Skip to main content

Congratulations Obamacare! Highmark to cancel 5,300 Delaware insurance policies

Yesterday we had hit the number of 100 policies canceled for each person who signed up via the new insurance exchanges.

Today the number is 1,433 policies canceled for each person to sign up in the new exchanges.

And that's just Highmak's announcement.  Conventry (your only other realistic choice in the "private" insurance market in the First State) has yet to make its announcement.

Yes, eventually (some time before the years 2100) the technical glitches with the new exchanges will be fixed.  That won't be because of the overwhelming need to provide insurance, but because Highmark, Coventry, Aetna et al cannot access their profits via the massive Federal subsidies for over-priced plans.  Trust me, the entirety of Obamacare is being driven by the government engaging in the largest transfer of wealth from middle- and lower-class taxpayers to corporate interests that we have ever seen.

Supporters of Obamacare continue to talk about not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or being able to carry your children (who, it seems, won't move out of the house) until age 26, and they make the case that 15 million people losing their insurance (or having to pay new premiums that are nearly double), or tens of millions seeing their premiums rise is somehow a better curb on the greed of the insurance industry than the pseudo-regulated market we had before.

The reality is much simpler.  It was the failure of Hillarycare in the early 1990s that gave us the present mess of an insurance system; go back and take a look.  When all is said and done in another few years we will understand that Obamacare represents exactly the opposite of what it was advertised as:  It is the complete take-over of health care in this country by insurance companies.

Insurance companies are now buying into hospital chains, urgent care clinics, and the factories that produce medical devices.  How can they afford to do this?  Simple:  the Federal government is handing them hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.  Simple (2):  Obamacare was designed to favor centralization in medical care, and is driving private practice doctors out of business at record rates.

And--listen up my libertarian friends and fellow travelers--it is too late to go back, and there is too much money in the system to go forward.

In other words:  Obamacare will not be repealed or seriously revised.  Repeal would require a political upsurge that's not going to happen, and serious revision would require those who crafted and supported this boondoggle to admit they screwed up.  Besides, the Republican opposition on this issue has got even less than nothing.

Nor, my liberal friends, are we going to now move toward single-payer.  Obamacare has killed single-payer as a realistic option in this country for at least two decades.  Why?  Because just as Highmark has invested in MedExpress, Highmark will invest in Tom Carper, Karen Weldin Stewart, Jack Markell, and their legion of lesser clones to insure that the gravy train does not end.

All the promises that Obamacare would reduce the overall cost of medical care in this country were ALWAYS lies.  You cannot extend new care to tens of millions of people, and extend the parameters of care for tens of millions more, and seriously expect the cost to go down because ... well, because of what?

Welcome to the new world where eventually the medical director of Highmark will be the effective Insurance Commissioner of Delaware.

Oh, oops.  I forgot.  He already is.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Post that on Delaware Liberal and they will tar and feather you.
tom said…
"And--listen up my libertarian friends and fellow travelers--it is too late to go back, and there is too much money in the system to go forward..."

so what do you suggest as an alternative then?

Give up? Roll over & die? Find a less broken country?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...