|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Mail Magazine 24
No real
solutions - part of the plan?
by Bright Knight
There is a reason why Obama doesn't address real problems properly
In my last column (I want Obama to fail -- so America can succeed) I
wrote that Obama did not address real problems on several big issues,
such as GM and Healthcare reform. With this column I want to write in
more detail about this fact.
Generally speaking, you make a problem even bigger when you do not
address the reason(s) that are responsible for the problem. Such as
using face creams and make-up when a plastic surgeon would have been
the way to go. But maybe sometimes it is the plan to make a problem
even bigger...
Let me explain this with two examples everyone knows about – there are
many examples but I think you will see the pattern.
Let us first talk about GM. I don't want to get into all the details of
the “bailout” but I would like to just give some biggies:
The government received 500 Million Shares – as of today. Our loss is
almost 14 Billion (with a B). The Treasury would need to sell these
shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the
“investment.”
The unions received a 17% ownership stake in GM, in lieu of the money
GM owed for union health and pension commitments. At the time, this
equated to about 40 cents on the dollar. Private secured investors were
given a settlement agreement at the rate of 29 cents on the dollar.
Common-share stockholders were completely wiped out when GM emerged
from bankruptcy. All shares in the "old" GM were worthless since the
"old" GM didn't exist anymore.
Delphi had all GM debt to it cancelled. Geithner decided to cut pension
liabilities for salaried non-union employees to expedite GM’s emergence
from bankruptcy.
All this would be bad enough even if the bailout would have saved GM,
but GM is anything BUT saved (although Joe “the brain” Biden and the
other morons tried to tell the people in the 2012 campaign this
fairy-tale), it is more like a zombie with rouge. GM is again in
trouble and we very well might see another bailout by the Obama regime
– or something even worse.
This could have been avoided, would our geniuses in Washington have
done the GM-rescue differently and would they have addressed the real
problem: the real problem (or let us say one of the main real problems)
are the high costs for labor. The cost per hour at GM is more than $70!
Compared to costs between $42 and $48 at Toyota, Honda and Nissan. The
unions drove GM into bankruptcy, and instead of addressing this
problem, they got rewarded (see the “biggies” above). Addressing the
problem would have been to terminate all union-contracts and start all
over with new contracts with numbers in the range of Toyota, Honda and
Nissan, but Obama had to pay-back the union support in the 2008
election.
Addressing the described problem plus restructure (within a managed
bankruptcy) would really have saved GM.
The question is: did Obama really want to save GM or did he just want
to bring GM closer to a full government takeover – which would be in
accordance to his agenda?
Secondly, let us talk about Obamacare.
The official name is “affordable healthcare act”. Unfortunately, it is
anything BUT affordable (as we already see), because -again- Obama did
not address the real problem. He created a new monster with more
bureaucracy, new jobs for the IRS to control the people and to
“collect” the new taxes. More confusion, more death panels, and he
shifted more than 700 billion from Medicare to Obamacare. The costs for
employers skyrocketed so they will have to stop providing healthcare
for the employees.
But this might have been the plan! The employers stop providing
healthcare, so the people must find other health coverage. It is too
expensive to sign up with an insurance company, (because of Obamacare),
so what will happen? The majority will end up on the government system
– and that was exactly the plan of Obama!
If Obama would have have addressed the real problems and offered real
reform, the premiums would be lower, the costs for healthcare would be
lower and more people would be able to afford health insurance –
without the government involved.
How would such a solution have looked? OK, I have some basic ideas on
which experts certainly could create a real healthcare reform:
NOBODY should be forced to purchase Health Care (and the tax/penalty is
nothing else than forcing the people)
A basic plan should be offered with the same terms and condition from
all insurance companies in the USA (so, the plans are standardized).
The basic plan covers just the catastrophic issues (accident,
surgeries, cancer, etc.). The premium for such a plan will be very low,
because there are most likely only a small percentage of people who
will have a claim. If the premium is low enough to be attractive,
almost everyone will purchase the basic insurance plan without being
forced to do so (and with almost everyone paying in, the premium will
stay low).
Insurance companies MUST be required take everyone for the basic plan!
For people with existing “pre-conditions” I can think about the
following solution: build an “Assigned Risk Pool” like the one for auto
insurance.
ANYTHING else can be offered in "modules", i.e. a module for
medications (unless they are included in the basic plan, i.e. for the
cure after surgeries or cancer), a module for dental, a module for
eye-care, a module for family planning (birth, birth-control,
contraception, maybe even Viagra), a module for people who are active
in sports (soccer, football), i.e. with higher risk of injuries, etc. -
so everybody can build his own plan just how he/she needs it or just
for what he/she wants to be covered. And nobody needs to pay for the
risks of other people's personal lifestyle, hobbies or whatever (here
especially contraception comes to mind. I am absolutely PRO
contraception, but in my opinion it is the personal business of the
person using it. Anything to do with sex is personal and therefore must
be paid out of the personal pocket, unless you chose the module).
Students can be on their parent's plan until the age of XX (needs to be
discussed), but only on the basic plan (low risk...)
People are allowed to shop for insurance nationwide, no restrictions (I
would even allow internationally! If I can find an insurance company in
Hong Kong which pays the bills I don't see a problem, why I shouldn't
work with them). These plans should have minimum guidelines (see point
2).
We must end these insane lawsuits in case something goes wrong. The
hospital/doctor, i.e. their insurance should be accountable for the
claimant's real financial loss only, which is caused by the wrong-doing
of the hospital/doctor. If the loss is 250,000 then that is the amount
the insurance has to pay - not 10 millions, the lawyers are demanding.
This will lead to lower insurance premiums for the doctors, i.e. lower
expenses, i.e. lower costs for the treatments.
All premium-payments as well as payments towards a "health account"
(savings for health expenses in future) must be tax-free. NO income-tax
or any other tax whatsoever.
As said, such a REAL reform would have brought the costs down – but
then: Obama would never have gotten the chance to take over our
healthcare. So he most likely was never interested in a free-market
solution, and not addressing the real problem was the plan.
You must see all of Obama's political decisions in relation to his
agenda, the fundamental transformation of America. Watch closely what
he is doing – he will offer more “solutions” which will at the end of
the day lead to more government, and more takeovers. He will refuse to
support free-market solutions and he will create more situations (via
regulations, e.g. by EPA) that will get whole industries in trouble and
ready for a takeover.
Now you know the reason why Obama does not address real problems
properly. Do never forget: One of the criminals behind Obama (there are
many of them) is George "The (D)Evil" Soros, a convicted felon, who
said in an interview with a German newspaper "America needs now a kind
of European Socialism".
Read this and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
|
|
|
