Friday, April 2, 2010

Octobama! Nothing is Beyond His Reach!

From Byron York, "Obamacare Was Mainly Aimed at Redistributing Wealth" (via Memeorandum):


It hasn't attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn't just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn't just about bending the cost curve. It wasn't just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.

Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans."

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind." The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. "The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top ... and those at the bottom?" Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. "When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution."

Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare "the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

Now they tell us. For many opponents of the new legislation, the statements confirmed a nagging suspicion that for Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, the health fight was about more than just insurance -- that redistribution played a significant, if largely unspoken, part in the drive for national health care.

Also, Betsy Newmark, "
Spreading the Wealth Around."



Philippe Öhlund said...

Great post Donald! :-)

I liked the picture, after the idea from the movie.

I saw the quote of Max Baucus who said of the health care reform: "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans".

I'm not sure.

I have not seen much discussions about the time frames for public health care.

It is true that public health care will be paid for by the rich and thus be more available for the poor.

But how fun is it to wait 3 months for an appointment to the dentist when you have a bad tooth ache or a broken teeth?

I have seen the difference between Belgian private health care and Swedish public health care.

When you need a surgery right away you can often count on a waiting time between 1 and 3 years.

If you need special surgery right away, people here often have to go to other places like London or Paris.

And the total cost is very expensive.

But you will probably get de luxe emergency places, which are ten times more expensive than today's private health care, and for people who can afford it.

Those who will profit from Obama's health care reform will be de luxe emergency hospitals for the rich, and those bureaucrats who distribute the billions of tax payers' dollars.

Special medical units will certainly pop up where you will be able to sit for 24 hours only, before someone will help you at an incredible high cost.

What has been forgotten in the debate is that the public machinery is incredibly slow and bureaucratic.

And most often when we need medical help it is because of a critical condition, and then it is impossible to wait 6 months or more.

In the end the poor will pay more.