The evolution of nationalized healthcare is causing doctors to close their independent practices and join large healthcare companies, mainly for the safety of the benefits, better equipment and better hours. I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my entrepreneur doctor who's competing with other doctors for my business rather than face the national healthcare nightmare of bureacracy and faceless caregivers that's coming our way. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I have a strong feeling that healthcare has started to degenerate in America. If my dealing with other government enterprises in healthcare are indicators of what will be forced on us, then my strong feelings are probably reliable
Entries in nationalized healthcare (5)
I remember when some of us warned that Obamacare is a first step toward nationalized healthcare, and how many moderates and liberals guffawed and ridiculed us as conspiracy theorists and stated how silly it is to think of this modest change in healthcare as some "socialist" plot to control healthcare. As Obamacare unfolds, it's clear that nationalized healthcare was the plan all along -- what do the moderates and liberals say now? Are they proud of the deceit and denial?
Obamacare is a juggernaut headed directly at our economy -- our economy which is already anemic. Can the public maintain the will to overturn it?
From all appearances, although many in the media are still not reporting it, the Democrats have sold out to Big Insurance by not putting the public option in play when now it looks like they only need 50 votes.
I don't think the Democrats will be in bed with insurance companies very long -- it will be a short affair and the insurance companies will soon be jilted without even a kiss goodbye. The Democrats are merely prostituting themselves and sleeping with whomever it takes to get what they want -- government-controlled healthcare. I know we aren't suppose to call it "government-contolled" so, forgive me for being honest.
The Democrats made in clear in the Healthcare Summit that their goal is to heavily regulate the healthcare industry. Jay Rockefeller made it even clearer -- insurance companies are rapacious sharks swimming right beneath the water's surface. There will be windfall profits for insurance companies for a few years, until costs begin rising -- then a few big companies will be chosen to survive a little longer while many will be regulated out of business. The companies have to see this coming and are betting they will be chosen for extended survival.
Make no mistake, the endgame is nationaized healthcare, even it means a few insurance companies survive as window dressing for the appearance of a free market. When it happens, don't blame the Democrats -- they've told everyone what they want. The Democrats, for the greatest part, could not be clearer that their preference is a single payer healthcare system. So, even if they have to pass a scaled down version, that only means they will have to make more systemic tweaks to get to nationalized healthcare -- the government, unless stopped, will control healthcare, regardless of the protestatons to the contrary.
Burying heads in the sand won't change the inexorable transition from heavy regulation to complete control -- and it won't stop the huge costs which will soon be unloaded on the American taxpayers -- mainly small businesses and the middle class. Small businesses and the middle class taxes are necessary to pay for all this. The healthcare industry will be hit by hidden taxes in the form of price controls.
This is a political process to firmly establish State power, particularly Democrat power. Republicans, if this all comes about, will be stuck with the almost impossible task of rolling back entitlements. The outcome will depend on whether the American people grow dependent on government healthcare -- if they do, it's all over. Don't listen to the political class "intellectuals" -- they almost always get these things wrong -- sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally.
So, now is the time to stop healthcare reform, which gives power to government, and demand reform which utilizes free market principles and private charity. This is the "loon" position, but I want to go on record as saying -- I told you so -- if this reform goes through.
I'm an eternal optimist, though -- I think this power-grab will be stopped. Good luck to us all.
The way I understand this bill, if it passes, is that there will be a mandate to buy insurance, a fine for not buying insurance and a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time or another $25,000 fine for refusing to pay the original fine. And if someone has been diagnosed with, say, cancer, they can't be refused insurance.
In effect, this is a $2000 dollar tax to help pay for healthcare reform. It will be interesting to see how many people buy insurance or how many people pay the fine. When people begin comparing the subsidies they receive to buy insurance, many who are close to the line to receive subsidies are going to be angry when someone who makes a little less than them receives a subsidy.
This will cause more resentment, division and demands that the subsidies be given to more people who claim they can't afford the extra expense. Something else that will be interesting is the first case of refusal to buy insurance or pay the fine. Will they receive jail-time? Will there be a public uproar over the injustice? What if thousands of people refuse to buy insurance or pay the fine?
If everyone does decide to buy insurance, this will divert money away from other products and services consumers would buy with that money, and, of course, taxes will have to be raised to pay for the subsidies. This will likely keep unemployment high, except in the healthcare field and government jobs.
Wages will need to be suppressed for healhcare workers to keep costs down, so I wonder how many people will study and gain healthcare skills necessary for the increased demand? Will people leave the healthcare field if the demand is increased and the pay is lowered? People don't like the idea of working harder and getting paid less, plus, the healthcare field is a tough business.
If the system is overloaded, and if the public begins complaining about the cost of the mandate, and if insurance companies lose lots of money by having to accept pre-existing conditions, will the healthcare field begin to unravel, and will there be a demand for a government solution? Yes, most likely.
So, all the proponents of single payer, nationalized healthcare ought to be feeling good about the possibilities.
It shouldn't be difficult to nationalize healthcare in the midst of all the sweeping changes. What once looked like an impossible pill for the nation to swallow may now be taken with little resistance. We're being overwhelmed with changes, and I'm not sure people even care that much at this point. It seems we've turned the government over to the politicians to design what they will. Once we go down the road of nationalized healthcare there will likely be no turning back.
In essence we're placing one hell of a burden on the coming generations. Obama and Daschle are asking the nation for ideas, so I'm sure all will be fine with the final plan. I'm sure someone will read the millions of suggestions and carefully craft a well thought-out solution.
I shudder to think what healthcare will look like in a few years. I have a feeling less capable young men and women will go into healthcare once the bureacracy begins gumming up the system.
We can only hope that the healthcare changes are not so broad that we can't fix what the government is preparing to break.
Another aspect of all these changes coming about is that they are so rapid and confused that they're creating consequences which are counter to growth. Take the recent announcement of the possible 4.5% mortgages - this seems like a good thing, but as someone in real estate, I hope that if they aren't going to do this, they announce it quickly because anyone thinking about buying a home at the present very low rates will wait for the 4.5%. But, even then, with all the flip-flopping, people will hold out hope that if it gets worse they'll go back to the idea. If they are going to lower the rate, then LOWER it, don't just throw out the possibility (although, as a libertarian, I don't think the Fed should be setting interest rates to start with).
That's the problem -- there has to be a point where people know the sweeping changes and fixes are over before they will decide to confidently spend again on big ticket items.