Everything they’re doing points to them wanting to run the economy from top to bottom. If they get to do it, the only question is how soon and how badly will they fail and what will they do about it. My bet is that it will be a steady decline and adverse consequences will be given short shrift. They want a two-class serf society. I think they will be succesful. They have totalitarian models from the 20th century to learn from and copy and improve upon.
The problem is there are very few people who have a clue of what’s coming. Educated people who think that it could never happen here. Educated people who don’t even know what it is, those who are clueless of the totalitarian excesses of the last century.
Also, there is a problem with understanding economics and this is true of both the left and right. How many have a clue what Keynesianism is? How many know that Keynes was a communist and also one of the most brilliant and charming men who ever lived. Keynes ideas were designed to move societies slowly towards socialism with one end goal always in mind, the communist utopia.
“Educated people who think that it could never happen here. Educated people who don’t even know what it is, those who are clueless of the totalitarian excesses of the last century.”
Most “educated” people aren’t people aren’t educated-—they’re indoctrinated. No critical thinking necessary. (Excluding, of course, doctors, nurses, scientists, etc. I’m talking about political science majors, English majors, interpretive dance majors, that sort of thing)
Everything they’re doing points to them wanting to run the economy from top to bottom. If they get to do it, the only question is how soon and how badly will they fail and what will they do about it. My bet is that it will be a steady decline and adverse consequences will be given short shrift. They want a two-class serf society. I think they will be succesful. They have totalitarian models from the 20th century to learn from and copy and improve upon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think it will be a much quicker decline than most people realize.
Some disturbing findings going through the bill:
Obamacare/ commiecare is what is intended to collapse the system
PPACA Waivers and the Roberts Decision
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lheal/PPACA-waivers-and-the-roberts-decision?source=J08
They are doing away with this type of policy & it would force more people into the exchanges.
And it says that those who had those types of policies will not be able to afford the mandated policy.
Now take a look at the wealth redistribution plan:
http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf
HR 4872 - Enable the real-time
Page 1098 – 1099 Line 22
‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real23
time) determination of an individual’s financial
24 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
25 extent possible, prior to service, including
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:53 Mar 17, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 01098 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4872.RH H4872 dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
page 1099
•HR 4872 RH
1 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
2 service with a specific physician at a specific fa3
cility, which may include utilization of a ma4
chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi5
fication card;
6 ‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time
7 adjudication of claims
“enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;
What IS troubling is that it says “determination of an individual’s financial responsibility” - which means they have the power to decide that WE have to pay for the service, or we have to pay more than someone else for that service. Marxism straight up. And what the heck do they mean by “beneficiary identification card”? Beneficiary means, “one that benefits from something”, but it also means - and most of us recognize this word and use it as, “the person designated to receive the income of a trust estate”. What this says to me (knowing pretty much how they think and what their agenda is), is that they’re either going to consider medical care as a privilege granted by them (we’re their beneficiary) and they get to be God and decide whether we’ll receive it or not, or that they’re not only going to base their decision of whether or not to let us have the service or based on our own finances, but also based on money and assets that we are beneficiaries for - or both of those things!!
so let me give an example... let’s say Laura needs a medical service. They’re going to look at Laura’s finances to decide how much she needs to pay for that service. If Laura has ‘more’ money/assets than someone else, her financial responsibility will be greater (there’s the Marxism of it all, but also the govt’s ability to instantly know everything about Laura’s finances - Holy crap!). But ALSO (and this is opinion on my part, simply based on what this section says and could actually mean when it’s implemented), they will look at what Laura’s parents have if she is a beneficiary of their estate. It won’t matter that what her parents have is needed to sustain them throughout their retirement years, it will only matter what money and assets they have at the time Laura needs that service. So if her parents saved all their lives, doing the right thing, so that they could pay their own way in their retirement years and/or have enough left to leave a little something for their children, the govt will look at that as something to be liquidated/drawn upon for the service that Laura needs today.
One last troubling thing about this section... where it says, “including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility”... WHAT?!! So the govt will decide which doctor we will use and which facility we can go to. As if that isn’t bad enough, there are two things we know from experience... this kind of power (which the govt now has because Ocare is law) lets the govt choose the winners and losers - so if their buddy-doctor or facility-owner who is greasing their palms privately (think kickbacks; think govt union because it’s coming) can provide the service, the patient can be forced to go to that doctor at that dictated facility (corruption will be rampant!). The other thing about this is that if we are, let’s say, an ‘undesireable’, they have the power to force us to go to someone/place that provides sub-standard care or to someone who will dictate strict controls on our behavior so that the govt can monitor us and tax us more if we do not comply.
Exactly, its all incrementalism at its finest moment.