Special Pages

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Changing the Language - Welcome to Socialized Medicine

One of the things that the Obamacare website debacle has shown me is that the progressives are doing what they always do and making words mean things that they've never meant before.  By mixing the words insurance coverage and healthcare, along with clever manipulation of legalese, they're implementing socialized medicine right now.

I also have to call your attention to something else I've said here before: watch the other hand.  They're making a big public mess about this website, so the news media isn't covering the EPA's attemp to grab control of the entire country at all.  In a nutshell (and go read), the EPA has had powers to regulate waters since the "Clean Water Act", but an early Supreme Court ruling limited them to "navigable waterways" which are only the larger rivers and some lakes.  The power grab is to assert control over every drop of water in the country, this time by expanding it to even small lakes and ponds.  There was some bogus study that concluded every single body of water is connected underground and they're using that for justification (seriously: how do they measure that?  What sort of sensors do you use to establish connections between a farm in, say, Nebraska and the Atlantic Ocean?)   They are virtually claiming the power to regulate puddles on your property.

But back to the ObamaScare mess, have you noticed how choice in your plans is being eliminated?  Every plan must cover maternity, even for single men, even gays - single or married.  You can't refuse that.  (Is it fair or "=" for gays to pay for maternity they'll never need?)  Everyone must buy substance abuse, even teetotaler Mormons.  Catholic hospitals will be required to provide birth control and abortions to employees.  The reason everyone's policies are skyrocketing in cost is the expansion of the risk for the insurance companies.  (see here and here).

Until now, insurance was a form of risk management in which groups of buyers put money into a pool to cover the cost of certain risks, and only the small percentage of buyers who realize that risk take money out.  The insurance companies, of course, make money off this (and contrary to Kathryn Sibelius' claims, they are highly regulated) so all companies that can afford it are self-insured; they pay the benefits themselves, simply using the companies they contract to administer claims and hiring them for their insider knowledge of how the industry works. 

Again, this is highly regulated: for years now, every health plan had to cover risks that I'm willing to accept.  I'm willing to accept the risk that my wife or I will suddenly decide we need gender reassignment, or that we'll suddenly become addicted to gambling.  I don't want to pay for insurance for that, but I don't have that choice.

So by mandating these coverages, the Obamanoids are already instituting socialized medicine, but since it's still managed by corporations, I'll call it fascistic medicine.  They're creating a big pool of money taken from people who are legally required to pay for risks they'd never buy coverage for, and using that money to pay for unrelated problems for other people.  To try and personalize the point, they might take money you'd put up for the risk of a heart attack or something you consider possible, and use your money to pay for medical care for that exact condition for someone else.  They're even using some of your money to subsidize lower income people's insurance - direct wealth transfer.  It's not "single payer", managed by a massive federal bureaucracy (yet!), but it's still "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs". 

Even Evil Party mouthpiece Kirsten Powers has openly split from the strict party line by reporting how her own premiums are doubling for worse coverage and she seems to know she's simply paying for other people's care.  She's just more OK with it than most.




4 comments:

  1. I believe that under the constitution the EPA could only regulate lands owned by the federal government, parks, federal courthouses etc. The right to regulate all other lands belongs to the states and the people. This just hasn't been tested in the Supreme court. Of course the court has the ability to "find" rights were none existed or were intended so maybe it doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course the court has the ability to "find" rights were none existed or were intended so maybe it doesn't matter. This.

    Absolutely golden.

    Ask the fed.gov power-sucking monster, "do you want more power?", and what do you think you'll get for an answer?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They're creating a big pool of money taken from people who are legally required to pay for risks they'd never buy coverage for, and using that money to pay for unrelated problems for other people. "
    Uh are you clueless? This is how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Not that I'd expect anything else from someone who seems to think the constitution has much to say about economics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess the difference between "voluntary arrangement between two parties" and "legally required" is too subtle for you?

      But to the larger point, virtually the entire constitution is about restraining the government and maintaining the freedoms of the people. Chief among these is encapsulated in the first national motto put on a coin; no, not "In God We Trust". It was "Mind Your Business".

      You need the Affordable Horse Act!

      Delete