Obamacare Fans Going Mad?

Be free. Within bounds. Belong. But stay critical. Do not forget. And first of all, do not forget to learn, and do not forget to forgive.
Sage principles one ought to give thanks to. Just the opposite of Krugman proclaiming “Obamacare’s Secret Success”, namely the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic”.
I have a different explanation for the slowdown in the rise of health care cost in the USA. Trees don’t grow up to the sky
Limits to Growth: Exponential Up Mutates Into Exponential Asymptotically Bounded

Limits to Growth: Exponential Up Mutates Into Exponential Asymptotically Bounded

Secret Success?”, Krugman? Millions of health insurance contracts have been cancelled, millions of people have seen their premiums and co-pays skyrocket. Krugman calls this a “secret success“?

Obama delayed for Thanksgiving, another piece of Obamacare called “SHOP”. (A telling name: Obama feels everything is for sale; not just himself, but also Americans’ health). See New York Times: Small Firms’ Offer of Plan Choices Under Health Law Delayed.

The drama of the Obama presidency was that, after He was elected, all too many of his supporters felt like they belonged, and reveled with tribal relish. They put the little critical sense that the reign of Satan Bush had fostered, in deep freeze. In other words, they were back to their old goose stepping of 2003.

Instead of forcing Obama to improve Medicare by executive orders, right away, they let him, and the plutocratic leaders of the Democratic Party, embark on a bizarre effort to save the for-giant-profit health system in the USA.

Obama and the democrats had acquired full control of the USA (I know they deny this, a telling Freudian slip, per se). They sang and played like little children, knowing the masters would reward them well for their mindlessness. Masters such as the Koch brothers, or the Waltons (see below).

There was also blatant dishonesty: Obama had promised to crack down on the revolving door between giant profits and government. Instead he opened it fully, allowing Well Point, a health insurer, to draft Obamacare. Everybody at the top was hushed with money: the debt of the USA is doubling.

Krugman: The law establishing Obamacare was officially titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…— slowing the seemingly inexorable rise in health costs… Has the curve been bent? The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.

O.K., the obligatory caveats. First of all, we don’t know how long the good news will last. …Second, we don’t know for sure how much of the good news is because of the Affordable Care Act. Still, the facts are striking.”

My name is Paul Krugman, and I am incoherent! Krugman: ” Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average.

What could account for this good news? One obvious answer is the still-depressed economy, which might be causing people to forgo expensive medical care… there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system… The news on health costs is, in short, remarkably good. … health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected.”

Notice that all what Krugman found was Medicare “bending costs”. In truth, this has noting to do with the ACA. Obama could have done more on Day One, by an executive order, if he had given Medicare full negotiating powers, as its homologues have all over the world. For example, in Canada. But Obama, too happy to hide behind occupied by his “SHOP” program on the “health marketplace” with its (stock?)”exchange”  for “consumers” still refuses to do so to this day.

Va de retro, Krugman delirium! The obvious explanation for the bending in health cost rise is that people simply don’t have the money for a health care system costing 20% of GDP.

So there could be just a limit to growth (“Malthusian”) curve at work: people cannot afford to spend more, so they cut down, because they have to.

The cost of health care is completely out of control in the USA. Top health administrators in the USA are paid ten to twenty times more than their homologues in Europe. And it’s worse at the level of insurers.

This madness at the top does not just cost more, it creates a corrupt system where underlings are paid more than they should be, just to make them accomplices of the outrageous gouging at the top.

If I am correct, the quality of health care in the USA ought to be going down, as patients see doctors less, and get treated less. And what is observed? Exactly this. The USA slipped from 37th in health care quality down to 46th rank (latest evaluation).

A new born in the USA has a probability of dying twice that of the European Union, with its 500 million people (including 100 million poor Eastern Europe still recently enslaved by the Red Plutocrats of Stalinian ilk).

How did that deliquescence develop? Because people such as Paul Krugman, instead of insisting stridently on a public insurance system developed the human relations that told them that private for profit insurance was the American way.

Hence Obamacare, an experience unique in the world. For (huge) profit corporations that claim, as USA style philanthropists do, to care for the little guy, while filling up their pockets ever more. For reference, the first public universal health care system opened in Germany, more than 150 years ago. Obamacare is nothing of the sort. Obamacare is more like universal gouging rather than universal health care.

Yet, denying blatant evidence, many democrats have stridently claimed that Obamacare is the exact opposite of what it is. The difference between their fanatical cult and the unfolding reality is apparently driving them mad (analyze Krugman above admitting “we don’t know for sure”, and then proving it’s not about the ACA, as he claims, but Medicare!).

Instead top democrats should relax. They are rotten, they should admit that to themselves.

They should do like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the USA. It makes enormous profits: 17 billion dollars last year. Wal-Mart’s CEO, Mike Duke, earns 11,000 dollars, an hour; its retirement is worth 113 million. And he is not even the owner.

Wal-Mart treats most of its employees like dirt. Still Wal-Mart organized a “food drive” among its employees, for those of its own employees who can’t feed themselves. that’ s philanthropy at its best, and most revealing.

Six individuals of the Walton family have a combined “worth” of more than 110 billion dollars. When it was only 89 billions, a few years ago, it was already more than the total wealth of the bottom 40% of the population of the USA (145 million people).

As Ralph Nader explains in the link above, the profits of Wal-Mart are made possible by government assistance. It’ s the same for the fast food industry: 52% of workers there use public assistance.

In a country where plutocrats get much, if not all, of their profits from the government, Obamacare is a natural.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

22 Responses to “Obamacare Fans Going Mad?”

  1. gmax Says:

    Obama is not crazy, just greedy. Krugman is more of the same: no plutocratic home run that did’nt catch his fancy. Hopefully they will both lose it.


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Worrying too much about what idiots think does not make one more intelligent, but rather the opposite.


  3. Future Economics Was Seen Before | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Intelligence at the core of humanism. « Obamacare Fans Going Mad? […]


  4. Paul Handover Says:

    All unstable systems topple.


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    I believed in Obama 7 years ago, gave two years of my life to him, just to see him cuddle with plutocrats. All his presidency was about doing deals with plutocrats, and now he talks inequality? Even last week, he was meeting with top health care insurance CEOs (not the owners). Six of them earned more than 100 million just in salary. So can Obama still make a huge difference?

    Obama has been excellent at parroting what other people have been saying. But, so far, and especially when he could, in the begining, he did nothing. Is Obamacare splendid? We will see. As Pelosi finally said:”We should have done single payer”. Instead we did plutocracare.


    • Kevin Says:

      Dec. 5, 2013 at 9:28 p.m.Kevin New York, NY…If Obama doesn’t meet with CEOs then he’s “anti – business,” right? So now he’s in bed with plutocrats because at his core he wants to meet the conservatives halfway. And to think the people over at Fox News thinks he’s a socialist. And that, of course, would be an insult to you.


    • G Love Says:

      Dec. 6, 2013 at 10:01 a.m.G Love Arlandria
      ..I would have been satisfied with a ‘public option’ (i.e. a guaranteed, low cost insurance plan).

      Instead, Joe Lieberman scuttled this.

      In its stead, Dems put money in the pot to help start non-profit health insurers, but this got destroyed by a few ‘centrists’ and later whittled down to near nothing in Obama/Biden’s negotiations with Mitch McConnell on the ‘fiscal cliff’ (remember that? – Jan 2013).

      Now, those of us trying to get insured on the individual market are left to the sharks of industry.


    • Dennis Donaghey Says:

      Dec. 6, 2013 at 10:01 a.m. Dennis Donaghey Texas…
      We got passed what was possible to pass. Weren’t you paying attention?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dennis the Deluded and insolent: are you paid to say slick dumb stuff? I was paying 100% attention. The leadership of the democratic party including Pelosi, was lying, as they admitted in November 2013. Finally.

        Time to realize that, if Obama is not quite Tea Party, maybe, he certainly is Financial Times. As he used to boast: don’t be surprised, if you are unawares of that. You were the one not paying attention, because, like Obama, you think the world is reduced to paying for it.


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    That post “Socialism: Converting Hysterical Misery into Ordinary Unhappiness for a Hundred Years” from the plutocratic university professor Corey Robin is sort of “socialism for capitalist exploiters/or dummies” discourse. The arguments, although valuable, are not the strongest. But OK, the unawares can learn the basics.


    I have written all too many essays about plutocracare (aka Obamacare), now the dummies can learn to live with it.

    All this was philosophically obvious: some of the richest people in the world wrote Obamacare. It was also known that Romneycare, the original version of plutocracare, did not diminish bankruptcies.

    If you believe the richest health care vultures in the world did Obamacare out of goodness, I can probably sell you Bill Gates for a billion dollars.


  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    The point was not just “single payer”. The point was to set-up a public system that decreased cost. Wasting another 500 million in advertizing is more for profit for greedy vultures.

    40 countries have succeeded to do this. However the USA did not bother to instruct itself by adopting lessons from abroad. Instead Obamacare is an experiment on 300 millions.

    Pelosi said:”We should have made single payer”. So it was possible. The president could give today, by executive order, full negotiating ability to Medicare.

    Last point: there is not “two different intellectual universes”. Obamacare enthusiasts themselves say dozens of millions will still be uncovered in ten years. Meanwhile, premiums and deductibles march upwards, fiercely. Who, what, pays for the 500 millions in advertizing?


  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Why did Obama not try Medicare For All, or a French like system?
    Why does Obama think the “marketplace” will take care of people? Because he is obsessed by the market?

    What does buying and selling have to do with caring?

    Why is Obama so naïve that he believes his market will bring prices down? Because health plutocrats can charge as much as they want?


  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to New York Times, after Krugman compared favorably Obamacare and the Swiss system, June 26, 2014. My comment was censored, as Krugman and the NYT don’t want people to know Obamacare is a for profit plot!]
    Here is my two sentence comment, demonstrating that the New York Times deliberately lies:

    In the Swiss Health Care insurance system, the basic health care plans are NOT for profit. Big difference with Obamacare, Herr Paul Krugman!


    • Chris Snuggs Says:

      Chris Snuggs says: Obama has done NOTHING to fix the underlying problems: insurance companies making huge profits, doctors earning too much and a host of big pharma salesman leeches in cahoots with doctors. The US pays around 16% of GDP compared to around 10% in most of Europe and for this gets a non-universal and horrendously expensive service for the patient. It is totally pathetic and shameful. Europe is far cheaper and far better, except for the superrich of course.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Patrice Aymé: Ah, Chris, welcome to the land of the sane and knowledgeable!

        Indeed, with all due respect, and affection, my friend Obama is a fraud. I gave years to help him out, and should I have the opportunity to do it again, I would not have. The doctors making like bandits is no legend.

        I know one, a young cancer specialist. He lives in 400 square meter mansion in San Francisco… And so on. He told me a doctor working 4 days a week in the middle of nowhere in the USA could make a million dollar a year. But then, on the other hand, pediatricians are the lowest paid, with an average salary of $142,000 (in expensive areas like San Francisco and NYC, it’s not enough to sustain an upper middle class way of life). How do you like Junkers?


  10. elkojohn Says:

    I’m on Medicare.
    Overlooked is the fact that Medicare has a traditional government option and also an option to buy Medicare from a for-profit insurance company.

    So neither the blue-dog Democrats or the Republicans could have made strong arguments against Medicare being a socialist takeover because the choice is left to the participant.

    (Unfortunately, Part-D for medicine is all for-profit insurance companies.)

    Therefore, Obama and the Democratic Party could have championed Medicare for All hyping the fact that the for-profits were included.

    But he chose to champion the same plan that Nixon had put forth back in the 70’s.

    Therefore the current Democratic Party is the moderate Republican Party of the 70’s and presents themselves as the lesser to the two evils to left-wing progressives and populist.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi elkojohn, and welcome!
      I am extremely happy with your contribution. That’s what I have been saying all along. I am not on Medicare (YET!), so your opinion has more weight.

      Krugman and other sold-outs insist that Obamacare is like the Swiss plan. Correct. Except that four (French) cantons voted recently (last week!) for state single care (in a referendum), including hyper rich Vaud and Geneva.
      And except the Swiss system, like the German works with NON Profit insurance companies (they compete with each other, but they are non profit).

      The democrats had total control when Obama got to power, and actually, Obama, as I have argued could have expanded Medicare into Medicare For All, on day one, by executive order. (Then Congress could have passed laws later.)

      By its very enormity, Medicare would have displaced and crushed the greedsters…

      Yes, the lesser of two evils approach is, well, still evil…


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Krugman’s editorial, Sunday Nov 9, 2014; Krugman was bemoaning that the Supreme Court may shut down Obamacare in 36 states because of… “a typo”.]

    Plutocrats or plutocrabs, that is the question…

    Another fly in the ointment of plutocare, I mean Obamacare, is the question of high deductibles: how can one be OK, if one has to spend first $9,000, say, to start to get seriously reimbursed, by one’s for profit insurance company? When one has to pay that much money upfront, is one really insured?

    Can one call this health insurance, on a median family income of $55,000?

    In any case, I recognize that, on the important stuff, Obamacare works as intended: its unpopularity, deserved or not, insures that Congress is getting solidly Republican. It just remains to make that official for the presidency.

    Obamacare also provides Republican with something to talk about, what could go wrong?

    Sometimes in a distant future, when progressives win Congress and the presidency, and, this time, come with the correct ideas, they can pass a public single payer, not for profit basic health care system.

    Meanwhile, the plutocrats will play their corrupt games.

    The corruption starts with semantics: those who used to be patients, are now called “consumers”. What’s next? Ephemeral profit centers?


  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/asia/the-trans-pacific-trade-deal-and-a-presidents-legacy.html.%5D

    Rather pathetic. How Obama fights for the TPP, and did not fight as strongly for any progressive cause. Will the color of his (bronze) skin all what he will leave behind?
    It seems so, as Obamacare turns out to not control what is, arguably the most important thing, namely, cost.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: