Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Obamacare For Dummies, or Am I my brother's keeper?

My step-sister-in-law in Texas sent me an email that boils down the 10,535 pages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) , which some people call Obamacare, into four sentences:

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.
2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.
3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” or its more common name, SOCIALISM.

Depending on your point of view, this is either a very good thing or a very bad thing.

I am suddenly reminded of something I heard President Lyndon B. Johnson say way back in nineteen-sixty-something: “We’re going to take from the haves and give to the have-nots who need it so much.”

Again, depending on your point of view, this is either a very good thing or a very bad thing.

Time may march on, but some things never change.

8 comments:

ADRIAN said...

I think it is a good thing.
The only problem with socialism it doesn't work.

Snowbrush said...

Did Jesus teach capitalism?

Doesn't Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public libraries, public schools, and various other programs that give the poor what they couldn't otherwise afford at the expense of those who can afford it count as socialism? Would you favor getting rid of these programs because, in Adrian's words, socialism doesn't work?

Oddly one of the nation's bastions against socialism is Mississippi, which is as state that pays far less into the federal government than it takes from it. In fact, Mississippi is the state that is most dependent upon social welfare programs. If it were a dog, it would bite the hand that feeds it.

GB said...

All systems have their plusses and minuses but a society that looks after those who can't look after themselves has to be more civilised than a society that says 'Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost '.

Yorkshire Pudding said...

Giving the poor and needy access to decent healthcare is surely the hallmark of decent, civilised societies. Call this socialism in big block letters if you want to, I would instead apply apply these labels - selflessness, humanity, goodness, fairness. Ironically, in a wealthy country that purports to embrace Christianity, these are surely the very values that Jesus espoused according to "The Bible".

Helsie said...

Totally agree with GB. In Australia we have Medicare where we all pay a levy through our taxes and if you don't earn enough to pay tax then you don't contribute to Medicare but still benefit from it's health services. We all complain but we all have that safety net there to look after our health if we need it and THAT'S what really matters !

Snowbrush said...

After I first responded, I recalled presidential candidate Mitt Romney (who makes something like $13-million a year without having to lift a finger) saying that he thought it was fair that his tax rate is half that of middle income Americans. Ironically, Romney was very popular in the South, which opposes what many would call socialism. How ironic that those who oppose helping the poor are (a) often poor themselves (as most Southerners are), and (b) have no problem with helping the rich.

rhymeswithplague said...



Thank you all for commenting. I wondered what sort of responses this post might elicit. Nobody went on a rant, thank goodness. FYI, the answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is "Yes"....

That still doesn't mean I think Obamacare was well thought out or implemented, and it's only going to get worse.

Snowbrush, I think Mr. Mitt Romney and even Mr. Warren Buffett were referring to capital gains taxes they paid, not income taxes. The general public doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Snowbrush said...

"Snowbrush, I think Mr. Mitt Romney and even Mr. Warren Buffett were referring to capital gains taxes they paid, not income taxes."

His income tax rate is the same as the rate paid on capital gains. Here's a report on his income tax rate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0FG9sDJZiM

He claims to pay taxes on all of his assets, so why does he hold accounts in the Cayman Islands?