Reid Admits It….Single-Payer Was Their Intention All Along

Loading

reid obamacare

As I wrote about in my earlier post….the whole system was designed to fail and either lawmakers were too stupid to understand this or knew it from the beginning, and wanted it:

From the administration’s point of view, conceding that key parts of Obamacare cannot be implemented isn’t a failure if the effect is to swell enrollment on the exchanges. The insurance subsidy entitlement, administered through the exchanges, is the single-payer scheme at the heart of the law. If you peel away provisions like the employer mandate and Medicaid expansion, what’s left is a universal health care entitlement—enforced through the individual mandate and administered through the exchanges.

They wanted single payer, couldn’t get it 4 years ago, but now Harry Reid has read his ouija board and it now tells him its ok to talk about their real intentions:

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.

“We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” Reid said on the PBS program, recalling how then-Sen. Joe Lieberman’s opposition to the idea of a public option made them abandon the notion and start from scratch.

Eventually, Reid decided the public option was unworkable.

“We had to get a majority of votes,” Reid said. “In fact, we had to get a little extra in the Senate, we have to get 60.”

So there it is. They knew they couldn’t get it past the American people as single-payer a few years ago so they made a plan that first will get people hooked on the Socialist drug…you know “reduced cost, improved benefits, increased availability” and all that bulls**t. But when costs start spiraling, and people start being fired, reduced hours, or straight up told to go to the exchanges by their employer….then you know the disaster has hit.

And by that point no one will be able to get rid of it.

Socialism here we come.

Exit quote:

The thing to keep your eye on is the ObamaCare singularity: the public exchanges. That’s the rotten, malfunctioning, high-cost, low-choice, subsidized hell more and more Americans are tumbling helplessly into. That’s the pit every labor union in America, and the six-figure sultans of Congress, refuse to fall into. The public exchanges will turn into a deficit bomb powerful enough to cause all-out panic in Washington, as their cost soars four, five, and six hundred percent beyond anything the ObamaCare con artists estimated in 2010. That’s when they’ll come back and tell us that only absolute government control – the outright nationalization of one-seventh of the American economy – is the only possible solution.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Disgusting and evil, just as we conservatives said from the beginning. The fact that congress has exempted itself from obamacare is all you need to know that these aristocrats KNEW obamacare was nothing but a polished turd. I was talking with a pediatrician friend this morning who told me he cannot accept any more medicaid or medicare patients because it costs him three dollars more than he is paid everytime he sees a patient with government insurance. It will only be worse with obamacare, as bureaucrats with no concept of economics nor medicine set fees based on arbitrary value measurements that do not cover the doctor’s operating costs. Having obamacare insurance does you absolutely no good if you cannot find a doctor who will accept your insurance.
It amazes me that leftists refuse to understand this in their magical thinking ways. There WILL be rationing. There will NOT be enough physicians. Hospitals and doctors WILL be pressured to do things that they do not want to do. Your care WILL be controlled by politicians with no medical expertise. The sickening thing is the politicians will blame doctors rather than admit their responsibility for this abortion of the US medical system.

No surprises here, Curt. We all saw it coming, and anyone with a lick of sense knows that when you create a third entitlement package – i.e. O’healthcare’s designed expansion of Medicaid – that the majority of citizens will end up on Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIPS. The can kicking continues.

But with young demographics, and “social justice” indoctrination in the public schools and higher ed, it’s hard to say that the future older generations will view this step to single payer as a mistake. For those of us raised in a different America, that it is a mistake is a given.

@Pete, in all honesty you are not being accurate in saying that Congress and staffers are “exempt”. That isn’t true, and even Freedomworks had straightened out this misrepresentation months ago.

To be “exempt” would mean that Congress and staffers would not have to prove having medical insurance. That isn’t what happened.

What did happen is that the amendment stating that Congress and staffers could only have insurance that was created under O’healthcare, or available via the exchanges, created an administrative question. The FEHB policies provided were not created under that law. Nor are they an exchange provider. The FEHB, like any private citizens’ employer, had a co-pay arrangement with the federal employees. Historically they contributed up to 75% towards the employees health benefits, just like a private employer contributes to their employee benefits. But the law did not address whether FEHB would be allowed to contribute to exchange plans, which were outside of their provider network.

Oddly enough, the amendment created a negative position for Congress and staffers, forcing them OFF plans which Obama said people could keep… something that was actually more restrictive than for private citizens.

What was determined was that the FEHB could continue to make employer contributions to exchange plans. That is not a “subsidy” or “exemption” from the law. Rather it would be akin to suggesting that the law states your private employer is no longer allowed to contribute to your health insurance because the law forced you to abandon the group plan you had.

Some might be upset that the FEHB will continue to contribute to the co-pay situation, but the fact is they’ve been doing it all along. So to continue to have the co-pay arrangement, even tho Congress, themselves, broke Obama’s promise you can “keep your plan”, is pretty much the status quo. Nothing new as to how it’s been handled all along.

I doubt you’ll hear more than posturing political lip service from GOP or staffers on this. What Congress did was to paint themselves into a corner, providing themselves with less options than the private sector, simply by not addressing regulations on government provided co-pay policies. Then again, the law didn’t say the FEHB could not contribute either. Was just an unaddressed gray area of regulations and administration. Their concern that what was once a government perk and incentive for their employees, being stripped away, would result in a mass defection for the private sector for better benefits. Personally I thought that would be a great way to clean House and Senate. Too bad…

Almost Half the 30 Million Newly Insured Under ObamaCare Are Forced to Buy Insurance

http://www.thelibreinitiative.com/blog-libre/study-almost-14-million-americans-face-legal-penalties-not-purchasing-insurance-0#
How many people will be forced to purchase health insurance against their wishes? According to a new study: 13.7 million.
The IRS will penalize them on their Taxes every year – and penalties increase over time.
Without the law and the government penalty, millions of Americans would choose to spend their money on food, or educating their kids, or entertainment.
Obama wants that money, one way or the other.
Look at the total picture.
Many people in this country are going to be spending more on health insurance than they ever have, all against their will, so that roughly 16 million additional Americans can either get it for free or far more cheaply than the rest of us.
Where’s the media coverage of this fact?

The only reason we don’t have a “public option” available now is because Lieberman blocked it to protect his own political supporters at Aetna and United Healthcare. The exchanges are coming on line within the next 5 months, and the prices they are already posting for both personal and small business policies are lower than what is currently available for similar levels of coverage.

What most of you fear is that the ACA will actually work well, provided access to health insurance for millions of people who are now uninsured. They will be happy with it. Small business employers will also be happy to have a more level benefit playing field when they are attempting to compete for talent, since the small business policy costs are also going to be lower than those they now face.

If the Republicans manage to gum up the ACA in the next few years, it is certainly possible that there will be a push for a single-payer system such as “Medicare for All.” That should make those of you who oppose a single-payer system support the implementation of the ACA, since single-payer is now the only realistic alternative available.

You can’t unring the bell.

Mata, what Congress accomplished was having the OPM rule that congress members and their staff who make well above the 400% poverty level in income not have to go onto the obamacare exchanges by having taxpayers fund at least 75% of their health insurance. Private business owners who Chabot afford to pay the new obamacare tax will dump their employees onto the obamacare exchanges. If the employee makes more than 400% above the poverty line the employee will get no subsidy and be required to pay the entire cost of the obamacare tax. How is that not a slap in the face?
Skip, obamacare cannot work. I know math is hard for liberals, but there is no getting around tbe numbers. Even if obamacare manages to produce insurance for 30 million people, it will not be able to produce the physicians to see these newly insured. That means longer waiting times to see those doctors who can afford to see these obamacare patients. Adding layers and layers of nonmedical bureaucrats to the system will siphon off money for actual medical care. Costs will go up. There is no getting around that. The IPAB will deny care via regulation, just like Oregon has recently done in deciding not to cover chemotherapy for patients diagnosed with cancer having less than a two year life expectancy. Even Reid admitted obamacare was only the first step on the path to socialist healthcare.
The people pushing obamacare are no better than drug pushers offering “free” samples to school kids trying to get them addicted to their evil product.

Pete: Mata, what Congress accomplished was having the OPM rule that congress members and their staff who make well above the 400% poverty level in income not have to go onto the obamacare exchanges by having taxpayers fund at least 75% of their health insurance. Private business owners who Chabot afford to pay the new obamacare tax will dump their employees onto the obamacare exchanges.

First off, the taxpayers have *always* funded the FEHB co-pay since it’s a government entity, and the only cash they have to “contribute” is what they take from the taxpayers. That hasn’t changed a bit. They have *always* funded up to 75%. However not all employees have that much contributed. That’s just the max amount possible. No clue the breakdowns by pay scale vs contributions. Nor do all Congressional staffers make 400% above the poverty level.

Secondly this was all about the FEHB making contributions for plans on the exchange. Not avoiding the exchange. You’re backwards there.

i.e. via the NYTs on the development:

The Obama administration told Congress on Thursday that it would allow the federal government to continue paying a large share of the cost of health insurance for members of Congress and their aides, averting a problem for many who work on Capitol Hill.

However, under the arrangement, lawmakers and many of their aides will have to get coverage through new health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, being set up in every state.

The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, welcomed the new arrangement, worked out by the White House and the United States Office of Personnel Management, under pressure from Congress. “Members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in health marketplaces, as the Affordable Care Act requires,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, confirmed that the government contributions would continue. Those contributions provide $5,000 a year for individual coverage and $11,000 for families under some of the most popular health plans.

via Reuters:

Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the “Obamacare” health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

…snip…

The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.

Note that this only affected Congress and Congressional aids.. not all federal employees.

To answer your question, the difference is their “employer”, the federal government, did have co-pay arrangements, however the law prohibited them from offering the current group insurance plan in place. A private sector comparison would be if they wanted to continue giving their employees their group plan, but the law made it impossible to do so. O’healthcare does not prohibit private companies from continuing to offer group plans for their employees, or having co-pay benefits. That’s a major difference.

The private employer may not be forced out of a group plan by the law, as the FEHB was. But they can, by choice, drop the group plan. But your error is in equating any employer, dropping the group plan, as to mean they are cutting off all contributions to a plan obtained by their employees thru the exchange.

Well, certainly they could do that… if they want to watch all their employees walk out the door en masse, that is. The entire reason so many companies offer health plans is to attract long term, quality employees.

The more likely scenario is that they will do a fixed contribution, which would be taxable for employees unfortunately, to aid employees in purchasing an exchange plan. If the annual salary is low, the employee might be better off not having the employer contribution, and take advantage of the taxpayer funded subsidies that are going to be offered for low income. Now *those* are genuine subsidies… not a co-pay arrangement with the employer.

Subsidies are only available if the self-coverage costs more than 9.5% of the household income. That’s based on the employees coverage only, not a family plan. (From summary of provisions for employer sponsored insurance from Berkeley’s Labor Center)

For purposes of determining eligibility for exchange subsidies, affordable employer-sponsored insurance is defined as requiring an employee contribution of less than 9.5 percent of household income for an employee-only plan that covers at least 60 percent of medical costs on average (“minimum value”). If self-only coverage costs less than 9.5 percent of household income, then both employees and their family members are ineligible for subsidies regardless of whether or not family coverage is affordable.

To learn a bit of historical perspective on employers and how they have handled health insurance… as well as a way they may continue doing via exchanges and the ACA… is this July 2012 study from Employee Benefit Research Institution. You’ll also note that since the large corporations are not able to use the public (i.e. federal or state) exchanges until 2017 for their employees, without having to suffer the penalty, they are already starting to set up some private exchanges they can utilize so that they do not incur that penalty. But they will still be doing contributions. How much will depend on companies and their own in house policies… just as it does now.

What it comes down to is employers are going to be looking for the most efficient way within the law to curtail their group insurance costs, or contributions, but still make sure their employees do have access health insurance. To not do so is to royally PO their entire staff, and negatively impact production. Not a good business decision. *How* they do that will be specific and individualized to each employer. And while there may be some companies that might throw their employees to the exchange wolves, and cease any financial contributions, I do not think that will be the norm. I also don’t expect them to keep their employees very long.

The idea of exchanges was never a bad idea to me. I just never wanted them to be government run, or have the government dictate the minimum coverage offered. But I liken insurance portals to not being so different from Orbitz or Travelocity, or the portals for mortgages like Lending Tree. In fact, there is no dearth of websites where you can compare products of all types and uses between manufacturers. Sometimes it’s not a bad idea to be able to compare similar plans/benefits/prices between companies and it encourages competition and lower rates. That’s a good thing.

As a matter of fact, what I’ve always wanted to see was insurance companies offering a basic plan nationwide thru a private portal, and then have add on riders specific to each state’s laws. This way you are portable with your base insurance plan. You just have to change your state rider if you move. Plus make most items a la carte… added on by individual choice.

Needless to say, what’s come down is not anything as I’d like to see. But that’s nothing new…

You’re sorta lecturing the professor about the IMAB (now called the IPAB) because back when Palin was calling the doctor paid “end of life” counseling the death panels, I was saying the real death panels were the IMAB/IPAB back in August of 2009. Palin was correct there were death panels… she was just zeroing in on the wrong part of the bill. I know exactly their purposes.. and that’s to keep the Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIPs budget in line. So their job is to assess the costs, and when they start getting out of line, lower the provider’s reimbursement. I knew very well, even back then, that this will result in reduced quality care, providers and limitations. There’s no argument there. Note: I see you weren’t addressing me on that.. sorry

I’m no fan of ACA and was very active in debates and posts against it’s implementation. This hasn’t changed. I know it’s a nightmare in the making. But what people are calling “exemption” for Congress simply isn’t so. I’m a stickler for facts on some things, and this is one of them.

Congress carved out a real clusterf*#k only for themselves and staffers with the amendment, without checking into the administrative rules as to continued employer contributions when they were forcing them off the existing plans. Sort of a bad joke on Obama, don’t you think? “If you like your insurance, you can keep it…. unless you work for Congress”. LOL But as I stated, the law did not prohibit the FEHB to continue contributions. That’s an internal admin guideline that no one thought of.

Pete, I don’t have a problem with employer contributions to health care – whether public or private employees. The government has to be competitive as an employer in order to attract quality workers, too. (yeah… I know. That ain’t working out so well, eh? LOL) But this really isn’t anything different than has been happening all along. They are just giving those same % contributions – which *always* came from the taxpayers – towards a different health plan that the employees were actually *forced* to take.. like it or not.

The closest thing we have to “socialist healthcare” or “socialized medicine” in this country is the VA hospital system. Even a turn to single-payer would do nothing more than standardize the insurance process for everyone and remove insurance companies from their pursuit of health insurance profits at the expense of care.

Your healthcare is already being rationed if you have any type of insurance, and your choices are already limited by what the plan will provide for payments according to its pharmaceutical formulary, scope of approved practice, and schedule of benefits.

Many large HMO’s already exist and are providing the model for managed care under ACA or single-payer. Kaiser Permanente is one, and it has had no trouble finding sufficient physicians for meet the needs of its members.

@El Kabong: The closest thing we have to “socialist healthcare” or “socialized medicine” in this country is the VA hospital system.

Veterans routinely complain about how much paperwork they have to generate to apply for VA benefits.
We observed files stored approximately two feet high and two rows deep on top of file cabinets. File cabinets were placed so closely together that file drawers could not be opened completely. We estimated that approximately 37,000 claims folders were stored on top of file cabinets. We also observed files stored on the floor and stacked, as space permitted, in boxes along walls.
The excess weight of the stored files has the potential to compromise the structural integrity of the sixth floor of the facility. We noticed floors bowing under the excess weight to the extent that the tops of file cabinets were noticeably unlevel throughout the storage area.
GSA conducted a load bearing study of the 6th floor. On Wednesday June 13, 2012, the Regional Office was notified that the estimated load on the 6th floor was 164 psf, which exceeded the capacity of 125 psf for the floor.

Guess the VA Does Have a Paperwork Problem…

Now, according to a 2011study only 1/2 of 1% of Americans had served in the military in the past ten years.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66253
So……times this paperwork problem by 200!

The point was not that the VA system is free of problems, Nan, but that the VA is the only thing we have that resembles “socialized medicine.” The ACA does nothing more than create broker-styled “exchanges” for private health insurance. That’s not the VA and it’s not socialized medicine.

@El Kabong, or is that Skipping Dog? Your healthcare is already being rationed if you have any type of insurance, and your choices are already limited by what the plan will provide for payments according to its pharmaceutical formulary, scope of approved practice, and schedule of benefits.

What you miss with single payer is choice. In a free enterprise system with competition, you have choices. If you don’t like the plan you have, you can seek out competition. With single payer, there is no choice. Nor can you opt out of Medicare unless you additionally forfeit your social security benefits. Hence why it is socialized medicine… the only game in town and controlled by government bureaucrats. Rationing is a byproduct when the bureaucrats don’t have the cash to pay for the procedures.

Many large HMO’s already exist and are providing the model for managed care under ACA or single-payer. Kaiser Permanente is one, and it has had no trouble finding sufficient physicians for meet the needs of its members.

…snip…

The ACA does nothing more than create broker-styled “exchanges” for private health insurance.

You cannot compare supply of doctors or health providers today with what will be available when the bulk of the boomer generation is on Medicare, and a huge percentage of the younger population is on the expanded Medicaid.

At it’s core, all O’healthcare is, is an expansion of Medicaid and a tax package for not playing the game as dictated by fiat. (not just creating brokered exchanges) And don’t forget to add SCHIPs to the cost mix.

What it has never done is address the core problem.. the rising costs of providing health care. Instead, they are just attempting to price fix premiums while costs continue to soar. They attempt this by pulling in more people to “spread” the risk and the wealth.

All of these programs are administered/paid via government, even tho the providers may be private. Even by the projected numbers, the amount of those on the government administered programs will be dwarfing those on private by 2020. As socialist experiments have shown thru history, at some point you run out of other people’s money. At that point, the rationing will have to commence with greater urgency. And it’s entirely likely that the private health provider services will be nationalized to control that cost.

it doesn’t look fair for THE PEOPLE,
WHY SHOULD THEY PAY FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE NOW MULTIPLE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, which are growing and growing, THIS IS AN ABUSE ON THE PEOPLE. CAN’T THE ELECTED WIPE THEIR ASS THEMSELVES,
THE PEOPLE pay for those earnings already and it should stop there,
considering the number added to the public employees which is overload and an outrage
to THE TAXPAYERS WHICH ARE SHRINKING MORE AND MORE AS WE SPEAK
WITH THE OBAMA SOCIALIST AGENDA WHICH IS AS ANTI-AMERICAN AS THE OBAMACARE,
HE TRY TO PUSH ON THE PEOPLE POCKET BOOK.
AREN’T THE RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZ AND MIKE LEE
SUPPOSE TO KILL THAT OBAMACARE? THEY KNOW THE PEOPLE REJECT IT,

The ACA is substantially more than an expansion of Medicaid, although its provisions expanding access to Medicaid will certainly provide a higher level of care for those who are currently uninsured and otherwise too poor to access any form of quality healthcare beyond that available to them in an emergency room.

The free enterprise system and free markets are wonderful things, but markets fail in the provision of common goods. That’s why we have public utilities, which are private companies providing a monopolized essential service in return for their compliance with a high degree of regulation. Just like water, electricity, and basic telecommunications services, healthcare has clearly become an essential public utility for which universal access is a valid public policy goal. Relying on the invisible hand of the market hasn’t made it any more accessible to the many people of have been denied coverage due to their existing medical conditions, have reached the cap on their policies, or have been summarily subjected to policy rescission by their insurance company when it made a financial decision to abandon them as customers because their medical condition may have required expensive treatment.

The insurance policies available through the insurance exchanges are neither administered nor directly paid for through government subsidies. They remain private insurance policies for which the insurer will continue to make a profit from both those who receive a premium subsidy as well as those who buy a policy from the exchanges and will receive no subsidy at all because their income exceeds 400% of the poverty level.

The public employees you are referring to were already having a large portion of their health insurance costs paid for by their employer. On that fact, MataHarley’s earlier post was entirely correct.

El Kabong
yes the public employees had their health insurance cost paid by employer which are THE PEOPLE,
bye

OBAMA IMPOSE A BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE BY ADDING TOO MANY EMPLOYEES ,
ON THE POCKETS BOOK OF THE PEOPLE,
IN THE GOVERNMENT AND ON TOP OF IT HE EXPECT THE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THEIR BENEFITS,
BE IT ALL KIND OF EXTRAS, WHICH THE PEOPLE DON’T GET THEMSELVES AT THEIR WORK.
THERE IS A WRONG BALANCE THERE FOR THE TAXPAYERS,
AND THEY KEEP ADDING MORE IN GOVERNMENT,

There are over 600,000 LESS government employees now than there were when Obama took office in 2009.

El Kabong
you might have left some out,
it’s known that the public employees have increase since OBAMA IS IN POWER,

As usual, you are either misinformed or intentionally making a false claim.

@El Kabong, there is no doubt that with the unimpeded rising costs of providing health care services, affordability is going to be a problem. However just attempting to control the costs of premiums, without addressing the core problem of out of control costs, isn’t the solution. It’s just more can kicking.

The problem is, and always will be, math. Using CMS projections for how many will be insured, and how (see pg 22 of the document), 106.3 million people were on Medicare, Medicaid or CHIP in 2010. By 2020, that number goes up to 147.7 million. Medicare enrollment increases 13.7 million while Medicaid expands by 29.2 million.

Via BLS projections, the civilian non institutional labor force was 64.7% of the population in 2010. By 2020, that goes down to 62.5%.

Naturally, it must be qualified that using that entire percentile requires 100% employment, which isn’t likely to happen. But we’ll play with the pie in the sky numbers here for the heck of it.

Projected total population of the US in 2010 was 309.35 million. By 2020, it is estimated to be 335,804,546 (round to 335.8 million for ease).

Going back to the increase of those on government paid Medicare, Medicaid and CHIPS, by 2020, 43.98% of the total US population will be on taxpayer paid insurance – one of those three programs. In 2010, only 34.36% of the total population was on these government/taxpayer funded programs.

We’re in a boatload of financial hurt trying to fund the 34.36% on a larger labor force in 2010. Just how do you think we’ll be able to have a smaller labor force in 2020, and support 43.98% of the population? Then when you add stagnant and/or declining household incomes, this is just a nightmare that doesn’t pencil out in the real world.

O’healthcare, as it is designed, is unsustainable. Just as both social security and Medicare are unsustainable. The latter two require a pyramid population demographic that is upside down today. And the former requires a larger labor force than will exist for the same inverted pyramid demographic.

Congress and the elected ones have never demonstrated the ability for long term vision. Apparently it’s more important for their time in office to look like a winner. Unfortunately, the nation is literally paying for their shortcomings, and it’s going to break the bank.

@El Kabong, I’m afraid I’m going to have to qualify your statement of 600,000 less government employees with details. Because, as Forbes reported at the beginning of this year, your figure is correct.

BUT… and there is always a but, eh? In this case, there are two “buts”.

1: That figure is combined federal, state and local government personnel. I think we can agree that the bulk of state and local employees is out of a POTUS jurisdiction for hiring or firing. When then brings me to…

2: Federal government employees. Isolating it to the federal level, and using the OPM numbers, the amount of federal employees has gone up steadily, with the bulk of the increase under Obama.. altho we only have this up to 2011 in these stats.

Here’s another thing to ponder… the amount of employees that will be coming on board because of both O’healthcare and Dodd Frank haven’t even appeared on the radar yet.

So yes… over half a million less. Unfortunately the bulk of government reduction was done at the state and local level. Not the federal level, which increased their payrolls.

#1
The median pay for a pediatrician is about 140,ooo per year or about 600 per day. This clown is complaining that some kids are paying him 3 dollars less per visit than he thinks he should be getting? Perhaps we should again looking in our society for doctors who are not as money orientated .
So what exactly do you think we should do raise the payments so your friend cna make more? Or limit the medical care of kids (moochers and takers) ?

@MataHarley: Great points. Ironically, the Obamacare numbers were not sustainable immediately after the bill was passed using their own calculated 10 year predictions. Now, a few years after its passage, the estimated cost has at least tripled and the projected revenue savings/income for it administration has not materialized (such as the savings from Medicare). Thus, if Congress decides to fund this law, they have essentially given each American citizen a one-way ticket on the Titanic.

@john: Clearly you don’t understand a few things about compensation for physicians. The overhead to be a doctor is huge; malpractice insurance premiums alone can exceed $40K/year, then office overhead, transcription fees and on and on. That’s one of the reasons doctors are leaving the profession faster than they are entering it. And people considering entering the medical field take all that into consideration, knowing there are plenty of other opportunities out there that take less education (student loan money) and pay better with less financial risk and overhead.

Scott in OKLAHOMA
HI,
I thought so and was waiting for some better answer for him to raise the right point,
he is showing that part of those who deny the professional their due after long years of study,
they are taught the redistribution way of OBAMA.
THAT ALL SHOULD BE ON THE SAME LEVEL OF EARNING,
EVEN LAZY PEOPLE WHO NEVER DO ANYTHING WORTHY , ARE TODAY PRAISE BY THE LEADERSHIP, REMEMBER THE OWLS AND THE OTHER GROUPS DESTROYING ANYTHING ON THEIR WAY WHERE FAVORITES OF A FREAKED OUT LEADERSHIP
WITH NO GUTS TO INTERVENE, TOO SCARE OF THEM TO CALL ON THEM TO GET OUT,

@Scott in Oklahoma, all correct. However to simplify for those requiring simple, it might better be characterized as the question: How long can your business survive if you take a 30% loss on the majority of transactions?

Thus the reason that most health care providers combine Medicare/Medicaid services with privately insured patients. There is a cost shift of the loss from the government reimbursements to the privately insured to make up for the difference. This inflates procedures done for the privately insured 20-30% above the actual costs.

Increasing the ratio of government reimbursed care to private only exacerbates the problem. The point will be reached where private insurance will be driven out of business.. which brings us right back to the substance of this OP and Reid’s correct analysis that O’healthcare was designed to be a step towards single payer.

@MataHarley: Not to mention the fact that if the government controls all of healthcare, and they (not your doctor, some faceless bureaucrat) decide you can’t have the treatment you need, you ain’t getting it unless you go to another country… sound familiar? How many Brits and Canadians get their elective surgeries and other treatments here?
One seventh of the economy aside, just giving the government so much control and so much access to your privacy gives them the tools to force compliance to anything they want. Clearly doesn’t sound like freedom to me. And you libs out there trolling need to understand it CAN happen here, people in other places didn’t think it could happen to them either.

You seem to have ignored the follow-up Forbes article, MH, in which the percentages of federal employees in ratio to our expanding population was explored. Even if there has been some minor increase in overall numbers – much of it attributable to the Census hiring and analysis a couple of years ago – Obama still has a lower percentage of federal employees than his predecessors had.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/

@john:
Tell you what, John. If you think it is so easy to do what a doctor does, then put your money where your mouth is and become a physician yourself. Do the 4 years of college if you haven’t already, plus the 4 yearsof medical school (taking on student loan debt averaging $250, 000), then do three years of residency before you can even make half of the average annual pediatrician salary. If you plan to subspecialize, add another 3-6 years of training depending on the specialty.
Then when you can finally hang your shingle and start seeing patients, take on the overhead costs of office space, medical and administrative office equipment, hire nurses, medical techs, and the admin people who have to handle all the insurance paperwork, phone calls, etc. Then you can tell all of us doctors out there how you solved the problem of medicare/medicaid reimbursements being too low to cover the overhead expenses to pay your employees, your taxes, your office expenses, your medical school debts, all without going bankrupt while you wait 12-18 MONTHS for medicare and medicaid to pay you for taking care of those patients. Ansd let us not forget tbe cost of malpractice insurance, even if you have never been sued. Then you tell me how you deal with parents who complain about how much a vaccine costs….despite their possession of the latest iphone, Air Jordan sneakers, etc.

The bottom line on obamacare is that it is a planned disaster. If it were going to be so great, both in getting people covered by insurance and in benefits to the economy, then why did Obama illegally postpone the employer mandate until after the next election? Why did Sebelius give out 2000 or so waivers? Why are tbe unions wanting out of obamacare? Why is the IRS, the group charged with imposing obamacare on the rest of us, demanding their emlloyees not have to participate in the exchanges?
Furthermore, how does adding 15, 000 IRS agents, but not one single new physician, increase the available amount of medical care to cover the estimated 30 million newly insured? There is already a serious doctor shortage in this country. Doctors are already refusing to accept new medicare/medicaid patients because it costs more to take care of these patients than the physician is paid to do so. How long do you think someone is going to practice medicine if doing so makes him bankrupt?
I am very disturbed by the undercurrent from the leftists pushing obamacare that physician opposition to the government takeover of health care is based on greed. I have worked in the government side of medicine, where there is no profit motive. The bureaucracy involved in doing the right thing for a patient in that setting is far more burdensome than what it takes in the private sector. I spent far more time arguing with bureaucrats with no medical training trying to get needed medical treatments when I was in a government hospital than I have ever had to do in a private hospital. That was time I was unable to spend with patients. Under obamacare, and even worse under socialist health care coming later on, there WILL be rationing. There WILL be much longer waiting times and unreasonable limitations….unless you are one of the politically connected or ultra wealthy.

Sorry, Pete. The ACA may not be the answer to all of our medical and healthcare needs, but it certainly isn’t a planned disaster. It may well be an intermediary step to some form of single-payer health insurance system, similar to those in Canada and many nations of Western Europe, but it is most certainly not “socialized medicine” of the variety provided by the NHS of Britain or our own VA medical system.

To address you other claims, there is nothing “illegal” about the decision to delay employer mandate regulations this year. The CFR provides many examples in which new administrative rules can be temporarily delayed to ensure their proper implementation. Perhaps if the Republicans and Red States that adamantly opposed the ACA since its passage had instead cooperated with its implementation, such a delay would not have been necessary. The waivers were provided for group plans that are already providing the essential services required under the ACA. If those groups eliminate their existing coverage, they will then be required to conform to the ACA guidelines like everyone else.

As to your claim about unions wanting “out” of the ACA exchanges, in many cases it is because they are operating under existing contracts that provide health insurance benefits at essentially no cost to their membership. That is an entirely prudent and rational approach for any representative organization. If and when the “Cadillac Plan Tax” begins to affect the plans provided under those contract agreements, you’ll undoubtedly see those same labor organizations working their members into a policy provided by one of the ACA exchanges.

The eventual addition of up to 15k IRS agents to handle the increased administrative requirements of the ACA is also appropriate for any new and complex program. Given the claim by so many here and elsewhere that they are merely going to forgo their legal requirement to purchase health insurance and evade the law, it makes perfect sense to beef up the enforcement mechanism needed to successfully operate the program.

Your claim about a doctor shortage is also interesting. It seems the shortage has been with primary care physicians and rural areas, far more than with a lack of overall physician numbers. While that has been and will continue to be a problem, there are well established methods for dealing with such shortages while additional physicians are moving through their educational pipeline. The use of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and similarly trained primary care adjuncts is already well developed in the HMO environment and in organizations like the military. While there are many things only a physician with an MD or DO behind their name can and should do, there are many other things that don’t immediately require that level of training and still ensure proper patient care. It may be time to explore some expansion in the scope of practice for both NP and PA providers to address the new challenges you identify.

@El Kabong: You seem to have ignored the follow-up Forbes article, MH, in which the percentages of federal employees in ratio to our expanding population was explored.

???

How could I have possibly ignored the very same link that I, myself, provided in my comment above when referencing your numbers, EK? I’m linking, but you’re not clicking on those links.

As I said about that number, which I guess I will have to repeat, the Forbes numbers clearly state they include federal, state and local government. Not just federal. Quote FTA, prior to the data:

I should note that the numbers are in millions and the number of government employees includes federal, state, local, etc

So the fact remains that the decline in government jobs, as shown by the OPM graph I also depicted above, was *only* in state and local governments, not federal. Therefore the comparisons of federal employees to civilian population is not reflected in the Forbes article. Tho I’m baffled as to why you think the government should grow payroll in the same ratio as the population count. huh?

Even if there has been some minor increase in overall numbers – much of it attributable to the Census hiring and analysis a couple of years ago – …snip…

Mercy me…. the hiring for the census started Dec 2009, and their temporary federal employment was off the payroll by Aug 2010. According to the Census.gov site, they hired 965,000 for the 2010 census. You’ll see the hires, and the end of the temporary employment on pg 33 of that PDF.

So let’s go to your claim that the increase in federal employment was due to the census temporary hiring. Scroll back up and look at that graph of federal employees again, EK. The main hierarchy of federal agencies is color coded. What agencies reflect the three largest increases?

Well, had you gone to the link – again, I’m linking to data but you’re not clicking – you would see the graph right below the one I linked above. That is a breakdown of the largest group of employees… the “Cabinet” agencies. So for quick reference, below is that breakdown.

The US Census falls under the Department of Commerce. If you’ll note, there’s barely a blip on the screen for Commerce Department hires even in 2010. It’s entirely possible they considered the temp jobs not necessarily worth including. But the three largest increases are Homeland Defense, Defense Dept and Veterans Affairs. Those increases started in the last year or so of the Bush 2nd term, and did a sharp increase from 2009 on.

Therefore the Census still has nothing to do with it.

Let’s put this to bed with facts. You are correct that there are 600K less government employees during the Obama years, but the decline in those employees was at the state and local level while the federal level grew. Bees is correct that Obama has increased the size of federal payroll, and that is confirmed via OPM statistics.

The really scary part is that both Dodd-Frank and O’healthcare, both which added agencies and expanded existing agencies, aren’t even on the map for federal payroll increases yet since they aren’t in full force.

Lastly, if you don’t consider O’healthcare and the expansion of Medicaid – it’s primary objective – a planned disaster, then you are ignoring the math and facts I stated in my above comment. It’s impossible to sustain the (probably low) 43.98% of the population on a smaller workforce, making less household income by 2020. We can’t even sustain it today.

I believe you, Bee, and Forbes might still be incorrect. Remember that the federal year begins in October, so in the following OPM table, 2008 would run from 10/1/07 to 9/30/08 and so on. That means the first year for which the Obama administration had any responsibility for federal employment would have been for F/Y 2009, which began on 10/1/08, the year Obama assumed office.

According to OPM figures, he has cut federal employment during his tenure.

It’s also fair to note that the federal employee numbers under Clinton, GWB, and Obama are far below those of Reagan, GHWB, and every administration going back as far as Kennedy.

You’re getting the reduced government you claim to want, and the facts prove it.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

@El Kabong: According to OPM figures, he has cut federal employment during his tenure.

According to your own OPM link, in what bizarre world of math in which you dwell is 4.403 mill *less* than 4.206 million? Obama’s executive staff is larger, and his military is larger.

As you stated, the fiscal year begins in Oct, so the 2008-09 federal employee totals, started in Bush’s final term year, was 4.206 mil. 2009-10 was 4.430 and did *not* include the census. 2010-11 was 4.443 and *did* include the census. 2011-12 was 4.403 mil, which in the world of math where I dwell, is still larger than 4.206 and larger than Bush’s 2007-08 total of 4.127 mil.

You sure you don’t want to rethink what you’re attempting to back out of here, EK?

It’s also fair to note that the federal employee numbers under Clinton, GWB, and Obama are far below those of Reagan, GHWB, and every administration going back as far as Kennedy.

If you’ll note, where the largest reduction of federal personnel lies is in the military, slashed by almost 1/2 after Clinton and a GOP Congress agreed to gut it.

You’ll notice that the increase was because of the temporary hiring for the census, which is covered in the number 4 footnote on the OPM chart. The the completed year that followed, the total was below that of his first year in office for FY 2009.

If you look at Executive Branch civilians, you’ll see that those numbers have dropped as well. Including the military in any discussion about increases in federal employment under either Obama or GWB has to include the basic fact that we have been running two wars for the past decade. The reductions in force that will accompany our withdrawal from Afghanistan will further reduce the number of federal employees.

In terms of military personnel numbers, it would have hardly made sense to maintain an enormous Cold War size military force when the adversary of that force ceased to exist, as happened to the old Soviet Union in the early 1990’s.

In any event, none of the hard numbers support the claim that Obama has expanded the size of our federal government workforce. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.

WK, what part of ” 2009-10 was 4.430 and did *not* include the census. 2010-11 was 4.443 and *did* include the census. 2011-12 was 4.403 mil, which in the world of math where I dwell, is still larger than 4.206 and larger than Bush’s 2007-08 total of 4.127 mil escapes you? The census hiring was reflected in the 2010-11 numbers. All other years are STILL higher than the prior Bush years. Ergo the federal payroll has been increased under Obama. The state and local government employees were the only decline, due to state budget deficits.

You linked. I read. Unfortunately for you, your own link proved you to be incorrect in the real world of math. To suggest otherwise not only is dishonest, but indicates you simply can’t count.

You seem to ignore the basic fact that there was no new “hiring” by the Obama administration until well into his first complete year in office. All of those government employees were the result of hiring done at the end of the Bush administration.

2008 and 2009 belong to Bush. 2010 belongs to Obama and includes census hiring as well as an increase in military personnel. 2011 belongs to Obama and shows an overall reduction in federal employees.

Why do you keep attempting to spin these basic facts?

sigh… let’s see if you can get thru basic math here, EK.

2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 (4) 2,776 1,602 64 4,443
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403

Can you point out *any* of the above columns from 2009 (which BEGINS Oct 2009) to 2011 that are *less* than 2007 or 2008 (which ENDS Oct 2009), save for the small reduction in military in 2011 vs 2009/10? And is not that military number STILL higher than 2007 and 2008?

More importantly, are any one of the final totals less than 2007 or 2008 (which ENDS Oct 2009)?

Talk about spin… damn. Or are you just trying to say that Obama.. 2010-11 is reducing federal government compared to Obama 2011-12? Sorry… doesn’t count. It’s all still an increase.

And are you trying to convince us that in a fiscal year where Bush was in control of 4 months as a lame duck, and Obama for 8 months, that there was no new hiring after the results of his stimulus and other legislation? I might also remind you that Congress and Obama have not successfully done a budget since then, and they did not deal with the budget prior to Obama’s inauguration.

Ya gotta be kiddin’ me…. Dang I feel sorry for that dead horse you’re beating. Over four years in to the Obama term, and still you think you can blame Bush for the federal govt increase? Chutzpah.

@SkippingDog:

If the Republicans manage to gum up the ACA in the next few years,

Not a worry. It’s not possible to gum up something that’s not moving.

EK, while I’m at it on math with you, and considering you want to rest your “Obama is shrinking government” on just the fiscal year between Oct 2010/11 to Oct 2011/12, did you happen to consider that the OPM figures include the USPS workers under the Executive branch numbers, and that 105K postal workers were laid off since 2009, and planned for an additional 7500 in 2011?

Makes the executive branch increase even worse… Both military/national defense and postal service are constitutional duties of the feds. Yet the Executive Branch grows while military and postal shrink. A perfect example of misplaced priorities in the growth of government.

@Scott in Oklahoma: I will give you a physician’s perspective. I completed 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, one year of internship, 3 years of residency and one year of a dual fellowship. I worked extra hard and was able to do the fellowship in one, not 2 years. The cost of college/medical school can run a few hundred thousand dollars- which is equivalent to most mortgages. Then when you are done you have to start or buy into a practice which means more debt. So after all your hard work, years of training and neglect of both personal and family matters, you begin to practice.
But that’s not the beginning. I am a neurologist in a group practice. We run extremely efficiently and still have a 7 figure overhead. Those who can’t run their practice efficiently are going out of business or giving away their practice to a hospital. The primary physicians are doing it now in droves.
Despite my success, I am still looking over my shoulder at what’s next. Where will be the next cut, new expense or change in law. Then there comes a point where you say working ungodly hours, stress and responsibility is not worth the reimbursement. That’s why a bunch of physicians are leaving the field and a projected shortage is expected on the horizon. That’s why I am constantly looking over my shoulder, wondering if my business will remain solvent. Also, it’s the reason I am so vigilant in fighting Obamacare because I know the consequences. Besides my practice, I run multiple hospital system wide programs and see first hand the negative impact Obamacare will have on the entire country. Though I have no formal economic training, I do know how to add, subtract and multiply; and I know how to balance budgets and project accurate future budgets (unlike our government). I have gone so far as to write a fictional novel warning of the consequences of Obamacare, Obama himself and of our current economic policies. Due out this March, I hope to make a difference.
No, I’m not writing this for blog for pity but I do feel as if I should tell the facts and warn us all of future consequences.

Tired American
thank you for telling what you see, AND YOU HAVE THE FIRST ROW SEAT FOR IT TO BE TRUE, It’s imperative to use also the blogs to get the attention of the PEOPLE AND ANY OTHER MEDIAS,
THEY MUST UNITE AND TOGETHER THEY WILL EXTERMINATE THAT OBAMA CARE
WHICH IS ONLY FOR CONTROLLING THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA
AND FOLLOW AN ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA.WHICH IS NOW ACCELERATING,
USING MANY AVENUE,
just like shaming AMERICANS WITH HIS FOOD STAMPS HE IS PUSHING ON THE PEOPLE,

@El Kabong:
Have you actually ever worked in medicine? You so blithely gloss over the inherent problems, trying to push the leftist idea that obamacare is not a move towards socialist health care even when Reid admitted it was. Then you try to claim socialist health care isn’t so bad. Have you ever experienced socialst health care or are you simply relying on propaganda? When I worked in a NICU in Washington state, we regularly had patients flown in from Canada because they do not have enough NICU beds for their patients. And by regularly I mean every other month. My Canadian physician friends tell me how they are unable to make referrals to orthopedic specialists because even if they fill out the reams of paperwork required to get the referral, the request is usually denied so they have no choice but to put the patient onto addictive pain meds for an indefinite period of time. This is not treating patients.
The ACA as passed by Congress and signed by Obama explicitly states the employer mandate is to start on 1 January 2014. No law has been passed to change that date. Yet Obama has by executive fiat, without a basis in law, simply changed the start date until after the next election. I am not a lawyer, but I have never heard of any other law that was simply ignored for such egregious political purposes. Claiming that recalcitrance and opposition from republican governors is the reason obamacare needs to be postponed is ridiculous. How does postponing the employer mandate in violation of the democrat passed law alter republican governers refusing to open state exchanges or expand medicaid?
If the cost of medical insurance is the justification for adding layers of government bureaucracy onto the medical system, by what means does this costly imposition of additional nonmedical personnel into the system either decrease costs or increase access to care? NPs and PAs serve a purpose in medicine, but they are not physicians and they were never meant to be independent providers. They do not have the training nor the experience to operate without physician supervision. The idea that NPs and PAs are equal to physicians rather than being physician extenders is just asking for trouble.
The physician shortage is most pronounced in primary care, but it does affect subspecialists as well. As a neonatologist, I work in two different cities, and have been asked to take on duties in a third because there are not enough of us. In both cities where I work, one of which has a population of 800, 000 people, there is a shortage of pediatric surgeons, pediatric pulmonologists, geneticists, neurologists, endocrinologists and nephrologists, just to name a few specialties off the top of my head. You cannot replace these specialists with NPs and PAs.
The economic costs of Obamacare are going to be astronomical. If this monster is not stopped, we will look back on the cost projections and see them inflate at least as much, if not more, than did the actual costs of social security, medicaire and medicaid beyond the wishful claims when those programs were being debated. Deny the dire warnings from physicians all you want, but expect no sympathy from us when the socialist nightmare comes to fruition.

@MataHarley: Mata, it’s clear that EK’s strong suit is NOT in mathematics.

@ilovebeeswarzone: I fully agree. I know I’ve posted this blog entry before but the video at the beginning is just too compelling not to share with everyone I meet. And the irony is, it was made at least 2 years ago and some of the things mentioned are coming to fruition in different forms. I try to send it to as many people as possible.
http://stephenmartino.blogspot.com/2013/07/obamacare-is-complete-affront-to-each.html

The Tea Party whom the left hates was absolutely RIGHT. Sarah Palin was RIGHT. Yet, no one listened…no one wanted to listen. They were so right the IRS succeeded in shutting them down.

Look at the VA Hospitals, run by the Government…ever hear any Glorious reviews?

This is the future of our own (Government run) Health Care.

My neighbors brother, a Veteran who has serious back issues could not get help from the VA…he naturally lives on a limited income…he could not wait for OCare to be implemented….I suspect he will not be happy with the outcome when he once again, asks for help via OCare…Or, IF he will get the ‘help’ he desperately needs to live a (almost) normal life.

Mata in #10 is correct based on economic levels and who will be paying for this monstrosity, it is certainly unsustainable…. the idiots who want to claim a legacy they are champions of “a cause” because of their own arrogance…only reek havoc down the road…such shortsightedness, is why just about every government program is a failure…and waists so much taxpayer money…ugh!

What is most reprehensible is the spin and the web of LIES used by these liars to push this agenda and how the low informed of the America people bought into this…

I do hope Congress grows a set… stands their ground and refuse to fund this.

@Tired American:

You are just voicing what I know to be true about doctors in ALL fields. I have had long talks with my PCP, who is also a good friend. He’s been in practice for a long time, and has paid for his building, most of his equipment (although he’s a tech junkie and likes ever new medical gadget that comes out), lives quite frugally (his home was around $200K, not much, considering his wife is a practicing RN) and thinks a vacation is catching up his reading of all the medical journals he subscribes to.

He has one son that is already a physician (oncologist) and one currently in med school. His oldest son had planned on expanding his father’s practice to include him, and he would have been the only oncologist in a small town so that patients didn’t have to drive to Austin or wait two weeks to see an oncologist. After Obamacare was passed, and he took the time to read the bill, he backed out and instead, took a teaching job. The youngest son is now trying to decide what he will do once he finishes his residency.

Obamacare did nothing to address health care costs, but once people have access to health care where the cost doesn’t matter to them because other people are paying for in via taxation, you can expect those costs to rise substantially. When someone else is buying your groceries, you don’t care what the price of hamburger is. The same will apply to health care.

I live in Texas where seniors are having trouble finding a doctor, especially a GP, because doctors are not accepting Medicare. How’s it going to work when we throw millions more on the Medicaid system?

@retire05:
It won’t work. There is no way that adding layers upon layers of bureaucrats with no medical training, whose sole purpose is to serve as government gatekeepers to ration finite medical resources can ever decrease medical costs.
How anyone can believe that insurance companies are evil and the only answer is to have the government, particularly the IRS, takeover and run government insurance of medical care and be more cost efficient boggles the mind. When has any socialist government program ever been less costly than a private system?

Pete
he want to break the doctors’s back and humiliate them
by ordering them to follow his agenda of communist socialist inspired by HIS UNIONS AFFILIATION,
AND THE DOCTORS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COLLECT THEIR DUE BEFORE THE OBAMA GOONS DECIDE WHAT THEY WILL BE,
WHAT’S COMING IS THE UNIONNISIZING OF THE MEDICAL ORGANISATION INCLUDING ALL SPECIALIST WHICH WILL BE COMPEL TO JOIN AT THE UNION’S FEES DICTATED BY OBAMA, OR NOT BE IN,AND LOOSE THEIR POSITION
IT WILL DECREASE THE NUMBER OF DOCTORS AND DECREASE THE QUALITY OF CARE BY 100 PER CENT,
AND TOO BAD FOR THE ELDERS WHICH WILL BE PENALIZE FOR BEING SICK.
INSTEAD OF GETTING THE CARE THEY DESERVE,

@El Kabong:

2011 belongs to Obama and shows an overall reduction in federal employees.

Mata is correct. Much of the reductions were in state and local employees, and the credit belongs not to Obama, but to the Republican House of 2011 that refused to vote for even more “stimulus plans” that Obama and the Democrats wanted to continue to fund those state and local jobs that were only created by, and paid for by the “stimulus.” When the money ran out, those temporary jobs went away as the states could not afford to pay for them.

Your Cartoonship, seems to have totally forgotten the continual political stumping by Obama, the Democrats and their MSM talking head cohorts, who in 2011 tried to use scare tactics and dire prophesies about the consequences of the loss of these short-term mandate funded workers, all in order to support their demands for more and more stimulus spending.

There is clearly a plan, and it can only be to purposely create a national debt so staggeringly high that it causes an Grecian economic collapse of this nation. The Democratic “elite” no doubt expect after the fall, to then mobilize their “OFA” and other social organizing troops, with the talking points being to blame all this on “Republican stonewalling” while they proselytize to the public that onlyby seizing the riches of the wealthy (exempting themselves of course,) , and thru “temporary” regulations enforcing a “shared” austerity can they save the nation from certain economic doom. They will say, that only a democratic-socialist government can lead to national salvation, (via perpetual enslavement to the State).

@El Kabong:

True, Pete; had the liberal Congress planned a disaster of this magnitude, it would have been a resounding success. No, it was a planned take-over of health care by the government, costs be damned (liberals NEVER worry about what something costs; they can always just raise taxes).

It just turned out to be a disaster.

Tired American
I liked your link, the book will be very interesting to read,
thank you,