President Obama appears to be gloating over the eight million Americans who have signed up for Obamacare.
According to “Obama Toughens Health Law Talk,” the Congressional Budget Office had projected six or seven million people would enroll through the exchanges this year. The article says, “Mr. Obama pointed to the number to declare the law a success and that Republicans should stop trying to overturn it.”
On the same day this was reported, The New York Times published Health Care Spending’s Recent Surge Stirs Unease in which Annie Lowrey reported…
A surge of insurance enrollment related to rising employment and President Obama’s health care law has likely meant a surge of spending on health care, leaving policy experts wondering whether the government and private businesses can control spending as the economy gets stronger and millions more Americans gain coverage.
Of course they can’t control the spending. You and I already know healthcare costs increase anytime the government subsidizes the cost of healthcare. It’s basic economics…
The article goes on to say some economists and health care folks think that people feeling more “economically confident” will lead to more Americans demanding more expensive procedures. This, in turn, will cause insurers to raise premiums, and the government will end up spending more than projected.
So, say everyone is disciplined, and hospitals and physicians are able to prevent that from happening. What will it look like for the rest of us… for the majority of this country?
Not good, I can tell you that. The new realities are already in play.
On April 17, The New York Times published Cost of Treatment May Influence Doctors in which Andrew Pollack begins the article with…
Saying they can no longer ignore the rising prices of health care, some of the most influential medical groups in the nation are recommending that doctors weigh the costs, not just the effectiveness of treatments, as they make decisions about patient care.
Well, this is the precise “rationing of healthcare” for the rest of us that many have been warning would occur if Obamacare went into effect. ” . . . doctors are starting to redefine their roles, from being concerned exclusively about individual patients to exerting influence on how health care dollars are spent.”
I knew I was worried when I heard President Obama tout Kaiser Permanente as a superior outfit. I had health insurance through Kaiser Permanente when I lived in Northern California and worked as a contract employee.
Whenever I needed to go to their pharmacy to pick up a prescription, I’d end up waiting in a line behind twenty people. Then, I had extreme pain in my arms and repeatedly asked for an MRI. They continued to refuse my request, saying the treatment would be the same no matter what an MRI revealed. They never correctly diagnosed the pain in my arms as coming from my neck, which was riddled with severe arthritis, bone spurs, and bulging discs.
My physician prior to Kaiser coverage told me I needed to get a yearly skin exam, and when I scheduled one with the Kaiser dermatologist, he nearly scolded me for making such an appointment, and proceeded to show me what an abnormal mole looked like on the internet and told me I should be looking for the moles myself.
The list went on and on… And I’ll admit having grown up with good health care, it was shocking. But it was rationed health care back then, and that’s what President Obama wants for all of us.
Kaiser Permanente never gave me an MRI. Later, while working for a mid-sized company, Cigna did without question. It’s sad that the Kaiser way will be the new normal. It makes me more passionate than ever to repeal Obamacare, despite the eight million Americans who have successfully enrolled in a disastrous system.
Once again, thank you for sending me your e-mails. I can’t respond individually, but do read and consider all of them. Send your question, comment, or complaint to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Jim DeMint: ‘Big Government Benefits the Rich: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/jim-demint-big-government-benefits-rich – Anonymous
Olugbemi comment: Usually when we hear of the top 1% and who it’s comprised of, we think of individuals like Bill Gates, Donald Trump and so on. No doubt about it, that those entrepreneurs are within the mix of America’s top 1% who accumulate immense wealth, but those are the stereotypically expected folk. Ironically, those who we never hear about; those under the radar such as governmental appointees and overseers of industry are also surprisingly within that mix. According to Senator Jim DeMint, “people come to Washington to do public service and end up getting rich” (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/jim-demint-big-government-benefits-rich).
In his interview DeMint continues to say, “When the Census Bureau released its most recent ranking of the U.S. communities with the highest median household incomes, seven of the nation’s ten wealthiest counties were in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.” This conclusion seems to be made by DeMint due to his experience on Capitol Hill. DeMint calls it, “‘Cashing in,’ or ‘moving to K Street,’ the downtown Washington artery that’s synonymous with the lobbying business.”
With this information we see that big government can be nothing but a revolving door of wealth within itself. “Career bureaucrats and even high-ranking political appointees in the federal government tend to make somewhere between $75,000 and $200,000 per year,” this is besides all other governmental benefits they receive for their “public service” to America. It is also common knowledge that bureaucrats usually end up as lobbyists of the industries they were assigned to oversee while acting as public service people. With all this said, can Americans truly believe the constant pronouncement of ” spreading the wealth,” or should we begin to ask in detail what our government officials mean when that phrase is uttered? DeMint states, “The president’s talking about the one percent and the gap between the poor and the rich. The reason that is happening is big government benefits the rich and big business, and it makes it harder to spread the wealth the way it was spread in America with thousands and thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs. That’s where the jobs are created.”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579505953682216682?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304311204579505953682216682.html – Anonymous
Olugbemi comment: A nation of laws indeed. For over a decade now, America seems to remain stagnant in economic growth. Regulator Without Peer helps us understand at least one big factor in this dilemma. After reading this article, we might want to examine whether having so many laws is really a beneficial aspect of our government for the American economy. The article states…
Congress may be mired in gridlock, but the federal bureaucracy is busier than ever. In 2013 the Federal Register contained 3,659 “final” rules, which means they now must be obeyed, and 2,594 proposed rules on their way to becoming orders from political headquarters.
The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the fourth highest total in history…he overall cost of regulatory compliance and its economic impact is about $1.9 trillion annually…the burden of complying with federal rules costs roughly the annual GDP of Australia, Canada or Italy.
With the current position of our economy, can we truly afford all these burdens? These regulations do not seem to act in the manner they are expected to but rather cripple growth in a way that cannot possibly encourage a flourishing economy. In addition, according to the article, “these regulatory taxes make U.S. businesses less competitive, but it also burdens every American because it is embedded in the prices of all goods and services.” Nothing is wrong with being a land made up of laws to ensure security and equality but if these laws are crippling the nation, we can surely cut back for the betterment of the future.
Bukky Olugbemi is the latest addition to The Project to Restore America. Look forward to hearing more analyses from her in the future.