Free Markets, Free People

Health Care: “Special Interest Democracy”

It may be hard to believe [/snark], but it appears when Democrats speak of “fairness” they define it in their own special interest kind of way.

Take the talk about taxing your private health care benefits (something adamantly opposed by Obama during the campaign).

Originally it was going to be everyone. But other Democrats complained mightily to Senate Democrats who were considering such a tax to pay for the conservatively estimated 1.5 trillion necessary to pay for “health care reform” (PAYGO? HA!). So they modified it a bit – tax the “rich” – those who had the best of coverage. Always a popular populist fallback, Sen. Dems were sure that would work.

Alas it was soon discovered that a huge number of those holding “Cadillac” health care policies were unions. Yes, the special interest group in the pocket of the Dems (and vice versa) would be heavily hit by such a tax. As you might imagine, they were not happy.

Solution – drop this bad idea?

Of course not. Instead exempt the unions, you silly person:

Mr. Baucus officially floated his plans for a tax this week, only with a surprising twist: His levy will not apply to union plans, at least for the duration of existing contracts. In other words, Mr. Baucus intends to tax the health-care benefits only of those who didn’t spend a fortune electing Democrats to office. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is circulating his own health-care reform, has also included provisions that will exempt unions from certain provisions.

The union carve-out is designed to allay the fears of many Democrats who remain outright hostile to a tax on health-care benefits, whether out of principle, political fear or union solidarity.

This is not your grandfather’s America. Pay czars who arbitrarily set arbitrary pay limits based on what they “think” (according to presidential spokesperson Robert Gibbs) is “fair”, a government appointed CEO for an auto company who admits he knows nothing about cars and the government hijacking of health care.

If you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

9 Responses to Health Care: “Special Interest Democracy”

  • Tax health benefits…but not union health benefits? Are you fracking kidding me? How does one defend that?

  • Don’t worry, everyone will pay for Obama’s plans and policies, starting shortly after November 5th, 2010.

  • Hmmm… If the Congress can decide that some pigs people don’t have to pay the same as everybody else for the health care, then maybe Congress can decide that some pigs people can get BETTER health care than everybody else.

    Meanwhile life was hard. The winter was as cold as the last one had been, and food was even shorter. Once again all rations were reduced, except those of the pigs and the dogs. A too rigid equality in rations, Squealer explained, would have been contrary to the principles of Animalism. In any case he had no difficulty in proving to the other animals that they were NOT in reality short of food, whatever the appearances might be. For the time being, certainly, it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of rations (Squealer always spoke of it as a “readjustment,” never as a “reduction”), but in comparison with the days of Jones, the improvement was enormous. Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones’s day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas. The animals believed every word of it.

    George Orwell
    Animal Farm

  • If you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.

    Or mesmerized by the cult of Obama….

  • Why is it that  socialized medicine is good enough for all our armed forces  and all our senior citizens but somehow would be  total destruction for the rest of our society. Does it make a difference if a government clerk tells you you have to wait to get elective surgury because there are no doctors available until next month or that a clerk that works for an insurance company has decided that it will cut into the profit marin of his HMO so you are not eligable to recieve it under your current plan and therefore must buy a “better ” read more expensive plan . Common sense says that as long as there is somebody who needs to make a profit on your health care that it would be cheaper if that profit was eliminated. HMO’s need a profit the government doesn’t.
     The argument that if socialized medicine is so good why do they come here to get care is bogus . They are rich enough not to have to wait there or here. Why don’t we go there simply we are not citizens there so we can’t get care there . The rich will always get care immediately because they can afford it . Are you rich 99% of you are not so why are you so determined to support thre health insurance industy they sure won’t support you if they aren’t forced to. They live for denying benefits thats how they get profits.

    • That’s easy – it’s not good enough for our armed forces or our older folks, but, thanks to government, it’s what they’re stuck with.

  • “Are you rich 99% of you are not so why are you so determined to support thre health insurance industy they sure won’t support you if they aren’t forced to.”
     
    Because they are sheep who have been brainwashed into voting against their own interests. Every other advanced country has universal health care, only the U.S. mysteriously, for some reason, “can’t afford it.”

    • History, to include those of “advanced countries” with “universal health care” doesn’t provide a very persuasive argument for government’s ability to “affordably” run such a system. Their real cost are to be found in the type of rationing they impose – most by limiting their level of care and thru long waits for routine care and tests. Now, of course, to understand that you can’t be one of the herd who has bought into “advanced countries all can afford universal care” and looked no further. I’ll take my “unaffordable” but responsive level of care over their “affordable” but limited and nonresponsive level of care any day.

  • To take Bill’s ridiculous argument further, why don’t we just have the government provide everything?  Why stop at healthcare?
    Common sense says that as long as there is somebody who needs to make a profit on your [insert product or service here] that it would be cheaper if that profit was eliminated. [Producer or service provider here] need a profit the government doesn’t.”