Despite assurances by the undocumented usurper currently occupying the people’s house, the insurance debacle that bears his name was never about healthcare at all. As some of us have told you and as most have no doubt learned on their own, Obamacare neither does what its name (Affordable Healthcare Act) implies or its proponents claim, nor does it improve the healthcare that its consumers receive.
Of course, only those trapped in a fog of conventional wisdom and blinded by “Hope and Change” ever believed that a health insurance law written by Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Big Medicine was written for the benefit of the consumers. Obamacare is essentially the same plan that the health-insurance-industry lobbying firm Health Insurance Association of America — now known as America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — wrote as Hillarycare in 1992. It’s a plan in which the insurance industry is set up to make out like a bandit, as it is guaranteed millions of new customers and a bottomless Federal Treasury to pay their bills. Yes, it benefits those same insurance companies leftists so stridently loathed for the “unfair” way they covered only those who paid their bills.
Common sense tells you that if the program was a beneficial one to the masses, the threat of civil penalty or asset forfeiture would not have been needed to get them to sign on. But despite a multibillion-dollar expenditure on a fancy (but nonfunctional) website and subsequent ad campaign, the whole process is foundering to the point that talk of bailouts for insurance companies is becoming commonplace.
I have written repeatedly that Obamacare is a deathcare trap that will limit medical choices and consign Americans to substandard care in a Kafkaesque system of malfeasance, neglect, death panels and forced care. It’s a wealth redistribution scheme writ large. Some pundits have pondered that the system was designed to fail so that nanny government can ride in on a white horse and save the day with a switch to a single-payer (government-funded) health insurance system. For that we’ve been labeled kooks and tinfoil hat-wearing crackpots.
The Daily Beast is certainly no bastion of conservative thought. Founded by Tina Brown, it merged with the liberal news magazine Newsweek in November 2010. But Tuesday The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Green may have summed up Obamacare as succinctly as anyone in what could be considered the mainstream media.
“Obamacare is looking more and more like it was designed to punish the middle class at the expense of the Democratic base–just like the old welfare days,” he wrote.
Pointing out that Obamacare disincentivizes work and shifts wealth from the top 80 percent of America’s income earners to the lowest 20 percent, Green writes that it is “a cash grab from most of the bottom half (emphasis in the original). President [Barack] Obama and his congressional allies have sacrificed the work ethic and growth on the altar of the Democrats’ upstairs-downstairs coalition, with the emphasis on ‘downstairs…’ Obamacare is looking a lot less about Obama and his vaunted calls for ‘justice,’ and a lot more like Chicago or New Jersey-style vengeance–with a dollop of ‘whatever’ thrown in for kicks. As it is playing out, Obamacare appears increasingly as if it were designed to punish the Republican rank and file, while haphazardly rewarding the Democrats’ core. And if someone gets hurt that shouldn’t have been, so be it, like those someones who earn between $30,000 and $50,000.”
Obama promised ad nauseum “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” That promise was as hollow as his birth narrative. He also promised no tax hikes of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000, but has since hit everyone (at least those still working) with a Social Security tax increase and a number of Obamacare tax increase.
Exit polls from the past two Presidential elections showed that those earning less than $50,000 or residing in the country’s larger cities and the well-to-do on both coasts went overwhelming for Obama. Green writes:
Against this backdrop, the political calculus for punishing the nearly 60 percent of voters with incomes above $50,000 must have stared Obama’s operatives in the face like a bull seeing red. But why tag those who make only between $30,000 and $50,000, and why throw a lead weight around the recovery?
But we do know why, and it’s called redistribution and it’s about demographics, much as the administration may half-heartedly deny it. Just ask William Daley, the former Obama White House Chief of Staff who helped make Obamacare the reality that it is. In Daley’s own words: “Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds. … It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.” Sometimes the truth can be so inconvenient.
This brings us to demographics and the Democrat’s upstairs-downstairs coalition. It relies heavily on political contributions from the rich on both coasts; prays for the votes of enough upscale suburbanites; and is electorally wedded to Americans in the lower socio-economic tiers who are disproportionately uninsured.
And for that reason the Democrats blew up the American health insurance industry for the rest of America.