Hypothesis: oBBama will use H1N1 to force socialize health care

oBBama’s chief of staff has been quoted as recommending to always take advantage of a crisis. Why? Because only when there’s a crisis can government force people to take their shit. Only when people are worried about their security can government gain more ground in regulation and taxes. This was true in the Great Depression which begat the socialized New Deal programs. It is always true in war during which people turn a blind eye to internment camps, it was true after 9/11 when everyone in the country was worried about terrorists, and it was true during the economic crisis of 2008-09. In each case, there was a crisis in confidence and the government took advantage of it but increasing their control over society “for our own good.”

I have an eerie feeling about some things that I’ve been seeing recently that have to do with this crisis=government growth philosophy.

First, oBBama has received considerable flack for his shitty health care reform plan. Half the country is vehemently opposed to it and a few people like it (the others are getting paid to like it).

Second, we’ve been hearing rumors about H1N1 getting worse and that “they” are expecting a really bad pandemic.

Third, military personnel have been forced to take the flu vaccine, which indicates drastic measure in preparation for the predicted outbreak.

So, what does that mean? Nothing yet, but if there is a major outbreak of H1N1, I will look for oBBama to angle it in such a way (either by restricting vaccinations or monopolizing them through the government) that will make socialize medicine look like a good idea. I can imagine his goons monopolizing the vaccine and using it as leverage to force people into a recommended national health program.

What happens if the liberal fascists get control of the health care system is beyond the scope of this post, but I will guarantee it won’t be pretty.

I hope nothing disastrous happens, but I wouldn’t put it past the oBBama administration to use such a crisis to increase their socialized ways.


11 responses to “Hypothesis: oBBama will use H1N1 to force socialize health care

  1. I need to disagree with your facts, “Half the country is vehemently opposed to it and a few people like it (the others are getting paid to like it).”

    According to the 9/16/2009 Gallup poll, Americans are pretty much split right down the middle: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122957/Healthcare-Bill-Supporters-Cite-Uninsured-Foes-Big-Govt.aspx.

  2. The Center Square

    Not at all. I wasn’t commenting on your conclusion, or your opinion. Just calling out the statement that “a few people like it,” which is clearly untrue. Believing that opposition to the healthcare plan is nearly universal leads to mistaken conclusions, so I was hoping to help readers avoid that mistake.

    • Thanks again, but after looking at that poll, I have to question its importance. The article says 38% want a health care bill to pass this year. What does that mean? I want a health care bill to pass this year too- but I want the bill to open up competition between health insurance providers across state borders and to eliminate mandates on coverage.

      This poll shows that people want reform, but it begs the question HOW should the system be reformed. Not all reform includes increasing the size of government by 30% and making libertarians like me want to barf.

  3. The Center Square

    C’mon. The essence of your comment — that only a few people support this — is indefensible. The claim that those who do are being paid for their support is indefensible.

    America can debate healthcare reform on the facts. There’s no need to manufacture falsehoods to portray one side in a bad light.

  4. I’ll grant you that- more than a few people like the idea of the government reform of health care (whatever that is): http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php but look at the poll questions. They allow for a uncomfortable margin of error in what the poll is about. “Based on what you’ve heard, do you favor or oppose Obama’s health care plan?”

    Show me a poll that asks constituents whether they favor or oppose increasing the size and scope of government by 30% to regulate the health care industry and I’ll show you a unified voice rejecting such an idea.

    • The Center Square

      Not that you don’t have a point but, the bills in Congress would increase spending by roughly $900 billion over ten years, or $90 billion per year. What’s more, spending cuts on Medicare and Medicaid would offset some of that.

      The federal budget runs about $3 trillion per year now. So, the $90 billion per year would be an increase of about 3% — nowhere near the 30% referenced in your comment.

      Sometimes I worry that people (not meaning you, you have presented yourself very fairly here) oppose the healthcare plan solely on ideological grounds, and fear that an accurate portrayal of the plan will not be sufficiently persuasive to derail support for it. So, misinformation like “30% increase is the size of government” begins to circulate.

      Again, I think healthcare is a great debate to have. But the debate can only be had if the facts are accurate.

      • You’re right- I was making my own predictions and not relying on the government’s estimates. Thanks for being rational and level-headed. That’s a lost art in this world of blogs and texts for sure! Questions- is it possible to get the spending cuts in Medicare/Medicaid without introducing the new health care “option”? And don’t all government programs go over estimates? Way over initial estimates?

  5. The Center Square

    That’s the right question, in my opinion. Lost in the debate is the fact that we will be bankrupted if we don’t rescue the US from the train wreck that is our current healthcare system.

    I think we have such a sour debate going on because the right-wing is oblivious to the disastrous consequences of the many millions who are uninsured, poorly insured, unstably insured. Lowering costs, promoting competition among private insurance companies, etc. is all well and good, but does not address the crisis of access.

    Meanwhile, the left-wing is oblivious to the disastrous consequences of the massive costs (private and government alike) of the current healthcare system. Extending access is all well and good, but does not address the crisis of cost.

    So, the two sides are talking past each other. I keep asking myself: why can’t we address both problems? Surely we are smart enough.


    • Maybe you can explain a little more about how we will be bankrupted if we don’t “rescue” the US from the current system. And what will that rescue entail? Feel free to write a post on your blog about it and link to it.

      I think we can satisfy both sides with the only thing that everyone agrees on: liberty. Everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do what they want.

  6. The Center Square

    I did write this post a couple of months ago, when the debate first started heating up: http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/losing-our-way-in-the-healthcare-reform-debate/.

    The basis of the “being bankrupted” comment is that the US spends an exorbitant amount on healthcare already. It runs about 17% of our GDP already, projecting to exceed 20% by 2018. That exceeds any other country on earth by 50%.

    We already are seeing the early signs of being bankrupted. Employer-based plans are beginning to break down, because employee’s pay so little of the skyrocketing cost. The breakdown is happening in terms of reducing benefits, raising deductibles, and excluding more and more workers from the coverage. We see it in the exploding costs of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We see it in the costs of prescription drugs and medical equipment, both of which are much higher in this country than for the identical things in other countries — if we are willing to spend the money, those companies are happy to charge the prices.

    And of course, there is the ticking demographic timebomb of demographics, with the aging population set to

    Continued on this path, employers will reach the breaking point of providing such benefits to employees. Individuals will reach the breaking point of securing their own insurance, or paying directly for care. Governments will reach the breaking point of funding Medicare and Medicaid.

    The status quo healthcare system is no friend of “liberty.” Sure, “Everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do what they want.” But the problem is, the current system is RIDDLED with interference of others’ ability to do what they want. Here are two quick examples of liberty violations in the current system:

    (1) Employers are allowed to deduct the cost of healthcare insurance, but employees do not have to claim the value of that insurance as income. For some reason, those who demand that government “keep its hand off my healthcare” have no problem with this gargantuan taxpayer subsidy of their current health insurance. WTF?

    (2) Most people with insurance, whether Medicare or private, pay a small fraction of their true healthcare costs. They pay some portion of the premium, maybe a deductible, maybe coinsurance. Everything else is paid by someone else, an employer or the government, typically. That is the very epitome of interfering with anyone else’s ability to do what they want.

    Thanks! Your blog is a rare corner of the internet where ideas can be exchanged civilly.


Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s