Saturday, November 9, 2013
Planned failure?
FACTS:
1. Both the president and Harry Reid are on record as saying that they favor a single-payer system for healthcare (code for total government control).
2. Both have said that ACA is only intended to be a transition to move us toward single payer.
3. If the ACA actually worked as portrayed, it would not transition into a single payer system. The only way ACA actually serves as a transtional system is if it utterly fails.
4. With the time and resources available to the government, the failure of the healthcare.gov roll out is incomprehensible (it would never have happened in private industry).
5. We have been told that for the ACA to work, 7 million people who don't currently have health insurance need to sign up and start paying by this coming March.
6. It was wishful thinking from the start that most of those who have chosen not to buy health insurance would suddenly be motivated to plunck out the big bucks just because they could now do it online and maybe get a government subsidy.
7. With the recent disclosures about the lack of security on healthcare.gov and the problems with functionality, many who might have considered taking a look on the website now don't want to go anywhere near it.
8. The likelihood that 7 million uninsured people will buy health insurance by March 2014 is virtually nil (the number is not likely to be anywhere close to 7 million).
9. If all these new customers fail to enter the health insurance market as planned, the health insurance companies will suddenly be in big big trouble. They have been mandated to provide all kinds of new (largely unwanted) benefits on the promise that they will have millions of new customers. It was pie in the sky from the get-go.
MY CONCLUSION: From the beginning, the plan was for ACA to fail miserably, throwing the entire healthcare instustry into utter turmoil. Never ones to waste a good crisis, the president and Harry Reid will then propose that the only solution is a total government takeover. To hell with insurance companies. To hell with the freedom to chose your own doctor. To hell with doctors and patients determining what are appropriate treatments. To hell with grandpa getting that surgery (he's too old). Enter the era of soviet-style healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
so you're saying they (Obama and Reid) want all doctors working for the state and all medical facilities to be state owned?
By the way, I'm not sure what the security problems are on that site, but at least on the MD site, other than ss numbers, you don't enter much info thats not already in the public domain. I haven't been on the federal site, but I can't imagine the info you enter being much different that what MD asks for.
Both sites though are poorly designed. They should have made it a 3 step process and not tried to do it all in one log in session.
Single payer does not necessarily mean the government owns the entire healthcare system, only that it pays all the bills, which also means it decides who gets what care. Also, there is a lot of personal information I don't mind my doctor knowing, but which I wouldn't want posted on some government website, especially one with security issues. But even after the security issues are resolved, it will still be the case that whatever anyone posts on healthcare.gov will be shared with the IRS and other government agencies. To me, this is giving Big Brother way too much personal information. As many have said in recent years, in today's world, information is power.
David, all they ask for is income and if you are disabled and or smoke. It's like fillling out an online job application. It's actually a cheaper version of IRS form 1040.
Also, soviet style healthcare implies state owned doctors and medical facilities.
I meant "soviet-style" in terms of centralization and control, not ownership. Although, once the government controls payments, it would be a small step for the government to gradually takeover ownership as well.
Post a Comment