WSJ: How Obamacare is forcing permanent downsizing

by Maynard on February 22, 2013
WSJ: How Obamacare is forcing permanent downsizing

The Obama “transformation” is institutionalizing two classes of business: Too big to fail, and cozy with government, or miniscule and living under rules that make it impossible to be anything other than miniscule.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Pat_S says:
    February 23, 2013 at 05:22

    These companies offered little or no health insurance for their employees to begin with. The defensive moves against mandated health insurance are actually an argument for universal single-payer health care.

    Are we supposed to support the idea that some people who contribute to the economy will have to live without health insurance for the good of the economy? If you can’t get a better job the level of quality health care you can afford is inferior to your neighbor’s? This has always been an inequitable and stupid system.

    I understand the pitfalls of socialized medicine, but I also think it is untenable that cheapskate employers can stiff the people who provide labor for them. Healthcare is not a right by strict definition, but it should be and has become a moral societal obligation. If the private sector can’t or won’t handle it then another system will take its place. If that has ramifications for the level and quality of healthcare for everyone, we must include the inadequacies of private enterprise as part of the blame.

    • Maynard says:
      February 25, 2013 at 00:32

      Are we supposed to support the idea that some people who contribute to the economy will have to live without health insurance for the good of the economy? If you can’t get a better job the level of quality health care you can afford is inferior to your neighbor’s? This has always been an inequitable and stupid system.

      Here we have the moral, the practical, and the political bumping up against each other. It seems to me that we’re in a vicious cycle that moves inevitably towards a healthcare meltdown, as price increases are driven by government tinkering and controls and subsidies, leading to more increases, leading to more tinkering and controls and subsidies.

      If you want to speak about moral obligations, then there’s got to be some plan on the table that will do good rather than harm. Such a plan would curtail the ambulance chasers (reducing not only insurance and legal costs, but the endless “defensive medicine” (that is, unnecessary stuff done for the purpose of protecting against lawsuit), increase competition, minimize paperwork and other bureaucratic micromanagement (this is a big deal, ask your doc), reward people for maintaining their own basic health (healthy weight, exercise, avoid excessive drugs & booze & cigs), and — I would argue — ALWAYS demand some level of co-pay, so people will be motivated to price-shop and not consume unnecessarily. (I have a high deductible, so my costs come out of my pocket and I know how true this is; for a lot of services you can spend as little or as much as you want. I am motivated to pay less.)

      We all know the foregoing is politically impossible, and that the laws that get passed will, as a practical matter, dump ever-increasing expenses on the politically impotent for the benefit of the politically potent.

      What’s the Hippocratic Oath? Something about first doing no harm?

      I know that some employers can be evil scum, and I’ve even worked for such a creature, so I’m not going to issue a blanket defense for employers. But I’m blaming government policy, not cheapskate employers, for the unaffordable state of health care. And I find the moral argument inappropriate when I see nothing but damage and harm being done in the name of morality.

  2. Alain41 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 09:10

    I strongly disagree with your conclusion. I agree that OCare fallout is an argument for single-payer, but that will be a very bad worse thing.

    Employers are not cheapskate for not offering health ins. That is like saying employers are cheapskate for not offering $100/hr salaries. (For example, does Tammy offer you health care? I realize that you volunteer and I appreciate it, but still my point.) Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the world to offer adequate medical care to everyone. Because the definition of adequate care has changed due to modern medicine, which has now outstripped societal ability to pay. Private enterprise/capitalism has nothing to do with that. Socialism, marxism, and capitalism do not and can not deliver all the needed health care. Capitalism does it better, but it’s still not 100%. Arguing for single-payer is the result of pointing out that capitalism does not cover all health care that is needed (true), so let’s go socialist or… and that will (not true).

    One of the false arguments for OCare, was that no one should go bankrupt due to medical costs. Wrong. Bankruptcy due to medical costs is a moral good. Bankruptcy puts a limit on other people’s money. No bankruptcy, no limit. No limit, inevitable collapse.

    There are things that can be done to improve health care such as; taxing employer offered health ins.; giving preferential tax treatment to those that do not have employer offered health ins; health savings accounts for all with better tax treatment; stop paying for non-life threatening care for illegal aliens.

You must be logged in to post a comment.