Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Every ♡bamaCare!!! Fail Ever

September 2nd, 2014 - 9:53 am

Good lord, but Richard Fernandez packed a lot of punch into three small paragraphs:

People who need health care despite unhealthy life styles or sheer poverty can’t be viewed through the framework of insurance, for their risk tables will never work out. Such individuals should get treatment as part of a conscious decision by society to provide welfare. Thus the drunk who keeps drinking should get a liver transplant if it’s available or a who already has AIDs should receive medicine, or the indigent: not because they are insurable but because society as a whole cares enough to allocate charity or tax money to treat them regardless. But no should imagine they are receiving treatment because they’ve paid an Obamacare premium.

It’s not insurance. It’s a conscious act of public policy charity. There is nothing wrong with either, but they are not the same.

The fundamental problem with Obamacare is that it delivers welfare through the IRS and the insurance system, making institutions designed to do something different accomplish what they were never meant to do. It might work of a fashion, but only in the way a Ferrari can be used to pull a plow attachment through a field. Not very well.

A commenter here in the last week or so mentioned they’d witnessed people accommodating themselves to the diminished expectations created by the ♡bamaCare!!! fiasco. That is the death of this Republic, not the horrible law the Democrats foisted upon us.

Change it back.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
A couple of days ago I told a patient that we needed some blood drawn. He asked if he could go to the bathroom first. I told him that in order to be in compliance with new Obamacare regulations we would need to fill out some paperwork before he could do so. He began dutifully waiting and then I told him it was a joke and led him to the bathroom. I think this is the sort of thing you're talking about.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Change it back. I agree. Interestingly, the argument you hear from the other side is that we are too far down the road, Obamacare is too established to be gutted entirely.

Those who foisted this fiasco on us had no problem obliterating the previous system, cancelling millions of insurance policies. Why should we be concerned now with changing it entirely again?
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It's a conscious act of public policy charity. There's nothing wrong with either."

Public policy charity is an oxymoron. The government should not engage in acts of charity since all government revenues are collected with the force of a gun. No government should have the right to redistribute in the name of charity--the government has no idea of the conditions of those from whom it collects, their hardships, or the alternative uses those funds would have been put to.

Charity belongs to individuals and religious institutions and is, by nature, voluntary.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
It might work of a fashion, but only in the way a Ferrari can be used to pull a plow attachment through a field.

This is less an awesome metaphor when you remember that Ferrari makes tractors [http://www.ferrariagri.it/index.php?id=156&L=1], and indeed started as an agricultural equipment company.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're thinking of Lamborghini, who did indeed build tractors and other equipment until Ferruccio got pissed at old man Ferrari.

"Ferrari Tractors" came about in the 90s. Enzo started out building race cars for Scuderia Ferrari in the late 40s. The two have nothing to do with each other.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can't help it. Proofreaders, PJ.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Many years ago my father distilled it to even fewer words. While listening to some poor woman testifying before congress that she couldn't get insurance to cover the care for her condition, he observed, "she doesn't want insurance, she wants someone else to pay her medical bills."

As Wretcherd notes, this doesn't mean someone else should not pay her medical bills, but it does mean that it isn't insurance and we shouldn't confuse the issue by calling it insurance. Of course, confusing the issue is the point. Honesty interferes with making the case.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Exactly...

I dont mind the charity thing one bit...

What I mind is, giving someone 300 a month for an "insurance premium", when they didnt see a doctor all year...

Need medical TREATMENT? I'll help you out.

Taking my money to give to some third party for no service rendered month after month is not what I had in mind

Oh, but it certainy IS what the backers of the plan had in mind, right?!?
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All