Democrats Plan: Destroy U.S. Healthcare So They Can Re-Build it in Socialist Image

-By Warner Todd Huston

Obama and his Democrat pals have been lying to you, America. They do not want to find a cure for America's obviously ailing healthcare system. They want to erect its headstone. Democrats want to destroy every aspect of our healthcare system. They have to, you see, because if they don't they cannot rebuild it to operate under a socialist model. More proof of that was highlighted by Conn Carroll earlier in the week at the Washington Examiner.

Carroll rightly points out that Obamacare is purposefully designed to collapse Medicare and to run 25% of all hospitals out of business. Sure this will hurt -- even kill -- thousands of America's most vulnerable citizens, but, heck, you have to break a few citizen eggs to create the ideal, socialist omelet, don't you know?

Democrats are claiming that Ryan's plan will force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care than current law. But as the CMS reported Friday, the only way Medicare manages to achieve those savings is by paying doctor's less. A lot less. In 2009, Medicare paid doctors about 80% if what private health insurance paid. Under the Democrats plan that number would decline to 57% by 2012. By 2085, Medicare would only be paying 27% of what private insurance pays. Would this effect the quality of care Medicare recipients receive? Absolutely CMS reports:

"...In the Office of the Actuary's April 22, 2010 memorandum on the estimated financial effects of the Affordable Care Act, we noted that by 2019 the update reductions would result in negative total facility margins for about 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies. This estimated percentage would continue to increase, reaching roughly 25 percent in 2030 and 40 percent by 2050."

There is something else this will do, as well. It will eliminate thousands of doctors, driving them right out of the business of medicine. After all, if their bills are going to go unpaid, why would they stay on the job?

Let's put it this way... let's say that a law was passed that you would only get paid 27% of what you are now paid in your particular job. Here's the seminal question: would you stay in that job? Or would you quit that career and take up a new one, one where the government doesn't arbitrarily limit you to a fraction of what you should be making?

In practically every nation that has the sort of socialist healthcare system that Democrats want implemented in the USA there is a doctor shortage. This shortage occurs because fewer people bother to go into a career where they know ahead of time that government will summarily cap the amount of money they can make.

This artificial cap prevents the best and brightest from pursuing a medical career. Countries like this end up with the bottom of the barrel delivering healthcare to their people.

So, not only would Obama destroy a quarter of America's hospitals, but he'd drive out of the healthcare business all the good doctors that we do have and would set up a situation where only the lowest level of doctors are created in the future.

Is this the American health system we want?

Well, it may not be the America that sane people want, but Democrats and Obama don't want the best healthcare possible. They want the sort of healthcare of which they fully control every aspect. They want the sort of healthcare system where the people have to go hat-in-hand to politicians and beg for medicine and treatment. This isn't about "health." It's about a complete, socialist control of the lowly people.

Welcome to Obama's most desired future.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

    Do they pay you per comment? I hope so, because I hate to see a poor man down. Unlike you Republicans.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    The "intelligence" of the left on full display.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    Who said I was old enough to vote?

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    Children should be seen and not heard.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    Just like women, right?

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    You are a disgrace to moustaches everywhere

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    I'm done ruining your blog for now, but I'll be back soon. Don't worry moustache man.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    When you come back, try being more like an adult. Oh, and learn to spell mustache.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/
    Look at the top. Moustache? Do you spell doughnut, donut too?

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    No. We do not spell it that way in America. As your IP address puts you in the United States (at the Chicago Tribune, no less) that makes you commenting in the United States. Learn to spell properly, little fella. Thanks Mr. blackwaterpark89@yahoo.com.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    So what you're saying is that both spellings are correct, and your critique of my spelling was off base? Unless you think only the American way is correct. That must be why the metric system is obsolete.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    Nope. I am saying you are an un-American creep. Fits you perfectly. Bye, bye, little child.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    Yes! I'm un-American because I spell it moustache. Because unlike you, I don't ignore the rest of the world. You tried to make me look stupid by implying I couldn't spell moustache. When I show you that moustache is a perfectly acceptable spelling, all you can do is insult me. Yet I need to be an adult? I was an adult at first, and then you deleted my post. I found no insults in my original three posts, other than calling you a hypocrite (which, clearly you are). Somehow, I'm the one who needs to grow up. Maybe the middle aged man needs to grow up and stop arguing with a teenager? Hmm? You'll probably delete this post too, but at least I know you've seen it, and hopefully you even read it.

  • In reply to blackwaterpark89:

    A few days ago I read an article in the trib about the health care debate in which Byrne and zorn offered their opinions on Obamacare. Of course, zorn supports Obamacare. Byrne was opposed to it, but his alternative, which relied heavily on private insurance, was weak, in my opinion. I am strongly opposed to Obamacare and to any and all unconstitutional entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicad and welfare. How can I say they are unconstitutional? By reading the constitution, the federalist papers, and by reading the writings of our founding fathers. I will share this one with you from Samuel Adams, which pretty well sums up what the others wrote concerning this topic. "The utopian schemes of leveling [ redistribution of the wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all means of production and distribution],are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." That's right, Samuel Adams wrote that the "redistridution of the wealth" is unconstitution. Anyone who attempts to make constitutional arguements in support of entitlement programs is an anti-constitutional, counter-revolutionary, enemy of the constitution. So, the big problem is, how do we undo this mess that people like zorn have gotten us into? When I say 'people like zorn' I mean members of The League for Industrial Democracy. Do the research on these enemies of our constitution, don't just take my word for it. They started out as a small group in New York in 1905 and called themselves the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. They have changed their name a few times and I believe have done so just recently. Anyway, back to health care. The three main causes of high costs of health care in this counrty are: The Health Insurance industry, low Medicare reinbursement rates to doctors and hospitals for medical services provided, and drug companies putting the cost of research and development of new drugs on the American consumer. Well, now, what to do? Two major things need to be done. One, enact effective tort reform to prevent lawsuits from increasing health care costs due to higher premuims on insurance polices which gets passed on to patients. Example: limit to 1 million dollars the maximum amount that can be awarded to anyone who sues a doctor or hospital. Two, allow doctors and hospitals to have one on one relationships with each patient. What I mean is that each person and their doctor, and or hospital, work out a payment system that works best for them. For example, let's say I go into a doctor's office and tell the doctor I would like him to be my family doctor. He tells me he can do it for $5,000 per year. I say I can't afford to pay more than $1,000 per year for his services. From there we would either continue to negotiate until we both reached an agreement we were happy with, or one of us would walk. But here is the best part. I would agree to sign a waiver that would state that I would not sue the doctor for any mistake he may make when providing medical care to me and my family. My costs would be limited to our agreement, thus it would be truely affordable to me, as each persons definition of affordable varies. It's either this or high health care costs with lawsuits. I hope we pick the former, not the latter. As for drug companies, they would not be able to pass the costs for developing new drugs onto us because these and any medicines would be provided to us by our doctors or hospitals that have agreements that limit what they can charge us. So, please, imagine a world where health care happens where it is supposed to, between you and your doctor, and no outside interference from government or anyone else. Try it, you can do it!

  • In reply to rattlesnake:

    You sound intelligent and informed, until you and Mr. Moustache start your sarcastic blah blah.

  • In reply to seuss:

    Leave a comment...

Leave a comment