John Blundell, the English writer and biographer of Margaret Thatcher, was asked what advice the Iron Lady would have had for today’s presidential candidates. She would have been concerned with mounting debt, he said, but her first priority would have been to avoid, at all costs, a government takeover of health care. She knew that once you have a government-run system, you can never get rid of it, no matter how ruinous it is.
Thatcher performed an economic miracle in Great Britain through privatization of large sectors of the British economy. But the massive special interest groups and public gullibility protecting the single-payer National Health Service stymied her to the end.
This is America’s great upcoming challenge, to turn back Obamacare before it’s too late. The program, enacted over two years ago, is hanging by a thread. It’s massively unpopular with the public, even though it’s a social program with lots of “free stuff.” The Supreme Court seems likely to strike down at least part of the law as unconstitutional. And the more we find out about it, the less we like it.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Obamacare was craftily designed with all the good stuff, the insurance mandates and subsidies phased-in early while the fees, taxes and premium hikes to pay for it were delayed. This was supposed to produce acceptable 10-year financial projections while persuading Americans to learn to love it before the bills came due.
But Americans are wising up. For example, Jonathan Gruber is an MIT professor who in 2009, on behalf of the White House, refuted claims that insurance premiums would rise under Obamacare. Now he’s changed his tune, advising at least three states which are establishing insurance exchanges that premiums in the individual market will rise by 19 percent to 30 percent. That’s only common sense, since all insurers would be bound by “guaranteed issue,” permitting patients to wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
There’s more, much more. In March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office projected that Obamacare would cost the government $940 billion over 10 years. That was recently changed to $1.76 trillion, nearly double. And there’s one thing you can take to the bank: Those projections are seriously understated.
Government analysts never accurately project the responses people have to government social programs. For example, at its inception in 1966, forecasters for Medicare projected that the cost would quadruple from $3 billion all the way to $12 billion by 1990. Critics scoffed at this exaggeration. The actual number for 1990 was $107 billion.
Obamacare’s advocates don’t dispute any of this, it just doesn’t matter to them. The law itself is a hybrid combining what they wanted (total government takeover) with what it took to get the bill passed. Private insurance companies, shorn of decision-making authority, were left as the financial intermediaries, as a reward for their cooperation.
The fatal flaw is that there is no practical cost control mechanism to counter the explosion in demand that will inevitably occur. Oh sure, there’s plenty of bureaucratic interference, principally from the shockingly unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board. But top-down price controls have never worked to permanently bend the cost for health care or anything else. There’s no reason to think they will this time.
But if Obamacare is a mutant that can’t possibly work, the Left knows that can be a good thing too, if its failure can be used as a reason to further centralize health care. It’s not paranoia to believe that the long-term dream of lefties is to make us all dependent on government for health care. They say it themselves, going back to Rep. Phil Burton in 1966, who expressed confidence that Medicare would eventually lead to “comprehensive medical care” from government for all Americans, not just the elderly. He may have been right.
So here’s why Obamacare is ground zero in the battle for America’s future. If it passes, not only will one-sixth of our economy pass under permanent government control, but Obamacare’s unknowable, astronomical cost will overwhelm our efforts to avoid fiscal insolvency. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Rich posted at 2:06 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Your society is simply dying. Face it. The 'law' is deciding how you deal with your pet, the seats in your car, what you can type into the Internet. They want to dictate your relationship with your doctor? What's new? It's simply the anarchy that all societies fall into. It can't be enforced, unless half of us work for the government and is half of society, and monitors the other half. It isn't really all that important. It happens, deal with it. You live, if you accept the big bang, in a devolving universe. This is just part of it.
ReformedRepublican posted at 5:51 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
This is honestly one of the silliest commentaries on the affordable care act that I have read. It repeats all of the half truths and lies that scare everyone.
It pays for itself that adds to the deficit. It's not the government takeover of healthcare getting between you and your doctor. It is not socialism knocking at your door. or the government trying to make everyone depended upon.
Why is this the case? Because all of us are to continue to get our insurance the same place as we get it today private insurance companies. They do not get the way of our relationship so that doctors except in extreme circumstances where they have "" death panels.
in fact we finally we'll be doing something to help 50 million people who don't have insurance. AND ALSO EVERYONE OF US BENEFIT FROM GETTING PREVENTIVE CARE WITH NO CO-PAY'S.
All one has to do is look at Medicare to see that the law is already working there. Medicare costs of the lowest they have ever been. In fact the Medicare actuary just put on report saying the law is going to save an additional $200 billion over the next decade.
It is time to quit listening to tripe like this post and really focus on the facts.
Accuracy posted at 8:38 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Democrats have already suffered defeats because of the ObamaCare fight, and it can hurt the party more in this year's elections. Governors of 26 states have filed suit against President Barack Obama's health care law, with the individual mandate which forces every American to buy health insurance, charging the reform is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court will release its decision in June.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:03 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Our ultra-conservative newspapers here in Arizona keep up the incessant drumbeat of right wing drivel. They continously barrage the readers with anti-Obama / pro illegal alien rhetoric.
Just this morning the Arizona Republic, on the Editorial Page, was bemoaning the fact that Arizona is a democratic state!!!
They don't like the fact that the people are allowed to make laws via referendum. Only the Elite right wing Republicans should be allowed to make laws in their view.
The Arizona Republic came right out and admitted they don't like democracy!!!!
They want one party rule and that one party should be dominated by one person I'm sure.
They would much prefer a dictator or king to having the people have the power to put through referendums.
One thing you can count on when you pick up a newspaper in Phoenix ... it will be so right wing oriented you can't even pick it up with your left hand.
It will keep scooting across the driveway until you use your right hand to pick it up.
If you use your left hand to turn the page you will get a paper cut. :)
dustbowl11 posted at 11:05 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Notice that Patterson does not say anything about the British public's overwhelming support of the National Health system. Just that they are gullible. Thatcher was just as divisive a figure there as Reagan was here. Just because millionaire conservatives idolize them, does not mean every person does or did.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:11 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Oh my, how Patterson misses it again. But where to start?
How about we start with the individual mandate, you know, the requirement that everyone participate in the healthcare insurance market or be fined for failure. Patterson maintains that “premiums in the individual market will rise by 19 percent to 30 percent. That’s only common sense, since all insurers would be bound by “guaranteed issue,” permitting patients to wait until they are sick to buy insurance.” Can’t Dr. Patterson see this huge inconsistency? If “all insurers would be bound by the mandate to cover new patient applicants, how can those new applicants have waited until they are sick to buy insurance?”
Then we have the supply vs. demand issue. Patterson states that “The fatal flaw is that there is no practical cost control mechanism to counter the explosion in demand that will inevitably occur.” Demand for what? In his context, the problem is that there is nothing to control price. He laments that “top-down price controls have never worked to permanently ‘bend’ the cost for health care or anything else. There’s no reason to think they will this time.” As a conservative, doesn’t Patterson understand that competition is the force that is supposed to keep costs down? We have so little competition now between health insurance companies [typically only two per market] that costs have been rising to the point where 16% of our total economy is healthcare. The market has been divided up between these giants so that competition is much less of a factor. Every heard of the Public Option? That option would allow the government to complete with each and every healthcare insurance company in each and every state. So, perhaps Dr. Patterson ought to advocate that the Public Option be added to Obamacare! And should Dr. Patterson believes that government healthcare lacks quality, know that I get my healthcare from the VA and it’s superior! It sure beats CIGNA!
Then comes Dr. Patterson’s conclusion. “If it passes, not only will one-sixth of our economy pass under permanent government control [as if it’s not already there], but Obamacare’s unknowable, [but somehow knowable] astronomical cost will overwhelm our efforts to avoid fiscal insolvency. The stakes couldn’t be higher.” Having compared the Affordable Healthcare law to Medicare, the program which likely supported his practice, now he casts doubt on that law as well. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
Patterson has compared the British healthcare system, Single Payer, with our present system, Individual Mandate, not even the Public Option. Apparently he cannot distinguish the differences between these systems. But I bet Maggie Thatcher could and she’s suffering from dementia! What’s Patterson’s excuse?
chatmandu002 posted at 11:14 am on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
Tom,
Of course we all know that Obamacare or the ACA is just a step towards the socialist ideal of a single payer healthcare system the liberal/progressive/socialist democrats want. They never deny it or even talk about it. They expect it to happen naturally. They claim it's part of the constitution, preamble; "provide for the general welfare". The SCOTUS will determine if the ACA is constitutional this summer. Of course if it goes against the democrats then they will blame the conservative activist judges and if the decision goes for Obamacare, they will say they were correct and why not go all the way with a single payer government system which Obama will push if he is re-elected. The 50% that do pay federal income taxes will pay for everyone's healthcare. Also the government will be entitled to take over all commerce within the US. We can then change the name of our country from the United States of America to the Federal Republic of America.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:09 pm on Mon, Apr 23, 2012.
chatmandu002 --- the the Republican had their way with no opposition we would be living in The Corporate States of America LLC.
If the choice is between living in a commune and a corporations --- I'll take the commune --- it's a lot more fun.
When this country was founded only landowners had the vote.
If the Republicans could have complete control, the Supreme Court ( with all 9 Republican justices ) would re-interpret or laws and take the vote away from the common people claiming that it was the original intent of the Constitution that only the wealthy had the right to vote ( possibly with some merit ). They would rule that only the wealthy could vote ... peons don't need to bother their ignorant heads about what the government is doing or going to do.
Not that it really does us much good now anyway when both major parties are completely bought and paid for by big business anyway.
mnjcpa posted at 7:51 am on Tue, Apr 24, 2012.
The libs in this column can pick apart Patterson's statements all you want, but this point is for certain. Obamacare will - not maybe - will push America into financial insolvency very quickly. You won't be able to hold on to your big government benefits because they'll be renegotiated for you and maybe then you'll start understanding the error in your thinking.
VofReason posted at 1:13 pm on Tue, Apr 24, 2012.
Just hilarious how Dale thinks that because he says so it is. Maybe he disagrees with Tom Patterson, but the guy was a Doctor and a State Senator. My guess is he has a little better insight then……Dale. And please don’t tell me that AZWillie called the Republic conservative. That is like calling Dale conservative. Finally, RR can you reference something that the Government has done that was cost efficient? Right, guessing Healthcare won’t be the first.