Delivering the benefits of socialism
Posted by aogMonday, 30 September 2013 at 12:18 TrackBack Ping URL

We just got our POR-care notification and we’ll get to pay 168% more for our healthcare. We could hold that down to only 104% more if we significantly increased our deductible. And of course, we have to change our health insurance plan — the old was was wrong and, as serfs instead of free citizens, we cannot be permitted to keep it. But of course, it’s for The People. As we know, we have 30 million without health insurance in the USA. The CBO estimates that POR-care will, after a few years, reduce this to … 30 million. Plus, the chocolate ration will be increased to 40 grams.

Meanwhile, we can see where our ruling class is taking us if we dare to ask how can a rich country have shortages? All it takes is enough governing.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Annoying Old Guy Monday, 30 September 2013 at 15:39

Hey, I like charts! Let’s graph the median income for the USA vs. that for the Washington DC area

How unexpected.

Clovis Monday, 30 September 2013 at 15:43

I thought only rich people would be paying more in the Obamacare scheme. So you are rich, AOG, and the 168% more is like a drop in the ocean for you :-)

Let us notice that the 30 million projection you cite above is, first, a projection, and second, they won’t have insurance for lack of wanting, not of money, as happened before.

As for Venezuela, that really is to kick a dead horse.

Clovis Monday, 30 September 2013 at 15:46

Nice graph - but it would be nice to have some discussion about it. What causes do you assign?

It is interesting to notice that the real change - by looking for the slope of the curves - happened circa 2005.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 30 September 2013 at 15:51

Now that it’s too late, the Associated Press notices that POR-care was sold on a massive plate of lies. How unexpected.


Doesn’t your point about the uninsured completely undermine the case for POR-care both because (1) the case for it was based strongly on other projections from the CBO and (2) there was no problem to be solved in the first place, if that 30 million is due to lack of wanting insurance?

As for Venezuela, why is that beating a dead horse? Doesn’t the country still exist? Isn’t it still in that condition? Don’t get me started on Argentina and the Peronistas.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 30 September 2013 at 15:54


I assign the cause for the graph to be a huge, intrusive federal government. This has two effects the create this result

  1. Economic activity is suppressed, so that incomes elsewhere stagnate.
  1. When buying and selling are regulated, the first things bought and sold will be legislators. When you can make more money paying off politicians and regulatory agencies, people do that instead of producing actual wealth, and all that money flows to the capitol.

When everything is controlled from Washington DC, then all the money will flow to where that power is.

erp Monday, 30 September 2013 at 16:04

Obamacare is about putting insurance companies out of business. It has nothing to do with medical care. Very few people understand that. When that news penetrates, it’ll be a surprise to those who think all health care doors will be open to them. Perhaps delaying it for a year, closer to the next elections, will clarify the matter in voters’ minds, because it sure isn’t clear now.l

Clovis Monday, 30 September 2013 at 18:30

Interesting theory, AOG. In your place though, I would be careful of advancing it before further checks, even more so when it fits so well within my worldview.

Can you provide a similar graph of other regions? Like some big places in Texas? Or like NYC area?

I also correct my statement above, the real change ocurred circa 2002-2003. What would have happened during those years that could impact Wash. DC area? If govt. spending is the key, which big govt. spending would be happening then? If not govt. spending, what other options? What other areas would have similar behavior?

Also, you should be abla to identify specific behavior that fits in your greater theory. The example you gave in a later post (unions and health care), for example, looks to be only a conjecture you made up, or do you have a real life example on that?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 30 September 2013 at 23:15


Why would I be careful? I have my opinions and I share them. If I turn out to be wrong, that’s just the way it goes sometimes.

I can’t see the change being in the 2002-2003 range, I think 2006 is a much more obvious departure point.

As for other regions, I don’t have that data. I wouldn’t be surprised at a similar effect from Texas, because its economy (based on private sector development) is doing well. Similarly with NYC and finance (although I think that’s going to fade in the near future). But what does Washington DC produce except regulation and imposing taxes? Is it not reasonable to presume more of that is what caused that rise? And that such a thing is very unhealthy for a nation?

The example you gave in a later post (unions and health care)

Um, that was me being funny. The “I thought, you know, if a union could” indicates it was entirely a flight of fancy to mock unions and POR-care.

I still want to know if you think your point here, destroys the official case for POR-care?

Clovis Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 05:03


I was alluding to be careful when forming an opinion, not when sharing them. If you prefer to have careless opinions, well, that’s surely your right too.

Now, uninformed as I am of US reality in the ground, I would give my careless opinion as the following: it lloks like many new positions and offices were open after 9/11 related to homeland security and all that. It may be worth to mention also the probable positions opened by the necessity to coordinate things related to the war effort. These are the public positions I am talking about, maybe it is necessary also to count the lobbying positions associated to every new organism the govt. created.

All of that may well count for may new well paying jobs, hence explaining the graph. It is a more probable explantion then yours, since as far as I understand yours, all that money would be going to the politicians - who do not even live in Wash. DC for real and may not even have entered that statistics.

Clovis Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 05:44


On your question above, on my point destroyng the case for Obamacare, I do not see why it would. In fact I’ve answered it before, you just did not accept: there is a great difference between the uninsured now (poor people of every age) and the uninsured afterwards (probably young people, of every class).

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 08:48


The total job numbers for Homeland Security are simply not large enough, nor well paid enough, to make such a difference. Much of that organization was either pre-existing and transferred, or hired elsewhere (e.g. the TSA). Further, the key point is the divergence, not rising with the rest of the nation.

POR-care wasn’t presented as making a difference to the uninsured, but as providing insurance for them. I am not writing of the case you would make, but the case that was actually made by those who supported that legislation.

P.S. The main difference, as far as I can tell, for the uninsured after POR-care is that they will now be criminals and fined for it. Definitely a great difference, but it’s unclear why you think it’s good.

Clovis Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 09:28


What really makes me uncomfortable in this whole discussion is that you equate my support for the general idea of universal health care with a supposed support of your ACA (I will adopt from now on the official name of the Obamacare).

Look, if not even you natives really know what is in this program, how can I? I will wait a few years and see what the numbers on your healh care show. It will then be clear enough if the program was a tragedy or a success.

Mind you, I already do pay for universal health care in my own country, it exists since I was born. So I am no hypocrite in this whole discussion (like I was supporting something because I do not pay for it). Sorry if you now need to pay 168% more on your plan. I mean it, you are in your right to feel bitter about it. But as you have no crystall ball, I will wait before accepting your opinion that the program is a fluke. As yourself declared elsewhere, I have my right of careless opinions too.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 09:55

Well, since my question was very specifically about the ACA, and you answered it, I thought it reasonable to presume you were talking about the ACA and the poor who will be affected by it.

P.S. I don’t think you should ever accept my opinion about the ACA. I think you should weigh it, but in the end look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

P.P.S. Be careful, the Democratic Party doesn’t like you to use the term ‘Obamacare’.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 14:14

Link drop — The never ending failures of the ACA. How unexpected.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 01 October 2013 at 22:14

Now cities are dumping workers in to the ACA to get the cost off their books.

Post a comment