only cost 3x more than they promised it would), they’ll hide the real prices from insurance seekers and instead say: “Hey, take a government subsidy to buy something you used to be able to afford! Now you’ll never vote Republican again!”

healthcaregovGovernment: “We apologize we couldn’t make a working website despite having 3 years and $500 million. But we are sure we are perfectly capable of making your medical decisions for you. Just trust us . . . and take a number.”

Since the average Democrat voter has no qualms on depending on the government for survival, this will not faze them. For people who consider themselves as part of the middle class however, being forced into a situation where you are being trained to depend on government handouts is outrageous. As for people who already have health problems, they are getting complete government protection and support (aka “welfare”) because health care in this country is simply just too expensive to pay for out of pocket. Which brings us to point number . . .

3. Saying we need ObamaCare to control healthcare costs is like asking OJ Simpson to find his wife’s killer.

One reason for the fervent belief among Democrats on the need for the government takeover of healthcare  is because healthcare is just too ridiculously expensive to pay for on your own. What you may not know (and average Democrat certainly doesn’t know) is the REASON health care is so expensive in the first place is because of . . . . government regulations!

So isn’t this like asking the Joker in the Batman movies to perform reconstructive plastic surgery to help with the sudden increase in mutilations in Gotham City? Yes, yes it is.

Nurse-JokerJust think of him as ObamaCare’s version of “Patch Adams”.

Although we could write a book on the thousands of ways government interference in the healthcare industry can cause one toothbrush to cost $1,000 (I’m not kidding), here is just a quick list of innumerable ways the government created the problem they are now claiming to fix.

  1. Disengaging the customer (you) from the costs of healthcare
  2. Legal rules allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits
  3. Government restricting the sale of insurance policies across state lines
  4. Artificial limit on number of doctors
  5. Ridiculously high costs on medical innovation
  6. Regulations limiting the amount of medication that can be made
  7. Refusing to enforce immigration laws

Well, that’s enough discussion of some of the ugly secrets hidden in ObamaCare. After all, if our politicians are willing to live under the same rules they wrote for the rest of us, how bad can it really be? Oh wait . . . .

ObamaCare Exemption


2 thoughts on “3 Things You Probably Don’t Know About ObamaCare’s Welfare State

  1. Let me first say I find this to be a perfectly succinct and accessible critique of Obamacare. I recognize myself to be anything but normal person and hence there are still a few things I simply dont understand about the bill and its criticisms.

    You argue, and I think with fair logic, that premiums have risen since the induction of Obamacare. But do you think there is any chance that The administration when they spoke of average lower premiums where speaking to the long term comsequences of the plan as opposed to the short term? I say that only because I see a trend of reactionary criticism in our world today. That is we are often outraged immediate circumstances that have a long term advantage. For example, how dare my doctor tell my I ought to stop smoking or exercise or eat less amazing food. My point is, if Obama was shooting for a long term solution it may be unfair to judge the bill on its mediate consequences.

    And now we get to one of the more baffling criticisms of the bill to me. The pre-existing condition and its consequences on premiums. I think you are absolutely correct to question the label of insurance (in fact, the word pre-existing is an incorrect label as well; what they mean is “existing”). I think what we are currently discussing does not qualify as insurance. But I would argue to you that the insurance I currently have does not qualify as insurance. My work provided insurance essentially pays for my annual check up, and assists in paying for the doctor visits and prescription of my Ritilan (so that my ADHD is at least kept at bay during working hours). But that isn’t something I purchased “in case of” but rather “because of”. Doctor visits and medicine are outlandishly expensive without a third party wheeling and dealing to bring down the cost. And I realize that my involvement costs other people in my plan more money, just as some people with more expensive needs contribute to higher premiums for me. Either way though, none of that is actually, simply insurance. You mentioned “pregnancy insurance” but even that wouldn’t technically be insurance for most people. Often pregnancy is planned ordeal and not a “just in case” sort of thing. So my question to you is do you believe that the “solution” to this is having pure catastrophic insurance and then separate programs that are called and treated differently or are you (with perfectly good reason) simply hung up on the word insurance and you think we should change what we call this third party health coverage thing?

    I say all that because it brings me to a different but related question. For those with “pre-existing” conditions, why is insurance coverage for them increasing our premiums more than before? Don’t get me wrong, I see the obvious math up front: the hc company is forced to cover the expensive costs of the chronic and terminal and therefor we all have to pay for them to preserve the profit margin. But what I don’t understand is where those costs are magically coming from. That is, who was paying for the chronically ill before they were added to health insurance? I don’t think that they were being denied treatment (if that were true I actually think paying more for insurance is the morally correct thing to do). But it seems like they were being given treatment and then being charged full price for it. But it seems that those without insurance were most often those who couldn’t afford it. So they are given a massive hospital, medicine, and general practitioner bill that they could never pay. And perhaps I’m wrong here, but I wouldn’t suspect that the hospitals, etc were patient enough to cut their lost profit until that party paid. Rather, my suspicion is that they regained their losses by increasing the cost of care to everyone else who had insurance or government healthcare of some type. Which means that those costs would be applied to our health insurance companies and our government to which we pay taxes. So, if that was being done, what does this new way change? If the chronically ill were already increasing costs of care for the rest of us, it would seem like this bill simply A. Streamlines that process and B. At least provides the chronically ill with some means of preventative care (particularly for the rest of their family) which very well may result in less costs long run because certainly catching heart disease up front is cheaper to all of us than heart surgery?

    I think you are absolutely correct to point to the costs of healthcare, but I’m a bit unclear on some of government responsibility you’ve assigned to the costs. For instance, I’m not entirely sure that the government can be to blame for disengaging us from the costs of healthcare. It seems like the nature of our current insurance based system that causes me to not know the actual price of my treatment (as opposed to what the company is being charged and what I am “saving”). Don’t you feel like it should be the responsibility of the doctor/hospital to tell me exactly how much something costs and the insurance company to pay that cost? I don’t see the government’s role in that process.

    Your second point was that you want more government mandate to protect doctors and hospitals from law suits. Which I don’t disagree with, but it seems like additional government activity in healthcare which seems to go against your free market principle?

    I was under the impression that the sale of insurance across state lines was primarily driven by the differences in state laws regarding medicial care? Is that not the case? I would think you would be a proponent of that given that it highlights and encourages states to act sovereignly in their healthcare laws?

    I was under the impression that we still pave the way for a great deal of medical innovation in America and there is quite a large amount of money spent on medical research directly out of our federal budget? Is that incorrect? The Forbes article absolutely speaks to increased regulation of medicine, and I see both benefit and consequence to that. On the one hand, our war on drugs campaign seems overboard and costly and innovatively stifling. But on the other hand, it seems to me of great value to have an program in place (as well as laws) that prevent us from taking potentially fatal drugs simply because they weren’t vetted in a race to get them on shelves (and so that we can prosecute companies who indirectly kill people simply out of negligence). Do you feel like we have a true and honest sense of what is properly regulated in medicine versus what is superfluous or are you naturally a skeptic of all things federal and feel like we can’t trust them to perform this regulatory task at all?

    Thanks for you time and for opening up the dialogue!

  2. Pardon me, didn’t you have a diff title before? (republican) Not the point. As far as Obamacare as health coverage I was reading the comment above as a critique of insurance and I always found ‘insurance’ to be a warranty like ‘life insurance.’ (if you die, your death compensates your life)

    Health coverage however, allots coverage for when an accident or illness occurs or medical attention is needed not warranted, health isn’t guaranteed, health coverage should be universally granted, I think Obama-biden administration had good intentions and I’d rather have something than nothing although I don’t see much difference than what most employers give as health benefits to what Obama desires to pass or if it’s greener on either pasture. Part time employees could claim health benefits making it so businesses do not want or have to hire them full time ever or force businesses to hire full time and give benefits lowering the employment rate. It seems by giving universal healthcare ‘Obama-biden’ are asking the country to only work part time jobs and giving businesses a get out of jail free card to not have to give their employees benefits and giving them major expenditure cuts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s