At first glance, President Obama and FOX pundit Bill O'Reilly don't
seem to have much in common.
Politically, you wouldn't mistake one's opinions for the others.
Stylistically, one is cool and aloof, the other more bombastic.
One is the most powerful politician in the world, the other, an
influential broadcaster. You would never confuse one for the other.
But yet, there are some similarities there. Both are ivy-league,
Harvard graduates. Both have a pretty good-sized ego...you might
say they possess an arrogance located somewhere north of the
border of self-confidence. Both seem to feel that all this country
really needs is for them to tell us the right thing to do.
One of them is in the position of actually being able to tell us what we
should do; the other can merely suggest what he would like us to do
(God, that must be frustrating for him!).
In fact, they are so much alike, we should call them the "O'Breillys".
And the problem with Washington isn't that there are so many
Republicans and Democrats, it's that there are so many O'Breillys.
Washington is crawling with O'Breillys...and that leads to "The
O'Breilly Factor" in Capital politics...ego trumps results...perception
trumps reality.
So, in order to keep egos in check, I modestly propose a new
game based on life in Washington, D.C., called "Pun-dentry",
where language is defined by political behavior.
For example, Ron Paul is always railing against the Fed and
against foreign aid...we call that "a-Paul-ing behavior".
If a chairman of a banking committee holds a hearing to shake down
bankers for political contributions, we could call it "Dodd-ering".
When your eyes glaze over listening to a politician go on and on, you've
been "Pelosi-tized".
When John Boehner starts crying, he's "going Boeh-nal".
When Vallerie Jarrett goes skulking around the White House, she's
being the "Val-dictorian".
When a politician strong-arms banks to make home loans to people
who can't afford them, and then denies he had anything to do with
a housing crisis, we call that the "Barney Frank-ing privilege".
And of course, there's Anthony "Weiner-izing".
Finally, when a politician tells an epic lie over and over, and then
denies that he meant what he said, you call that "telling Obam-ers".
Feel free to come up with your own personal examples of
"Pun-dentry". Don't worry about hurt feelings.
They'll just be happy to have something named after them.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The Beauty of Obamacare
The Affordable Care Act has provided a defining and pivotal moment
in American history.
Rarely has an event so distilled and clarified the difference between "Big"
and "Small" government, as well as brought the results of the program so
forcefully to the attention of Americans. How the results of this epic social
experiment will play out over the next few years will determine the path our
country will follow for generations.
The Affordable Care Act is President Obama's most striking effort to fulfill
his pledge of "fundamentally transforming" America. His intentions are good.
I believe he is honorably attempting to solve a real problem in the healthcare
industry in America. I believe he truly believes in the power of "Big
Government" to solve our problems.
The question is, does his solution help, or hurt, the majority of people in
the country? Do Americans feel the benefits offered to some outweigh the
price paid by others?
The original situation was...
1. Most people were covered by healthcare offered by their employer.
2. Most poor people were covered by Medicaid.
3. Most older people were covered by Medicare.
4. If you were in the minority of people not covered by the above,
a. you had to go without insurance and pay expenses out-of-pocket or...
b. go to the emergency room for treatment or...
c. purchase your own insurance on the individual market.
5. If you had pre-existing medical conditions, it was very expensive,
or impossible, to buy insurance on the individual market.
6. An older person in the individual market had to pay 6-7 times
as much as a younger person in the individual market, because
older people were prone to more illnesses.
7. If the average person ran into a catastrophic medical emergency
above the coverage offered by their insurance, many were forced
into bankruptcy.
8. I don't know if undocumented immigrants could buy health
insurance or not, but I think they fell into the group that had to
use the emergency room for any health care that they received.
9. Younger Americans often did not buy health insurance (or bought
very limited policies) because they figured the odds were such
that they wouldn't need health insurance until they were older,
and didn't want to pay for something they didn't feel they needed.
The majority of Americans were covered by health insurance, and most were
satisfied with their coverage. The minority who were not covered
by employer insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, and those who could
not afford (or qualify for) individual insurance, faced the possibility
of truly difficult medical emergencies that could affect their finances and
life choices significantly.
Obamacare was sold as a plan to help those who, either by personal choice
or not, were not covered by the existing healthcare system. It was supposed
to bring the cost of healthcare down. And, it was NOT supposed to affect
those who were happy with their existing health plan. "If you are happy
with your plan, you can keep it. Period!" "If you are happy with your
doctor, you can keep him. Period" etc., etc.
But the way the plan was crafted may, or may not, fulfill those objectives.
In actuality, the plan creates some winners, some losers, and some who
are not affected at all...and the interplay among those groups will determine
the success or failure of the law.
The law mandates federal government-approved insurance policies, which
must include government-approved features, whether the policyholder
wants them or not. No one can be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
No older person can be charged more than three times the rate for a
younger person. There are no annual or lifetime limits to the policies.
If you had a policy that didn't meet these, and other, requirements, your
policy would have to be cancelled or changed to meet the new guidelines.
The new policies would cost more (to cover the new requirements), but
you may qualify for a subsidy to help cover some, or all, of the cost of
the policy.
Let's try to figure out who makes out and who loses under Obamacare.
NO CHANGE
1. If you were on Medicaid before, you are still on Medicaid
2. If you were on Medicare before, you are still on Medicare (no changes yet)
WINNERS
1. Those who didn't realize they were eligible for Medicaid and get
signed up for Medicaid.
2. Those who needed private insurance and had pre-existing conditions.
3. Those who have catastrophic medical conditions above what their old
policies covered.
4. Older people with private insurance (not on Medicare), who will pay
less for their health insurance.
5. Some working people with lower incomes will find that government
subsidies will make health insurance more affordable for them...others,
not so much. See losers section below.
LOSERS
1. Younger people who are forced to buy insurance priced to help pay
for some of the winners above, and for coverage they may not want
or need.
2. Some working people with lower incomes will find they cannot
afford the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, even after the
government subsidy of the program...yet they will be forced to buy
the insurance or pay a penalty.
3. Taxpayers who will be stuck paying for the additional Medicaid
enrollees and for the subsidies that help pay for lower income
working people.
4. Consumers, who will pay higher prices as the taxes and fees on
medical devices, etc., get passed on from the medical companies
to the consumers.
5. Employees who may be forced from employer-sponsored health
health insurance onto Obamacare exchanges, because their
employer either drops health insurance, or keeps their weekly
hours under 30, so they will not qualify for employer-sponsored
insurance.
NOT SURE
1. I don't know how undocumented immigrants will, or will not, be
affected by this law.
So, here we are. How will it all work out? Will there be more winners than
losers? Will the losers accept the cost as the price to pay for "the
greater good"? Will the economy and employment suffer as unintended
consequences of the Affordable Care Act? Will healthcare costs to the
country rise or fall under Obamacare?
That's the beauty of Obamacare. It's all going to be out there to see in the next few years. For millions and millions of young Americans, this will be the first time they
will actually be able to see and feel the effects of big-time government programs
as they are being imposed on the population...a moment in time where the usually
theoretical arguments between big and small government become down-and-dirty
reality in their lives.
Even assuming that there was no intent to increase federal government power, and
granting President Obama the moral high ground that the Affordable Care Act was
designed to improve the lot in life of the people who were not well served by the
existing healthcare system, the question remains; were most Americans and the
healthcare system helped or hurt by Obamacare?
The basic idea of Obamacare is to force everyone to buy a product (health
insurance) that they may, or may not, want to buy, with more coverage and at
a higher price than they may want to pay, in order to provide coverage for
other people...even if President Obama neglected to explain that to the public.
Obamacare is also premised on the proposition that government officials were
more intelligent than the average citizen, knew better what the citizen really
needs, and knew better than doctors, nurses, and businessmen what the
healthcare industry needed. And finally, they thought they understood the
free market well enough to design a program to improve the situation
without creating havoc for millions of Americans.
Obamacare was also premised on the idea that the federal government is
supposed to regulate the healthcare industry, even though the Constitution
delegates that responsibility to the states and not to the federal government.
In addition, the idea that the federal government can force individuals to buy
health insurance is also constitutionally questionable.
The Affordable Care Act goes right to the crux of the relationship between the
federal government and the individual citizen. Is it right to take from some to
give to others (redistribution of wealth)? If so, how much? Who gets to decide?
What protection does the individual have from an over-reaching government?
If the federal government has the power to control, do politicians have the
wisdom, and the integrity, to do it wisely and fairly? Can good intentions and
big egos lead to bad policies?
Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid inspire you with the confidence that they
were on top of the law they shepherded through Congress for President Obama?
The paths that led to our modern America were created over decades and
generations of battles over the nature of Man, individual rights, freedom, and
philosophy.
For the first time, this generation of young Americans will be involved in
deciding which fork in the path our nation will take...and what our nation
will look like generations from now. I don't know which direction they will
take.
I hope we do not continue down the path to more government control, but
that's not my decision to make. That decision is for the current generation of
young Americans to make, and it will be they who will live with the conse-
quences of the decision they make.
in American history.
Rarely has an event so distilled and clarified the difference between "Big"
and "Small" government, as well as brought the results of the program so
forcefully to the attention of Americans. How the results of this epic social
experiment will play out over the next few years will determine the path our
country will follow for generations.
The Affordable Care Act is President Obama's most striking effort to fulfill
his pledge of "fundamentally transforming" America. His intentions are good.
I believe he is honorably attempting to solve a real problem in the healthcare
industry in America. I believe he truly believes in the power of "Big
Government" to solve our problems.
The question is, does his solution help, or hurt, the majority of people in
the country? Do Americans feel the benefits offered to some outweigh the
price paid by others?
The original situation was...
1. Most people were covered by healthcare offered by their employer.
2. Most poor people were covered by Medicaid.
3. Most older people were covered by Medicare.
4. If you were in the minority of people not covered by the above,
a. you had to go without insurance and pay expenses out-of-pocket or...
b. go to the emergency room for treatment or...
c. purchase your own insurance on the individual market.
5. If you had pre-existing medical conditions, it was very expensive,
or impossible, to buy insurance on the individual market.
6. An older person in the individual market had to pay 6-7 times
as much as a younger person in the individual market, because
older people were prone to more illnesses.
7. If the average person ran into a catastrophic medical emergency
above the coverage offered by their insurance, many were forced
into bankruptcy.
8. I don't know if undocumented immigrants could buy health
insurance or not, but I think they fell into the group that had to
use the emergency room for any health care that they received.
9. Younger Americans often did not buy health insurance (or bought
very limited policies) because they figured the odds were such
that they wouldn't need health insurance until they were older,
and didn't want to pay for something they didn't feel they needed.
The majority of Americans were covered by health insurance, and most were
satisfied with their coverage. The minority who were not covered
by employer insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, and those who could
not afford (or qualify for) individual insurance, faced the possibility
of truly difficult medical emergencies that could affect their finances and
life choices significantly.
Obamacare was sold as a plan to help those who, either by personal choice
or not, were not covered by the existing healthcare system. It was supposed
to bring the cost of healthcare down. And, it was NOT supposed to affect
those who were happy with their existing health plan. "If you are happy
with your plan, you can keep it. Period!" "If you are happy with your
doctor, you can keep him. Period" etc., etc.
But the way the plan was crafted may, or may not, fulfill those objectives.
In actuality, the plan creates some winners, some losers, and some who
are not affected at all...and the interplay among those groups will determine
the success or failure of the law.
The law mandates federal government-approved insurance policies, which
must include government-approved features, whether the policyholder
wants them or not. No one can be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
No older person can be charged more than three times the rate for a
younger person. There are no annual or lifetime limits to the policies.
If you had a policy that didn't meet these, and other, requirements, your
policy would have to be cancelled or changed to meet the new guidelines.
The new policies would cost more (to cover the new requirements), but
you may qualify for a subsidy to help cover some, or all, of the cost of
the policy.
Let's try to figure out who makes out and who loses under Obamacare.
NO CHANGE
1. If you were on Medicaid before, you are still on Medicaid
2. If you were on Medicare before, you are still on Medicare (no changes yet)
WINNERS
1. Those who didn't realize they were eligible for Medicaid and get
signed up for Medicaid.
2. Those who needed private insurance and had pre-existing conditions.
3. Those who have catastrophic medical conditions above what their old
policies covered.
4. Older people with private insurance (not on Medicare), who will pay
less for their health insurance.
5. Some working people with lower incomes will find that government
subsidies will make health insurance more affordable for them...others,
not so much. See losers section below.
LOSERS
1. Younger people who are forced to buy insurance priced to help pay
for some of the winners above, and for coverage they may not want
or need.
2. Some working people with lower incomes will find they cannot
afford the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, even after the
government subsidy of the program...yet they will be forced to buy
the insurance or pay a penalty.
3. Taxpayers who will be stuck paying for the additional Medicaid
enrollees and for the subsidies that help pay for lower income
working people.
4. Consumers, who will pay higher prices as the taxes and fees on
medical devices, etc., get passed on from the medical companies
to the consumers.
5. Employees who may be forced from employer-sponsored health
health insurance onto Obamacare exchanges, because their
employer either drops health insurance, or keeps their weekly
hours under 30, so they will not qualify for employer-sponsored
insurance.
NOT SURE
1. I don't know how undocumented immigrants will, or will not, be
affected by this law.
So, here we are. How will it all work out? Will there be more winners than
losers? Will the losers accept the cost as the price to pay for "the
greater good"? Will the economy and employment suffer as unintended
consequences of the Affordable Care Act? Will healthcare costs to the
country rise or fall under Obamacare?
That's the beauty of Obamacare. It's all going to be out there to see in the next few years. For millions and millions of young Americans, this will be the first time they
will actually be able to see and feel the effects of big-time government programs
as they are being imposed on the population...a moment in time where the usually
theoretical arguments between big and small government become down-and-dirty
reality in their lives.
Even assuming that there was no intent to increase federal government power, and
granting President Obama the moral high ground that the Affordable Care Act was
designed to improve the lot in life of the people who were not well served by the
existing healthcare system, the question remains; were most Americans and the
healthcare system helped or hurt by Obamacare?
The basic idea of Obamacare is to force everyone to buy a product (health
insurance) that they may, or may not, want to buy, with more coverage and at
a higher price than they may want to pay, in order to provide coverage for
other people...even if President Obama neglected to explain that to the public.
Obamacare is also premised on the proposition that government officials were
more intelligent than the average citizen, knew better what the citizen really
needs, and knew better than doctors, nurses, and businessmen what the
healthcare industry needed. And finally, they thought they understood the
free market well enough to design a program to improve the situation
without creating havoc for millions of Americans.
Obamacare was also premised on the idea that the federal government is
supposed to regulate the healthcare industry, even though the Constitution
delegates that responsibility to the states and not to the federal government.
In addition, the idea that the federal government can force individuals to buy
health insurance is also constitutionally questionable.
The Affordable Care Act goes right to the crux of the relationship between the
federal government and the individual citizen. Is it right to take from some to
give to others (redistribution of wealth)? If so, how much? Who gets to decide?
What protection does the individual have from an over-reaching government?
If the federal government has the power to control, do politicians have the
wisdom, and the integrity, to do it wisely and fairly? Can good intentions and
big egos lead to bad policies?
Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid inspire you with the confidence that they
were on top of the law they shepherded through Congress for President Obama?
The paths that led to our modern America were created over decades and
generations of battles over the nature of Man, individual rights, freedom, and
philosophy.
For the first time, this generation of young Americans will be involved in
deciding which fork in the path our nation will take...and what our nation
will look like generations from now. I don't know which direction they will
take.
I hope we do not continue down the path to more government control, but
that's not my decision to make. That decision is for the current generation of
young Americans to make, and it will be they who will live with the conse-
quences of the decision they make.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
The Case Against Big Government
The original Constitution divided authority and power between the
federal government, the state governments and local municipalities.
The purpose of this division of power was to prevent consolidation of power
in one authority that may become oppressive.
The Feds were authorized power to levy taxes, borrow, declare war and
raise armies, coin money, regulate commerce, etc.
The states and local governments control (and tax) for all other matters
not specifically designated to the federal government; education, social
welfare, healthcare, fire, water, police, etc.
Suppose you lived in a small community of ten people and all of you
earned the same ($10,000 each). Now let's say you all agreed to hire
a teacher for your children, at an annual salary of $10,000.
You set your tax rate at 10% each ($1,000) to cover the teacher's
salary and each of you are left with $9,000 to support your families.
In this sample, it is pretty easy to decide how much you would be willing
to take away from your family to pay for a teacher, or a fireman, or a
policeman. Or, if you could afford two or three teachers, or maybe all
of the above.
The same type of decision applies to welfare, unemployment benefits,
food stamps, etc. How much of the income you earn are you willing to
take from your family and give to others? Or to protect yourself and
your family if you fall on hard times?
But, this simple calculation can become infinitesimally more complicated
and confusing, when the groups become larger, and the information becomes
more hidden to the average taxpayer.
How many teachers does your school district need? Why? Are they all
necessary? What are they paid? How do their pensions and benefits compare
to yours? Where exactly does the money come from that pays for the teachers?
Who is responsible to raise the taxes that pay them...the local, state, or federal government, or some combination of all three?
Government workers, teachers, firemen, the police, the military, FBI agents,
politicians, congressional offices, etc., are necessary and important. No one
would argue that they are not, or that they shouldn't be fairly paid for the work
they do.
The other side of that argument is that the money that pays those workers is,
one way or another, coming out of your money that you earn to take care of
your family. The overriding concerns should be...Can you afford it? Are they
using your money wisely? Are you getting your money's worth?
Unfortunately, the more that unions, politicians, special interest groups, trade
associations, business cronies, and all sorts of other advocacy groups become
involved in spending that money, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
accounting of where your money is being spent, and who is getting it.
And, the further away those decisions are being made from your local
community, the less likely you will ever know what is going on.
To keep perspective in the midst of confusion, remember the ten people
and their teacher as an example of how politicians should be required to
justify their spending to you. What are you getting for your money?
Politicians tend to excel at touting the proposed benefits of the service
but rarely disclose the source of the money or how much the service costs
the taxpayer. In a true and honest discussion of government services,
the cost and source of the funds should be budgeted, along with an
explanation of the benefits of the service.
Governments do not create money. They get their money by (1) taking
it away from citizens, either in taxes or in fees, or (2) by borrowing money
that the citizens pay back with interest. The federal government has an
additional option of printing money, but that eventually leads to inflation.
All of the above options can lead to severe consequences for governments,
just as they can for individuals and businesses, if they are hidden, overdone,
and not controlled.
As a general view, those who believe in "Big Government" believe that a
governing class made up of a well-educated, well-intentioned, elite, will be
better at promoting the general welfare of the country...if they have the
authority to enforce proper behavior on the rest of the country, and if they
can take enough money to fix the problem.
Those who believe in "Small Government", believe that governments are
made up of people, and, the greater power those people are given, the more
likely they will be to abuse it, regardless of their good intentions. Human
beings are not smart enough, or incorruptible enough, to be entrusted with
the power to take away the individual freedoms bestowed in the Constitution.
"Big Government" wants to consolidate as much power in Washington as
possible, in order to control as much of the country as possible. "Small
Government" wants to disperse as much power to the states, local
governments, and individuals as possible...to more closely follow the
original Constitutional concepts designed to prevent consolidation of
power in Washington.
"Big Government" is about control. "Small Government" is about liberty
and freedom from control.
At the time of its founding, this country was the only country to limit
federal authority and declare individual liberties. It remains to this day
an on-going experiment in the proposition that a limited government of
a free people can survive and thrive.
From the time of its founding, this country has been a battleground
between these two, completely different, completely incompatible, concepts.
The country has lurched, back and forth, as different politicians,
political movements, and philosophies have pulled it one way or the
other in this ideological battle.
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare were steps toward centralizing
control in Washington, either by direct federal control, or by providing
federal funding from Washington to indirectly control state-administered
programs. As massive and expensive as these programs are, they
started, and remain, as programs that provide benefits to only a SMALLER
portion of the population of the United States.
And now, comes Obamacare...the culmination of generations of political
efforts to consolidate political control of ALL healthcare in Washington,
to dictate the benefits that ALL of the population receives and pays for.
The size of the program (and potential cost to citizens) is staggering.
The perfect storm of ego, power, and arrogance, cloaked in good intentions...
hidden behind lies that misrepresented the true intentions and effects of the
program.
But, there's a good side to everything. The beauty of Obamacare follows...
federal government, the state governments and local municipalities.
The purpose of this division of power was to prevent consolidation of power
in one authority that may become oppressive.
The Feds were authorized power to levy taxes, borrow, declare war and
raise armies, coin money, regulate commerce, etc.
The states and local governments control (and tax) for all other matters
not specifically designated to the federal government; education, social
welfare, healthcare, fire, water, police, etc.
Suppose you lived in a small community of ten people and all of you
earned the same ($10,000 each). Now let's say you all agreed to hire
a teacher for your children, at an annual salary of $10,000.
You set your tax rate at 10% each ($1,000) to cover the teacher's
salary and each of you are left with $9,000 to support your families.
In this sample, it is pretty easy to decide how much you would be willing
to take away from your family to pay for a teacher, or a fireman, or a
policeman. Or, if you could afford two or three teachers, or maybe all
of the above.
The same type of decision applies to welfare, unemployment benefits,
food stamps, etc. How much of the income you earn are you willing to
take from your family and give to others? Or to protect yourself and
your family if you fall on hard times?
But, this simple calculation can become infinitesimally more complicated
and confusing, when the groups become larger, and the information becomes
more hidden to the average taxpayer.
How many teachers does your school district need? Why? Are they all
necessary? What are they paid? How do their pensions and benefits compare
to yours? Where exactly does the money come from that pays for the teachers?
Who is responsible to raise the taxes that pay them...the local, state, or federal government, or some combination of all three?
Government workers, teachers, firemen, the police, the military, FBI agents,
politicians, congressional offices, etc., are necessary and important. No one
would argue that they are not, or that they shouldn't be fairly paid for the work
they do.
The other side of that argument is that the money that pays those workers is,
one way or another, coming out of your money that you earn to take care of
your family. The overriding concerns should be...Can you afford it? Are they
using your money wisely? Are you getting your money's worth?
Unfortunately, the more that unions, politicians, special interest groups, trade
associations, business cronies, and all sorts of other advocacy groups become
involved in spending that money, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
accounting of where your money is being spent, and who is getting it.
And, the further away those decisions are being made from your local
community, the less likely you will ever know what is going on.
To keep perspective in the midst of confusion, remember the ten people
and their teacher as an example of how politicians should be required to
justify their spending to you. What are you getting for your money?
Politicians tend to excel at touting the proposed benefits of the service
but rarely disclose the source of the money or how much the service costs
the taxpayer. In a true and honest discussion of government services,
the cost and source of the funds should be budgeted, along with an
explanation of the benefits of the service.
Governments do not create money. They get their money by (1) taking
it away from citizens, either in taxes or in fees, or (2) by borrowing money
that the citizens pay back with interest. The federal government has an
additional option of printing money, but that eventually leads to inflation.
All of the above options can lead to severe consequences for governments,
just as they can for individuals and businesses, if they are hidden, overdone,
and not controlled.
As a general view, those who believe in "Big Government" believe that a
governing class made up of a well-educated, well-intentioned, elite, will be
better at promoting the general welfare of the country...if they have the
authority to enforce proper behavior on the rest of the country, and if they
can take enough money to fix the problem.
Those who believe in "Small Government", believe that governments are
made up of people, and, the greater power those people are given, the more
likely they will be to abuse it, regardless of their good intentions. Human
beings are not smart enough, or incorruptible enough, to be entrusted with
the power to take away the individual freedoms bestowed in the Constitution.
"Big Government" wants to consolidate as much power in Washington as
possible, in order to control as much of the country as possible. "Small
Government" wants to disperse as much power to the states, local
governments, and individuals as possible...to more closely follow the
original Constitutional concepts designed to prevent consolidation of
power in Washington.
"Big Government" is about control. "Small Government" is about liberty
and freedom from control.
At the time of its founding, this country was the only country to limit
federal authority and declare individual liberties. It remains to this day
an on-going experiment in the proposition that a limited government of
a free people can survive and thrive.
From the time of its founding, this country has been a battleground
between these two, completely different, completely incompatible, concepts.
The country has lurched, back and forth, as different politicians,
political movements, and philosophies have pulled it one way or the
other in this ideological battle.
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare were steps toward centralizing
control in Washington, either by direct federal control, or by providing
federal funding from Washington to indirectly control state-administered
programs. As massive and expensive as these programs are, they
started, and remain, as programs that provide benefits to only a SMALLER
portion of the population of the United States.
And now, comes Obamacare...the culmination of generations of political
efforts to consolidate political control of ALL healthcare in Washington,
to dictate the benefits that ALL of the population receives and pays for.
The size of the program (and potential cost to citizens) is staggering.
The perfect storm of ego, power, and arrogance, cloaked in good intentions...
hidden behind lies that misrepresented the true intentions and effects of the
program.
But, there's a good side to everything. The beauty of Obamacare follows...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)