According to an analysis just published by the Wall Street Journal, healthy people will pay double or triple their current health insurance rates under Obamacare. Rates for those with chronic disease, however, will be reduced as all the healthy people subsidize their disease lifestyles.
The net effect is that people who choose to follow a healthy lifestyle — eating well, taking nutritional supplements, exercising and avoiding junk foods — will be financially punished by the federal government while those who choose to follow a disease and sickness lifestyle — eating junk foods, taking meds, refusing to exercise, etc. — will be rewarded by government.
This is the essence of socialized medicine: punish responsible citizens while rewarding those who refuse to take care of their health.
Disease is a matter of cause and effect, not luck
Obamacare, like all socialized medicine systems, is based on the false premise that health outcomes are a matter of pure luck. Disease just “randomly strikes people,” the thinking goes, and individuals have nothing to do with their own health. This false belief fits nicely with the financial interests of Big Pharma and doctors, of course, because it puts the power of health in the hands of corporations and medical personnel.
But the premise is utterly false. Health is almost never a matter of luck. It’s a matter of cause and effect. What you eat, what you’re exposed to, what you absorb and how much time you invest in exercise almost entirely determines the health outcome you experience. Choose to eat healthy foods and you get vastly improve health outcomes. Choose to exercise on a daily basis (even with something as simple as walking), and you also get vastly improved health outcomes.
The Obama administration claims to be “pro choice” on the issue of abortion, yet it denies the existence of “choice” when it comes to personal health. Why is that?
Obamacare is actually designed to punish you for making wise choices about your health. It actually creates a financial disincentive for people to take care of their own health, as it allows people to conclude, “Well what does it matter whether I eat well? The government covers my health insurance costs now, so even if I get a disease, it’s all paid for.”
Seriously, many people actually think that way, and Obamacare encourages more and more people to abandon healthy eating as a form of disease prevention which used to be tied to economic savings. Now, instead, it costs you more to be healthy. So the economics are upside down.
The upside-down economics of Obamacare
This is the new America: a nation where you are rewarded for being sick, or addicted to junk foods, or sitting at home watching television while sipping liquid ice cream all day long. Meanwhile, the burden of actually paying for all this falls on the shoulders of the ever-shrinking few who actually make informed decisions about their own personal health and therefore tend to be far healthier than the norm.
When governments intervene to such extremes, twisting the laws of economics to the point where up is down and down is up, it only leads to enormous confusion and poor decision making on the part of consumers. A sensible health care system should reward people for making smarter investments in their own health. Those who take responsibility for their health and choose to eat well, exercise regularly and avoid toxic chemical exposure should pay LESS for health care, not more.
In a sensible system, there would be a strong economic disincentive for living a lifestyle of eating junk foods and sitting on the couch all day. But apparently, even recommending that people are responsible for their own health is a violation of political correctness which says that “you can’t blame people for their own actions.” Criticizing people for making poor decisions about their own health is strongly condemned in today’s upside-down culture. Today, we are all encouraged to REWARD poor decision making at every level: personal health, personal finance, government regulation and even bankster bailouts, where the government rewards people who lose trillions of dollars by giving them trillions more!
Get cancer, win $100,000!
So don’t be surprised if Obamacare actually announces a disease reward system where Americans get cash prizes for being diagnosed with cancer. “Get cancer, win $100,000!” will be the new motto, because the average cancer patient is worth over $1 million in revenues to the medical system.
“Get diabetes, win $50,000!”
“Get Alzheimer’s, win $200,000!”
And sure enough, where there is a reward, people will find a way to achieve it, even if it means killing themselves with junk food and chemicals.
So all of you who choose to take care of your health and make wise decisions about your diet, exercise and personal care products are about to be economically punished by Obama. You will have to pay double or triple your current rates, and the worst part is that your money will be used to economically reward those who choose to live a life of junk foods, TV watching and toxic personal care products (shampoo, soap, detergents, deodorants, cosmetics, etc.).
This is essentially the U.S. government forcing taxpayers to subsidize disease-promoting lifestyles. And because more and more Americans are getting sick from all the “death culture” foods and products in the marketplace, an increasing financial burden will be place on those who take care of their health. So we become a society of people supported by the healthy who are dragged down by junk food eaters and med-heads who refuse to take responsibility for their own health.
This is not a formula for making America healthier. Rather, it is a recipe for a sickness disaster. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the “individual mandate,” now you can’t even opt out of the system. You are forced – at gunpoint thanks to an army of new IRS agents who are being trained with AR-15s – to pay into this system that rewards sedentary junk food lifestyles.
Is it any wonder America’s health keeps deteriorating while the profits of drug companies and cancer centers keep multiplying?