Newspaper column: ObamaCare is path to single payer

Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

In the first month of ObamaCare, only 513 Nevadans purchased insurance through the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, while 25,000 had their individual health policies canceled, as reported in this week’s newspaper column, available online at The Ely Times and the Elko Daily Free Press.

The website is a dud. People are losing their health insurance plans that they liked. Period. The prices of new individual policies are 41 percent higher on average nationally and 179 percent higher in Nevada, the highest increase in the nation.

So how do you think Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will try to fix the problems? They’ve all said they favor a single payer plan — which eliminates insurance companies and their overhead and profit margins entirely and has the government make direct payments.

Take a hint from an Obama speech in August at a Syracuse, N.Y., high school: “So over the past four years, what we’ve done is to try to take some steps to make college more affordable. First thing we did — we enacted historic reforms to the student loan system.

What was happening was student loans were going through banks; banks were making billions of dollars. We said why don’t we just give the loans directly to the students, cut out the banks, then we can help more students.”

This is how they think: To save billions of dollars give the money directly to doctors, cut out the insurance companies, so you can help more patients. Profit is so vulgar.

And how much will doctors be paid? Medicare pays 80 percent of what private insurance pays and Medicaid pays doctors only about 58 percent.

Some doctors are refusing to take on new Medicaid patients. In Nevada that’s 25 percent of doctors. Some Democrats are already contemplating a law that would mandate doctors treat Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Do you have any doubts that politicians are capable of forcing doctors to take patients at reimbursement rates below what it costs for treatment?

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial put it thusly:

“If doctors can be forced to participate in a government payment system they don’t want to be in, then doctors are owned by government. Their education, labor and intellects will have been seized by the state. They are no longer free agents — they are serfs, the bondsmen of legislators who will sweat them like galley slaves.”

A commenter on the Elko website stated: “Clearly all we need do is take from each according to their abilities and give to each according to their needs. Any other alternative is just so hateful. You can just ask the 100 million that system murdered in the 20th century. They’d tell you if … well that is a problem isn’t it?”

Read the entire column at the Ely or Elko site.

33 comments on “Newspaper column: ObamaCare is path to single payer

  1. joe castellana ret says:


  2. Nyp says:

    It’s all a big, big plot.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    Considering some insurance companies helped write the legislation, you’d think by now they’d be getting a bit suspicious about the whole thing and wondering if they’re going to be cut out of the system. Maybe there will some type of golden parachutes involved.

    Petey, would you prefer a big plot or total incompetence?

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Incompetence is Expected

  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    Thank Harry Reid, he baited Nevadans for most of three decades with the native son act that he was serving us in Washington, given power over legislation he now serves Washington interests to the exclusion of Nevada citizens, that’s except for a favored few. Who saw Harry Reid coming out as the leading socialist, for years he was as anonymous in Washington as the current junior senator from Nevada, Dean Heller, and the House representatives, Heck, Horsford, and Titus.

  5. Rincon says:

    Since you aren’t concerned about how much minimum wage workers are paid, why are you so worried about how much doctors are paid? Under single payer, the law of supply and demand can decide how much doctors should be paid. If paid too little, they will begin migrating out of health care and new students won’t apply to medical schools.

    While I’m not adamant about socialized medicine, I have to again point out that all of the other advanced countries of the world have socialized medicine, all beat the tar of us in regard to cost, and almost all of their citizens live longer than us as do their newborn babies. They must be doing something right, or we’ve been doing something terribly wrong. Capitalism in health care may work in theory, but it has yet to show its worth in reality.

  6. Maybe we can do like the Brits and consider farming out heart surgeries to India.

  7. Steve says:

    My wife’s doctor is considering retiring and her Neurologist is selling his practice. Both are clear it’s mainly due to Obamacare.
    Even if you have employer insurance, Obamacare is taking away your doctors.

  8. MIlty says:

    “Since you aren’t concerned about how much minimum wage workers are paid, why are you so worried about how much doctors are paid?”

    When did the government issue an edict saying that McDonald’s workers couldn’t be paid more than $8.50/hour?

  9. Nyp says:

    What’s wrong with going to India for heart surgery?

  10. Steve says:

    Nothing, if its the patients choice.

    Under the conditions described in the article Nyp didn’t read, the patient is offered hobson and only hobson.

    Sherm did Nyps research today…”MSNBC’s talking heads Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell along with WashPo blogger Ezra Klein, Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn, Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall, ThinkProgress editor Judd Legum, Atlantic editor Garance Franke-Ruta, Solon political writer Brian Beutler and Fox News contributor Juan Williams.”

    Theres the list. Any place else will only rot your brain, infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the allies from winning in Afghanistan!

  11. Nyp says:

    Yes – wonkblog is an excellent site
    But you left out the Financial Times. If you don’t read Financial Times regularly you really don’t know what things are all about.

  12. Steve says:

    Another Hobson.

  13. Rincon says:

    The point, Milty, isn’t who’s holding the gun; the point is that the gun is aimed at you. The effect of big business is the same as big government, only more circuitous, under government rules often written and paid for by big business. What good is capitalism if 400 people own more than half of the rest of us? That equals 158 million people? It works great if you’re one of the 400; not so well if you’re in the 158 million.

    Pure socialism doesn’t work. News flash: Pure capitalism doesn’t work either.

  14. Milty says:

    “Pure capitalism doesn’t work either.”

    How do you define PURE capitalism, and can you cite an example of when we’ve had PURE capitalism?

  15. Milty says:

    Looks like the taxpayers took a $10B loss on its investment in GM. Hopefully the government will fare better when it takes over the nation’s health care system.

  16. Rincon says:

    The gilded age was close to pure capitalism. There were few impediments to buying selling and trading. Closer yet were the Middle Ages. There were no regulations at all. The kings and knights and all of that were capitalists paid to protect the public from other capitalists and their armies.

  17. Rincon says:

    Don’t forget that the Bush Administration provided the first $13 billion. This is just like the bank bailout. Corporations that are big enough are protected by government. Kind of like socialism, only for the rich.

  18. Milty says:

    So what if the Bush Administration provided the first $13B? They were wrong to have initiated this, and the Obama Administration was wrong to continue it.

    The point is that you think these clowns will be more adept at running a nationalized health care system.

  19. Milty says:

    On the plus side for the President, the ladies at the Bunny Ranch Brothel are praising the benefits of Obamacare.

  20. Nyp says:

    Wow. You guys still think the rescue of the American auto industry was a bad idea.
    Just wow.

  21. Steve says:

    RAWNG! Nyp. The American Auto Industry would have emerged all on its own just fine. It’s the fat and fiefdom where we have a problem.

  22. No, they rescued the UAW and scalped the bond holders.


  23. Nyp says:

    Just wow.
    Hope you guys campaign on that.

  24. Steve says:

    Hope you guys campaign on it too. Specially selling 1/3 of it off to the Italians.

  25. Thomas Mitchell says:

    It was a $10 billion gift.

  26. nyp says:

    A $10 billion net cost to save the US auto industry and to keep the communities that depend on that industry from being decimated is the best economic investment I have ever heard of.

    I am looking forward to having Republicans continue this debate in Ohio and Michigan in 2014 and 2016.

  27. Steve says:

    Detroit? Saved? From what? Bankruptcy and loss of population?
    That feather keeps knocking me over.

  28. Rincon says:

    I suspect someone living in the Detroit area would be grateful, but it’s questionable to prop up a car company without either firing a bunch of executives or at least subjecting them to pay cuts. Same with the banks. Was there anything significant along those lines?

    The really irritating thing to me was that instead of giving the banks money, it seems much more reasonable to offer low cost loans to the homeowners, which would have saved both banks and homeowners and stabilized the real estate market. With each loan would have come a lien on the house, insuring repayment if feasible. Some homes selected by lottery would have to have been foreclosed each month to slowly eliminate the surplus of homes. Not perfect, but a lot better than throwing money at the banks and letting the homeowners drown.

  29. Steve says:

    What about renters? You know, those people paying at least the amount of the mortgage payment to the landlord? The same landlord that stopped paying the mortgage which caused those banks to evict the rent paying occupants?

    Had the banks simply accepted the rent money and hired a management company to handle the landlord duties those houses would have been sold later instead of standing empty and decaying over the years. And in a good number of cases simply being occupied by paying renter would have kept up the value. Selling an occupied rental is lots easier than selling an empty, decaying building.

  30. Rincon says:

    I hadn’t thought about renters, but I certainly agree. Nothing is more expensive for a property owner than having it unoccupied. This is the inefficiency of giant banks. Cheaper to let the occupants founder and just lobby the government to pay the banks directly. One more example showing who really runs our government.

  31. Steve says:

    Consider what would have happened if all those renters had been able to stay in the homes under the same agreements they had with the old landlord. They would have stayed at the jobs they had and they would have spent money they normally spent and the crisis would very likely not have been near as bad as it was. The banks made it worse. (period)

  32. Rincon says:

    I suppose we could call it creative destruction if the banks were hit as well, but by the merest coincidence, our government decided the banks were worth rescuing while the homeowners and renters weren’t.

  33. […] A vote against ending ObamaCare is a vote for keeping it until it collapses and is replaced by single payer. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s