The Obamacare train is coming

It’s becoming an all too familiar refrain.  People are calling my radio show with stories of being down-sized to part-time status so their company can get around the Obamacare regulations.  One lady, age 59, called in to say that she’d been a nurse at a hospital for 21 years.  Because of lower reimbursements from the government she’s been let go.  She says the hospital is firing its older nurses because they make more money.  Of course, under Obamacare more people will be flocking to the hospitals which will be understaffed with less experienced healthcare professionals.  It’s a recipe for disaster.

One guy told me when he started at a major grocery store chain 12 years ago 90 percent of the employees were full time.  Now only 9 percent are full time.  It’s frightening.

Obamacare is quickly turning the American workforce into a bunch of part-timers.  That means these folks will have to find second jobs which means even fewer jobs available.  The healthcare plan that ostensibly was designed to help people is causing millions of Americans to not only lose their healthcare but now they’re making even less money.

You’d think President Obama would see this and realize he’s made a mistake but this is exactly what he hoped would happen.  Those who get thrown off their employer’s insurance end up at the doorstep of the exchanges.  Depending on their income, these folks will qualify for large subsidies from the government.  It’s a trap and it was designed to be a trap from the beginning.

Those fortunate enough to retain their full-time status won’t fare much better.  Once companies realize they can pay a $2,000 fine and turn those employees over to the exchanges there’ll be a stampede to do so.  Essentially, we could see the vast majority of Americans standing in line at the new healthcare exchanges waiting for their handout from the government.

So, who qualifies for a subsidy?  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation calculator, a family of five with the parents at age 50 and making a family income of $110,000 per year gets a healthcare subsidy of over $6,000 from the government.  About 90 percent of the population makes less than that amount which means potentially 90 percent of Americans could be getting assistance from the government.

Two points on that.  There’s no way we can afford to subsidize 90 percent of Americans.  That means something has to give.  What will give first is the amount of money the government reimburses doctors and hospitals which means a lot of doctors will be leaving the profession and a lot of hospitals will be closing down.  The second point is having 90 percent of the people beholden to the government is just what the Democrats want.  You’ve seen how they’ve used the Mediscare tactic to get votes.  Imagine the stump speeches about those mean, old Republicans who want to take away your healthcare subsidy.

Here’s what we can expect down the road.  Most of us will be on the healthcare exchanges, meaning we will be required to purchase our own insurance.  Most of us will qualify for subsidies.  Reimbursements for healthcare will drop significantly and a lot of good doctors will retire early.  Potential doctors will use their talents to go into professions more lucrative and we’ll see and shortage of doctors.  Healthcare quality will suffer greatly if you can actually get in to see a doctor.

The vast majority of Americans don’t want this.  The only solution left is for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to defund Obamacare.  Unfortunately, that’s our last best hope. 

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Money can't buy you good health

I love the way the mainstream media refer to any disparity in income as "inequality."  Like it's not fair that some people are rich while others are poor or that the money was just doled out unevenly instead of actually being earned.  In fact, the media elite are obsessed with fairness.  But what is fair?

A recent article in the Washington Post decried the life expectancy gap between the rich and the poor.  It was as if to add insult to injury the rich not only enjoy a more prosperous life they enjoy it longer.  Somehow they equated money to longevity and nothing could be further from the truth.  It's not the money itself that makes people live longer.  It's the people who earn the money.

Could it be that many of the same principles that make people rich also make people healthier?  Let's look at some of the things that kill us.  Smoking, for example.  This is certainly not to judge anyone who smokes but we all know that smoking increases your chances of dying early.  It's common knowledge that poor folks smoke more than rich folks.  A gallup poll from a few years back shows that 34% of those making less than $12,000 per year smoke as opposed to only 13% of those making more than $120,000.

Obesity is another big killer and it's a well-known fact that, at least in the United States, the lower the income the higher the obesity rate.  What's ironic is those are the people most likely on food stamps.  Were we really concerned about obesity we would be making sure that food stamp cards could only be used to purchase healthy food.  Instead, people like Mayor Bloomberg in New York would rather target all of us.

Picture in your mind the guy standing in line at the convenience store with the six-pack of beer waiting to get to the counter to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets.  Do you think he's more likely to be rich or poor?  So, what if he scratches off the right number combo and wins $10 million?  Do you think just because he's now rich he's more likely to live longer?

People who are well-disciplined generally are well-disciplined across every aspect of their lives.  They're not only more successful but they're usually better educated and they're most likely healthier.  We don't need income redistribution because, as I just illustrated with the lottery winner, windfalls don't lead to healthier lifestyles.

If the nanny state people really want to see a huge change in this country then make it illegal for anyone to get any kind of public assistance if they're buying cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets.  If they have money for all that then obviously they don't need my help.  If they really need the assistance then they'll change their bad habits.

And for crying out loud, why haven't we instituted drug testing as a prerequisite to getting any kind of welfare?

But here's the thing.  If they changed their bad habits they wouldn't need our help in the first place because the problem is not obesity or smoking or income inequality.  It's personal responsibility.  The moment we begin to encourage that is the moment we begin to actually solve the problem.