Thursday, November 14, 2013

In Defense of ObamaCare

Awhile back I had paid in full for services at a doctor because my insurance didn't cover the particular service.  A few months later, my insurance plan changed and did cover the service.  Someone at the doctor's office then got the bright idea to post date the service and then bill the insurance company.  They then made the mistake of billing me the co-pay, thus broadcasting the fraud to me.  Perhaps I should have reported them or engaged in a bit of extortion, but we managed to come to terms.  We sometimes forget that populist demagogues have been colluding with big insurance and trial lawyers for the last half century to create the monster that cares for our health while maximizing waste and fraud.  The important thing to note, however, is that the monster is viable.  That is, it actually squirms and kicks and periodically even delivers some health care.  I can't imagine anyone defending the current system unless they have their fingers in the cookie jar.

Let's now consider the possibility that our president is far more clever than we imagined in coming up with ObamaCare.  Keep in mind that no populist would ever be caught dead advocating dismantling the current socialist-fascist health system unless they were to offer up another socialist-fascist scheme.  Next, consider that ObamaCare is the perfect populist ploy:  A scheme which provides universal first class health care to everyone and does it with decreased costs and no new doctors or nurses.  It also provides unlimited government funded abortion services and abortion inducing drugs without using a penny of taxpayer money and without compelling anyone to violate their religious beliefs.  Clearly no person in their right mind would ever imagine a scheme like ObamaCare to be workable in practice, so we must assume that ObamaCare was really just a tactic intended to achieve some other goal.

So what is that "other goal"?  With 5 million people having lost health insurance, it is all starting to make sense:  These 5 million will be forced, yes FORCED, to actually pay for their medical treatment.  They will approach the doctor as a customer, and pay for a service.  The doctor, on the other hand, will need to explain to the customer how much the service costs and why.  Buyer and seller will actually need to discuss the product and come to terms.  So my theory is that Obama is really a closet capitalist, and ObamaCare is a populist ploy - a bait and switch - to get us back to the only system that we know will really work - Capitalism - by switching a viable socialist-fascist system to a non-viable socialist-fascist scheme that will then die a natural death.  A true genius.


Delirious said...

After spending the day running around the Chinese hospital just trying to get some prescriptions filled, I long for our "faulty" American medical may have problems, but we have some of the best care in the world.

Rummuser said...

Brilliant analysis Looney. A closet tea party member yet!

We have a theory here about our Prime Minister. He has interpreted his position as one to take revenge for the massacre of the Sikhs by the INC and has done what he could to destroy the INC.

Delirious said...

Oh, and I really should add that you are totally right with your analysis. People think that socialized medicine is free, but it's not. Many people here in China can't afford the hospital and medicine costs. And they have to pay everything up front or they don't get the service.

Looney said...

@Delirious, yes, we do have a lot to be thankful for in that we can get most services done reliably. If I need some long term health care after I retire, I would probably want to go somewhere like Taiwan or Singapore where I can get good treatment without taking on too much cost.

Looney said...

@Rummuser, it would be more interesting if the revenge on INC were taken by a PM who was part of INC! Something like this happened in Taiwan. But I can see why people should wonder. In the US, economists need no such pretext to prescribe revengeful policies.

What distinguishes me from the Tea Party is that I believe that free markets can only work if there is a civic ethic, and this ethic - at least for us - must be founded in Christianity. This has been entirely preempted, however, by our universities, seminaries and courts, who have determined that we are to be a theocracy based on the worship of total depravity. Thus, the only civic ethic is the one that states that there are no civic ethics. The Tea Party's dream is unrealizable.