Posted on 07/08/2012 11:41:37 AM PDT by Whenifhow
In 2009, when Obama was pushing universal healthcare, he quickly realized that his dreams of a single-payer, government-run socialized system would never pass Congress. His other option was a “public option,” which most knew to be a Trojan Horse for single-payer, slowly eviscerating the private insurance industry. The “compromise” (if we can say Obama compromised with himself) was ObamaCare.
The ObamaCare debate has been overshadowed by whether the Individual Mandate is constitutional (it is not, despite what Roberts and the gaggle of liberal justices state.) What has been lost in the conversation is the States’ Health Care Exchanges.
We have an entity that will absorb 20-30 million new enrollees as Medicaid eligibility is expanded to 135% of the federal poverty level; the increase in enrollee numbers will be funded by the federal government (at least initially.)
The federal government will be writing the insurance regulations for the health exchanges. But at the same time, under ObamaCare, it will also be writing the requirements for private insurers.
Keep in mind that we are all concerned with the fact that private citizens will be required to purchase health insurance. But what we lose sight of is that they will have to purchase the “correct” insurance.
Let us set up a hypothetical situation. Let us say ABC Insurance is not particularly fond of ObamaCare. It does not have employees who donated to Obama’s campaign. But XYZ Insurance is a strong Obama supporter.
ObamaCare has already required 13,000 pages of regulations to implement the law, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for what is to come. Let us say that one of the hundreds of ObamaCare boards determines that ABC Insurance does not offer the “correct” insurance—doing this as a punishment for not supporting Obama—but only after they have sold tens of thousands of policies. Some clerk at ABC Insurance had missed some obscure rule buried in a small-print footnote.
After tens of thousands of private citizens have already purchased healthcare from ABC Insurance, they find a “penalty” (now a “tax” per the Supreme Court) from the IRS in the mailbox for 1% of their total income—let us say $2000 because ABC Insurance’s policy has been determined to be invalid. There “happens” to be a note in with the IRS bill that explains that XYZ Insurance has been found to comply with ObamaCare regulations.
As time goes on, the public becomes fearful that they will not buy the “correct” insurance from whatever company, and slowly, the public moves to the Health Exchanges (which will continue to loosen their enrollee income requirements, thus driving private insurance companies out of business.)
The Health Exchanges then become Obama’s Public Option, and when there are no more private insurers, the federal government takes over the States’ Health Exchanges, creating a single-payer system.
The Public Option via ObamaCare thus becomes a socialist Trojan Horse that can be repeated in any industry with a little tinkering.
Let us set up an analogy to show how the Public Option works.
Let us say a little girl, eight years old, asks her mom if she can set up a lemonade stand.
Her mom agrees, thinking it will give her daughter a taste of how to operate a business. She enlists the daughter’s grandmother, who has a lemon tree; mom supplies the pitcher, sugar, water, and table.
Dad comes home and sees this, feeling proud that his daughter is getting a taste of what he does all day, running a business.
He decides one day, however, that it is not really teaching her anything because she is basically being given everything. He determines that she should do chores to earn money for the lemons and sugar and to buy these at the supermarket.
But in order to really give her a taste of what business is like, he sets up his own lemonade stand, but charges less money. (In the words of Obama, the father is setting up a “level” playing field.)
He finds that all the children in the neighborhood are buying his daughter’s better tasting yet more expensive lemonade and determines by fiat that her lemonade must be the same price as his and match his lemon juice/sugar/water proportion. Each day, he tastes her lemonade to determine if it is made correctly, and if not, it is thrown out. He further determines that her lemonade stand must be cleaned to his specification.
One day, he is going through the sugar that his daughter uses and finds a small bug and throws away all of the sugar so his daughter can’t make lemonade that day. After repeated problems with sugar, the lemonade mixture, and unreasonable cleaning of the stand, the daughter has had it and gives up the lemonade stand. Dad, however, continues selling lemonade but soon gives the running of it over to other kids in the neighborhood, paying them a substantial amount of money to run the stand.
So what we have here is two entities competing. The daughter/private insurance company is attempting to make a profit, whereas the father/public option cares not whether they make a profit (and in fact, if they lose money, that is seen as normal.) Thanks to endless regulations that favor the father/public option, the daughter/private insurance finally throws in the towel and gives up.
What we have learned is that the father actually could care less about the daughter, putting other children before her. What we learned is that Obama cares not for private business, and slowly but surely (through stealth socialism) seeks to put all major private business into the hands of the government.
This is why Obama spent over a year shoving ObamaCare down the throats of America because it is the first and largest Trojan Horse that will create the path for all other subsequent Trojan Horses to take over the U.S. capitalist system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926bPZiQhgY&feature=player_embedded
ObamaCare a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926bPZiQhgY&feature=player_embedded
It’s not a Trojan Horse.
Trojan Horses hide bad things.
Obamacare is being waved in our faces.
Of course it is.
That's why we need to vote to repeal it this year.
Before we vote it out we must first have a coalition of states fully committed to opting out as a fallback plan.
Regardless of the voting outcome the individual states will have the final decision.
We need more states committed right NOW, before a flood of IRS agents are placed within, operations set up, takedown strategies discussed and the confiscation of properties of resistance groups.
FANTASTIC video! Thanks. Just sent it to my brainwashed daughter.
He says he wants everyone to have ‘at least’ the SAME heathcare as he has
Right, okay, let’s see it!!!
Perhaps true. But I predict the politicians and various sub-assistant-secretaries of HHS will find the money generated by the insurance companies for politicians will be far too attractive for the politicians to let go.
It looks more to me like politicians have created the worlds biggest golden goose in the insurance companies and the hospital/aco’s. The golden goose will pay politicians big-time to keep things the way they are.
Periodically, the politicians will shake their fists at the goose for the cameras but nothing will change.
You might want to check out this post - and part 2 is about the states.
Killing Obamacare Before It Kills Us – Part 1: The Political Battlefield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2904174/posts
Add it all up.....you sure aren't getting your monies worth.
When the megacorps figure out it’s cheaper to pay the TAX for not providing coverage, they will do just that. We will all end up before a death panel of one kind or another.
The Republican slogan for this election should be “Restore Free Enterprise”.
check out this article
The tax man cometh to police you on health care
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903924/posts
The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty, and most filers get refunds. This year, 77 percent of the 135 million individual income tax returns processed by the IRS qualified for a refund. The average refund: $2,707.
For those who don’t qualify for a refund, a stern letter from the IRS can be effective, even if it doesn’t come with the threat of civil or criminal penalties, said Elizabeth Maresca, a former IRS trial attorney who supervises the Tax & Consumer Litigation Clinic at the Fordham University law school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.