This question is answered in 1978! It was answered by the finest economist of the 20th century; Milton Friedman.
His 9 minute message to the Mayo Clinic was as clear as it was prophetic.
We must repeal and replace The UN-affordable Health Care Act with a free market system and allow competition, lowering costs, increasing care quality, and offering the patient freedom to chose health care plans. No one should be forced to buy something they do not want or believe in, nor should they be forced to pay for benefits they will never receive. This can return the employer of our physician from the state and/or insurance company back to the patient.
This action allows the healthcare and insurance industries to grow without government manipulation or control providing investors with stock prices that are not manipulated. More competition on an equal playing field delivers better quality care at a lower cost. Competition works, control does not.
The U.S. economy has grown very slowly in the years since the Great Recession of 2008-09. After four years of slow growth, the latest data reveals that the U.S. economy shrank at a 2.9 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2014.
That figure has been widely reported, but here are some figures that have not been reported, and they are quite eye-opening:
Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office. This slow growth should not be a surprise in light of the policies this administration has pursued.
An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.
Trickle Down Economics versus Trickle Down Socialism
Ronald Reagan’s economic plan saw GDP surge at a 3.5% clip – 4.9% after the recession. That’s a 32% bump.
During the Obama years, thanks to his big government policies, the US economy has stalled. The GDP for the first quarter of 2015 braked more sharply than expected at only a .2% pace. The US economy has grown an anemic 9.6% during the Obama years (excluding the current dismal number).
Of course, Obama’s record on job growth is also much worse that President Reagan’s record.
Net job growth has declined under Obama. By the end of the second year of their terms as president, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%. (IJ Review)
And today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978 during the Carter years.
While the Democrats are ranting that 8 million people will be thrown off of healthcare with the repeal of Obamacare as the House voted 239-186 to repeal this nightmare, it would have been far cheaper to just add those people to medicare than change everyone in the country of more than 300 million people. The hospitals and doctors wanted Obamacare and lobbied for it because there were people that they had to service without payment. They did not support this law for humanitarian reasons.
Under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), millions of Americans have signed up for private health insurance and for Medicaid, however exactly how many remains unclear. Nevertheless, to listen to the extreme left-wing TV commentators on MSNBC, one would think the world will end without Obamacare as if this has benefited the entire nation.
King v. Burwell, like the Halbig v. Burwell case, has a long history in the nation’s court system. On July 22, two U.S. courts delivered opposite rulings on the subsidies contained in Obamacare. Legal scholars and health policy experts have warned that the case is the biggest legal threat against Obamacare since 2012, when the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the law. It is the last case scheduled for the court’s next period.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the King v. Burwell case exposes a potential weakness in Obamacare. Here the Supreme Court will consider whether the Internal Review Service has the authority to expand the application of healthcare subsidies to federal exchanges. The subsidies are a key tool used under the law to drive individuals onto the government exchanges. Without the subsidies, fewer individuals would chose to purchase the government-mandated plans. Many many people lost their healthcare because of Obamacare – me included. My insurance virtually doubled in price under Blue Cross all because I was not covered for paternity leave. I had to start paying a portion of medicine bills for my 96 year-old mother that I did not previously. Nonetheless, only 14 states and the District of Columbia established state-based exchanges and even some of those (Oregon and Nevada) are backing out for 2015. In the remainder of states with exchanges, the federal government, not the state governments, established the exchanges.
These tax subsidies for low-income Americans are only available, through an Exchange established by a State under section 1311 of Obamacare. Federal exchanges are set up under Section 1321 of Obamacare – not Section 1311. Hence, the administration still wants to provide subsidies, even though the law doesn’t appear to authorize the handout. And there lies the problem to be decided by the Supreme Court. You would figure with a 7ft high bill, they would have got at least that correct.
American healthcare has been morphing from a function of a humanitarian society into a revenue stream for healthcare profits. Drug, medical device companies, hospitals, and insurance companies, are all in the business for profits and they all supported Obamacare because their profits would rise – not fall.
Then there is the legal profession that controls Congress. There is no prayer in hell of lawyers instituting caps on tort claims that drive insurance rates even higher. Doctors will often order tests they do not feel they need just to cover their ass against the lawyers.
In effect. we have transformed healthcare in the U.S. into an industry whose goal is to be profitable not some humanitarian pursuit as the Democrats claim. We have to call a spade a spade and stop pretending this is about caring for anyone. Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax, not as a social program.
- Princeton Economics
Member Login Hi, (First Name) | Log Out
Livio S. Nespoli has been a broker, registered investment advisor, and financial publisher since 1985.