Posted on 02/20/2014 6:20:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Liberal failures always trace back to having glossed over the biggest problems, the showstoppers that should kill bad ideas before they get out of committee. Instead, an unfounded trust in the power of technology, the future, or in the sense of being on the cutting edge of everything gets these manic ideas passed and signed.
During the Bush era, I heard plenty of appeals to a futuristic savior as a means for avoiding war:
Dude, it’s 2005. You’re telling me they can’t come up with a better strategy for Iraq than shooting the bad guys some more?
Yes. I was correct; our shiny new 2005 thinking could not halt the advancement of al-Qaeda on its own.
C’mon. It’s 2014. Our cars should be electric.
Yet the Chevy Volt, known to be unaffordable and requiring of a subsidy prior to construction, did not become either economical or desirable in practice. The Tesla, considered a viable product, actually is sustained by subsidy. No, “2014″ was not a rational argument for manufacturing electric cars.
Then we have the most damaging current appeal to futurism, an idea which has managed to retain its cutting-edge persona despite being a near-century old:
C’mon. The richest country in the world can get everyone health insurance.
Back in 2008 — and also back during the working years of Adam Smith — rational folks knew the showstopper flaw with such a statement: artificially lowering a price means that someone not party to the transaction has to pay for the alteration. Besides the alteration being immoral and illegal, the price point arrived upon in transactions between Party A and Party B cannot be altered without requiring a Party C to make A or B whole again.
Now, four years into the problem created by the “Cmon, man” crowd, the Obama administration is hysterically begging America’s young to register for Obamacare, the people statistically likely to lose money on the deal. They’re treating it as a messaging problem, or as a “maturity” issue; as anything but the humiliating truth: after thousands of pages written and calculations tortured out by the cleverest, most-credentialed folks in the country, after rewriting the law 35 times after passage, the liberals in charge couldn’t lower the price point between Parties A and B without needing a bystander C to provide glorified charity.
For centuries, we’ve been trying to frame the reality of redistributionism in a language the liberal side can understand; nothing gets through. Maggie Thatcher did a bang-up job — “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” — but even that elegant gem didn’t take. Can anything ever work? How much simpler can we make this?
Person A wants a good produced by Person B. If the price is too high, Person A cannot afford it. If the price is too low, Person B cannot continue to sell it. If either party is made whole to rectify an inefficient fixed price, that money has to come from a Party C. Person C runs out of money just like Person A or B would have. In a from-scratch socialist society, Party C never exists.
Redistribution has an unsolvable “No C(apital)” problem.
They say that the “bros” are not buying health insurance in numbers needed to sustain the project, and perhaps this can be fixed with marketing. We have consistently pointed out that the young will not purchase enough plans because on average the demographic gets cleaned out on the deal, but we haven’t forced the liberals to answer the bigger questions:
Why did Obamacare need the young? Why did it need a Party C to survive? If Party C is losing money on the deal — as they do by definition, otherwise they would be indistinguishable from Party A — they can’t be the source for long. So why did you proceed with a plan without addressing its built-in death sentence?
Seems too simplistic and past-tense, so the liberals glossed over the only questions that mattered again.
Even if the ‘young’ wanted to sign up, they can’t: immigration, H1 visas, and all the general economically destructive policies have destroyed the job market for them... never mind their high student loans.
In short: they have no means to pay for it.
I appreciate Steinberg’s clarity of thought.
The young set can’t even move out of their parents’ home and establish themselves because there are so few jobs available to White young men. Even those with college degrees don’t have jobs, but they do have huge student loan debt, making it even worse
This nation and its economy are on the skids to oblivion caused by this demographic disaster.
RE: In short: they have no means to pay for it.
Well, they can always sign up for Medicaid. That’s what it’s for.
“So why did you proceed with a plan without addressing its built-in death sentence?”
illogic
Because..c’mon man...we should be able to do this because it’s the RIGHT thing to do. And aren’t other countries doing this?How can they be able to do this and we can’t when we’re the greatest country on Earth?
/illogic
My son graduated from college in 2006 so I told him he needed to get a health insurance policy of his own. He saw absolutely no need to have such a thing. At that age they are not concerned about that sort of thing. They are healthy and don’t want to spend the money on such foolishness.
There is a very simple explanation why social engineers such as liberals and socialist ‘never catch on’.
Conservatives like to recite all sorts of economic facts concerning the real world. Liberal and socialist do not live in the real world as do conservatives. Liberals and socialists live in the ‘lets play like’ world of little children. They imagine the world is like they want it to be instead of what it is.
The liberals who recognize the difference between their imaginary world and the real world are the ones who cause most of the problems since they want to remake the world.
Actually, I’m thinking the government doesn’t want justyoungpeople. They want youngpeoplewithnoincomes.
Imagine nearly the entire population of college students, Mickey D’s workers and the like with no income to speak of but eligible for subsidies. The goal of Obamacare isn’t to get people covered; the goal is to break the piggy bank so that single payer (government supplied) healthcare is the only option to resort to.
A couple of articles yesterday talked about Bush's plan in 2007:
--- Treat employer-paid health insurance as taxable income.
--- If you have at least a catastrophic-coverage plan, you get $7500 ($15000 couple) tax deduction.
--- Self-employed: buy whatever plan you want. If it costs less than $7500, pocket the difference. If it costs more than $7500, enjoy the extra benefits.
It was scored as revenue-neutral for the government.
It went nowhere.
The problem is, leftists don't use logic in their thought process because doing so unravels their philosophy and doctrine. Upon ultimate failure of their collectivist designs, their common retort is always something along the lines of "we weren't given enough time, blood and money to make this work".
Yes, though that's hardly the calculus that was used to justify the Ponzi scheme that Obamacare is.
Because the reprieve will be single payer health care.
We have 0bama and the democrats turning our nation into a socialist cesspool because not enough conservatives turn-out to vote. Too many felt John McCain’s and Mitt Romney’s conservatism wasn’t pure enough for them to oppose 0bama at the ballot box.
It takes 50.01% of the voters to advance an agenda. That means accepting an alliance with moderates we might not like that much but are less objectionable than the communists we have running the show now.
It's not that difficult to understand. The Rats who passed this understood the bill contained the seeds of it's own destruction, but were unconcerned. Obastard knew it, but also knew he could get safely by the next election because the poison pill wouldn't go off just yet. The Rats in Congress knew it, but also knew they could make a pretty good living off fixing the millions of problems that were sure to crop up.
In short, the Rats knew they couldn't lose, as long as they kept a compliant Press in their pocket. It's working beautifully for them.
Even after full Obamacare compliance they are saying that 30 million would still not have health insurance.
Do you know if there’s a DAVID STEINBERG ping list? Looks like one we need to be on...
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.