hypercrites

I was just watching a replay of the House "repeal" of Obamacare up until moonbat parrot Virginia Foxx waxed loquacious off topic in a talking points rant.

A couple of excellent points were made by Democrats about the pre-existing conditions issues and so on--and good points they are--but a Republican also made a very good point that Obamacare was basically a subsidy for the insurance business. No one in their right mind can argue against the veracity of that point.

....but....

here we have a role reversal between Dem and Rep, where the Rep is in favor of something that is against business interest and the Dem is in favor of favoring a business interest. Wut?  :talk: :dunno: :popcorn:

None of the cons I've ever seen across the interwebs mention the fact that when Obamacare passed, the Dow soared, and the Occupy Wall Street types that are inclined to vote Dem seemed to have overlooked how good Obama looked to Wall Street.

I know that the ultra-con response to the point about government subsidy of an industry would be "it's not a free market!" but just like the liberals who, over a decade later decide that the points Ralph Nader made about Washington being occupied by hostile corporatists of both parties was correct, the ultra-cons who decided that Dubya wasn't a good idea for one term let alone two terms only just now, are having their epiphanies entirely too late to deal with the entrenched. They DID see to the installation of Dubya as Prez for one term and thought he was a better idea than Kerry and so thought Dubya was actually a good idea for not four but eight years...and now they hope and pray every night that everybody forgets that.

Tea Party, the free market was dead as of Armistice Day at the close of World War I--good morning, Rip Van Winkle.
Green Party, the corporatists have owned Washington since the heyday of the railroads--good morning, Rip Van Winkle.

So, NOW you want to do something about this?  :bull:

That BS about corporations = person dates back to Reconstruction, for crissakes. But so does the 14th Amendment and some smart folks have been talking about liberating the persons of corporation nature from their bonds of slavery. If a corporation is a person, then no other person or group of people should own it. And if the Tea Party is all about LIBERTY, they should be the first on the front lines fighting to free corporations from slavery.

I ain't holding my breath on that one.

I don't know if I would call it a subsidy or not.  Remember that the ACA dictates that an insurance company must spend 80-85% of it's profits on healthcare.  Up from about 60% that was set at most state levels.  That leaves 15% for admin costs, operating costs, etc.  So the FEDERAL government is NOW dictating how much an industry can make. 


The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent. According to a recent Kaiser tracking poll, 60 percent of the public views the MLR concept favorably, although only 38 percent was aware that the provision is in the ACA. Insurance brokers may be getting squeezed for insurers to meet this amount.
http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/