FAMILY SPLIT BY STIMULUS FAILURE & GOVT REGS

With the obvious intention of suggesting that “universal” health care would have prevented it, Sullivan links to a story about a man allegedly forced to join the miltary to get health coverage for his cancer-victim wife:

In March, he was laid off from his job as a raw materials coordinator for a plastics company … Soon the cost of his family health coverage was going to triple, then a few months after that, nearly triple again. They needed coverage so Mom could fight her cancer. Dad’s solution: a four-year hitch in the Army.

There are two real problems here, neither having to do with the absence of Obamacare:

First, if President Obama’s stimulus package had produced the promised results, instead of jacking unemployment up to nearly 10%, the man would not be unemployed. His was the kind of job that Obama promised to “save.”

Second, the high cost and non-portability of health insurance coverage are the direct results of current government regulations. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the government is the problem, not the solution. I explain this in greater detail here.

When will the Obots in the media and the blogosphere stop exploiting the misery of ordinary Americans for political purposes? This kind of “reporting” is incredibly tawdry and dishonest.

Comments 11

  1. Bernie wrote:

    Why do you assume he would get coverage with a new job? Isn’t it more likely that he would not get it due to preexisting conditions? In which case, his wife would be out of luck.

    Also, I am guessing he is joining the military not just because of a pay check, but because they have good healthcare coverage. And the military is part of the government. That means the government is part of the solution.

    Finally, the collapse of the financial sector is causing unemployment to go up. Whatever valid complaints one might have against the stimulus, creating unemployment isn’t one of them.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 9:42 am
  2. Tropical Fats wrote:

    Obama’s stimulus package did not increase unemployment. It is insanely disingenuous for you to suggest it.

    But thank you for putting it out there and establishing your absence of credibility, because it saves me the trouble of wading through your tortured explanations of how government regulation is to blame for everything wrong that has ever happened on earth.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 10:00 am
  3. Catron wrote:

    “Why do you assume he would get coverage with a new job?”

    Actually, the pre-existing problem isn’t that hard to fix with GENUINE health reform. Read this.

    “Obama’s stimulus package did not increase unemployment.”

    All of the money, time and energy that O and his congressional accomplices put into the porkulus bill could have been spent on a genuine stimulus package. So, in effect, their negligence increased unemployment.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 10:19 am
  4. Scott wrote:

    That’s an argument? Obama should have saved this man’s job so all of the other aspects of a situation like this are not even worth considering? And Obama, the guy who has been in office for less than a year, is responsible for “jacking unemployment up”? A decade of ridiculous asset bubbles, irresponsible lending, and wild deficit spending had nothing to do with this? And BTW, I have purchased individual health plans in three states that did not have ridiculous mandates that raised the cost through the roof. Our fragmented for-profit insurance system serves no one but the biggest insurance companies and provider networks; those with the market clout to make profits by squeezing others. That said, I suspect that you can find a way to ignore the mountain of evidence that shows our current system to be wildly inefficient, arbitrary, and, taken as a whole, no more effective than health care systems in other developed countries.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 10:20 am
  5. rm1948 wrote:

    So govt regulation of health care and insurance is to blame? Given how easy it is for lobbyists to influence govt regulation why didn’t they make things better? Why didn’t the free market demand universal coverage with no pre-existing condition requirements?

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 10:53 am
  6. Jesus wrote:

    You sound like a hack on Faux News. It’s rather telling that you try and blame Obama for the results of Bush’s economic policies. Anyone with a functioning cerebrum knows that the pathetic repubs are responsible for this disaster we are in. Only a complete tool would even put forth the drivel you just did. Kinda sad really…..like a downs syndrome kid who keeps bashing his head against the wall.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 11:38 am
  7. Catron wrote:

    “You try and blame Obama for the results of Bush’s economic policies.”

    Wake up! Bush has been gone for nearly a year and the Dems have had control of Congress for nearly three. The “it’s Bush’s fault” meme is increasing ridiculous for “anyone with a functioning cerebrum.”

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 12:05 pm
  8. Jorge wrote:

    This post is a satire, right?

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 12:08 pm
  9. kasv wrote:

    Sounds as though you deeply regret that Ms. Palin is not in charge. That says it all. The BS here belongs to you. Our country lags far behind other industrialized nations when it comes to health care. Health care should not be “for profit.”

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 1:28 pm
  10. Bernie wrote:

    “Actually, the pre-existing problem isn’t that hard to fix with GENUINE health reform. Read this.”

    It’s interesting, though, that in order to get over the initial problem of starting up such a program, the author proposes getting the government involved. Even though I don’t agree with the overall argument, that makes sense to me. However, I can’t see how someone can say on one hand the government is incompetent and can’t do anything and yet on the other hand, we need it to get an alternative approach off the ground. It’s makes about as much sense as arguments on the left that say insurance companies are evil, but by the way, with the new health care proposals being put forward, they will get even more business.

    Anyway, it is good to see some thought on the topic from the right, though, rather than just nonsense about “death camps” and ad hominem attacks. That said, I think the U.S. should look at ways that they can provide better health care that involves less focus on the business of health care and more on the care of people.

    Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 10:44 pm
  11. Catron wrote:

    “I can’t see how someone can say on one hand the government is incompetent and can’t do anything and yet on the other hand, we need it to get an alternative approach off the ground.”

    I don’t think anyone (even the most hardcore libertarian) says government has NO role. But the minimal effort described at the Cato link is a far cry from the giant power grab envisioned by O and the congressional Dems.

    Posted 25 Oct 2009 at 2:18 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *