“I promise a chicken in every pot (chicken not included)”

Tyler Cowen was ‘somewhat surprised‘ to find out that a higher percentage of the uninsured disapprove of Obamacare. I’m not sure whether his surprise was that the disapproval wasn’t higher or lower.

I wasn’t surprised that more disapprove.

As I wrote in my “Wait…What?” post in July of 2012, Obama won votes by promising to solve the problem of the uninsured. Those voters didn’t realize that his solution would be to penalize the uninsured for not buying insurance.

It’s like the old Doctor joke.

Patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this. Can you fix it?

Doc: Yes I can.

Patient: Really? Great! How?

Doc: Stop doing that.

In July 2013, I didn’t think many people had made that connection, yet. I predicted they might when they had to pay the fine. They haven’t paid the fine yet, but are discovering that Obama’s solution was the same as the Doc’s above. Stop not buying insurance.

I offered what I think is a better medical mandate in this post (edited slightly).

If you choose not to purchase insurance and you need medical care, you will be expected to pay for your medical care.

Mine isn’t that much different than Obama’s. But, it doesn’t require government intervention.

Update: James Taranto, at the Wall Street Journal, does a great job of making my first point:

In short, what ObamaCare means to the uninsured who were not uninsurable is higher prices for a product they already were disinclined to buy, along with a punitive tax on not buying it. That seems more like a mugging than a benefit.

You’ve made your bed…

I agree with Thomas Sowell’s latest column, High Risk, Low Yield, regarding recent Republican tactics. Especially this part:

The world is full of things that ought to be done but cannot in fact be done.

The time, effort and credibility that Republicans are investing in trying to defund ObamaCare is a high risk, low yield investment.

If I were Republican politician, I might say:

America, I hope Obamacare works out for you. But, if it doesn’t, remember, this is your own doing.

Soon, you may discover that Obamacare increases your health care costs and reduces quality and availability.

You may realize that you have less choice about health care than you did before.

You may find government bureaucrats have taken a keen interest in your personal health habits, to the extent you may feel violated and they may deem you not fit to receive priority care.

If you are bothered by any of that, you should consider who you voted for and why. If you want different results, perhaps you should think about voting differently and holding some frank discussions at the dinner table to help convince others you know to do the same.

Government begets more government

I enjoyed this post from W.E. Heasley about government involvement in healthcare, on his blog, The Last Embassy.

Here’s a summary:

  • Obamacare is just the next in a long-line of government health care involvement dating back to World War II.
  • Obamacare is meant to solve the problems caused by that previous involvement.
  • Few people understand this. They believe the problems in the health care market are just somehow inherent problems of the health care market that need to be solved with government fixes.

The last bullet point is the kicker. That lack of understanding is what begets more government.  It causes us to vote for candidates who want to pile on more regulation rather than remove it.

The best solution is unwind the real causes of the problem, as Heasley dubs it, Obamacare 1.0, which is the government involvement in health care dating back to World War II.

Rather, we opt for Obamacare 2.0.  Here’s my prediction:  Obamare 2.0 will cause more problems, which may lead to Obamacare 3.0.

I’d rather reverse the trend.  Let’s go to Steve Jobs Care 1.0.