Skip to comments.Three Years On, Obamacare Has Become Irresistable
Posted on 03/24/2013 12:23:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
It has been federal for three years. It has brought chaos to the labor markets. It has cost people their livelihoods and it is more unpopular than ever.
So why does Obamacare (officially known as the Affordable Care Act) remain so irresistible for so many of our fellow Americans? Because at its core Obamacare is not about health care, so much as it is about the redistribution of wealth, and for those who are on the receiving end of the redistribution the agenda is completely irresistible.
When the federal government doles-out cash, its difficult to say no. Thats why many of our nations top business consulting firms are cashing-in, as state government officials hire the consulting firms to figure out how to set up the new federal health care bureaucracies, complete with their own state-specific websites and call centers.
How difficult and costly could it be, do you suppose, to set up a website and a call center for the residents of one individual state? In the world of private enterprise, most small to midsize companies doing business within a specific region of the U.S. would be foolish to spend much more than a hundred thousand dollars for their customer service website and the infrastructure for a call center, and in many cases the project could be completed for much less.
But with Obamacare, the customer service element has become more of a corporate welfare element. Companies, careers, and personal fortunes are being made by people who are the states, as firms bill the individual states millions of taxpayer dollars for the website and call center set-ups (and the Obama administration frequently offers to reimburse the states for the set-up costs).
Take for example a company called Leavitt Partners, LLC. Founded by the former Republican Governor of Utah (and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services) Michael Leavitt, the company describes itself as a healthcare intelligence business, and is focused solely on state-by-state Obamacare compliance (they have already completed Utahs insurance exchange start-up).
Were talking here about Michael Leavitt, the former Utah Governor who last year endorsed and campaigned on behalf of Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate who pledged to end Obamacare. Yes, that Michael Leavitt is making millions advising the states on how to comply with the monstrosity that his pal Mitt wanted to eliminate.
How much money is in play for these companies? Consider that last fall representatives from Leavitts company traveled north and proposed to build an exchange for their tiny nieghboring state of Idaho, a state with a population of less than 1.7 million people. Once the Leavitt representatives unveiled their proposed price tag to build an exchange - $70 million-an incredulous member of Idahos state insurance task force asked does Governor Leavitt really believe that this is a good idea?
Company associate Brett Graham replied with the nuanced explanation that Governor Leavitt doesnt like the feds dictating to the states, however, the Governor also believes that the states should stand inside the circle with the feds rather than stand outside of it- which was an artful way of saying yes, Governor Leavitt likes this and wants to get paid to show you how to do it.
Leavitts proposal was not the most expensive that the sparsely populated Idaho received. The global accounting and consulting firm KPMG weighed-in with a price tag of $77 million, and when a state official asked what the residents of Idaho would get in return for such a large expenditure, KPMG representative Andrew Gottschalk was vague: Its hard to explain exactly what you get Its hardware, its software, theres infrastructure, theres people and staffing he stated. There would likely be a call center. Its all kinds of things theres a lot of stuff .but its hard to be specific.
States spending millions of taxpayer dollars, and receiving all kinds of things and a lot of stuff in return. Thats our present-day reality with Obamacare. Along with Leavitt Partners and KPMG, global consulting firms Maximus and Mercer are also cashing-in. These firms employ well educated, highly skilled professionals with JDs, MBAs, and advanced degrees in information systems and healthcare management, most of whom would undoubtedly reject the idea that they are welfare recipients. As the Maximus corporate website states, we leverage our extensive experience and strong commitment to ethics to provide high quality services and solutions.
Along with the Obamacare cash thats flowing in to private consultants accounts, theres the money thats being handed-out to state and county governments under the auspice of Medicaid expansion. A key component of Obamacare was to have mandated that the individual states reduce eligibility requirements for Medicaid, and expand the number of participants in their respective programs. However, the United States Supreme Court overturned that component of the Obamacare law, so expansion of Medicaid is an elective choice for each of the states.
But not to worry, the President has made the expansion of the federal Medicaid welfare program irresistible, as the Administration is offering to pay 100% of the expansion costs for the first three years, for states that agree to the expansion this year. Thats why, for example, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has refused to allow an Obamacare insurance exchange in his state, nonetheless agreed to the Medicaid expansion when you can get the feds to pay for peoples free healthcare, that alleviates the state and county agencies from paying for it. It creates an addiction to federal spending, but if youre in charge of a state or federal agency, it makes sense on some level.
This is the reality of Obamacare. Its wildly unpopular for the masses, but irresistible for those on the receiving end of the money grab.
Government is basically just a legalized version of organized crime...or is it an organized version of legalized crime? I can never remember which is which.
Actually I think social security SHOULD be called an entitlement! You paid for it and you should be “entitled” to it. What I think is absurd is calling food stamps and such entitlements, no one should be entitled to receive them.
“The fact is, Medicare (which remains massively popular, even around here) has killed the system - it just took 40 years to die.”
I agree totally and I am probably the only person who recalls this but very soon after Medicare went into effect a report came out saying that a person who went into the hospital under medicare would come out owing a copay greater than the entire bill would have been before Medicare. Medicare in reality did little or nothing to help the people it was supposed to help but it made a lot of people rich. If there had never been any Medicare or any other form of federal interference in medicine we would never have had a “healthcare crisis”. There was a time when a week in a hospital would mean a large bill but it did not consume a year or two of an average person’s income. I clearly remember when I thought a hospital room that cost $32. a day was simply outrageous. In those days a person who woke up feeling sick could go to the doctor’s waiting room and be treated within a couple of hours without an appointment and pay $5. or so for the visit, not a copay, the entire charge.
The “healthcare crisis” is entirely a creation of the federal government and the feds are now convinced that they must destroy the healthcare system in order to save it! The end result will be no real healthcare for any but a tiny elite and the rest will be forced to pay large fines for not participating in a fake system that offers nothing to the participant except the opportunity to die of “complications”. The thing I find most amazing is that so many “adults” actually believed that it was a good idea to turn health care over to the feds. Why can people never learn that the federal government thrives by creating chaos, not by solving problems?
Some people are starting to realize that they can do a lot to take care of their own health and some have not been to see a “medical professional” in many years. I suppose at some point the government will find it necessary to mandate that people see a doctor at least twice a year.