In the continuing redistribution of wealth, which President Obama approved of in the campaign, Congress has redistributed the responsibility for health benefit costs from some individuals to some corporations. The following excerpts are from a Wall Street Journal article by M.P. McQueen, February 19, 2009.
Congress has just given a big assist to millions of jobless Americans facing a tough decision: Do they reach into their wallet to continue health insurance coverage with their old employer or not? As part of the economic-stimulus package signed into law this week, the federal government will provide a nine-month subsidy covering 65% of the Cobra premium for people who qualify. Employers may not be happy with the expansion of the Cobra program, as some fear it will raise administrative and other costs. "The new law will impose very large costs on employers," says John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, an independent think tank in Dallas. "It will make it more expensive for employers to provide health insurance. And, for those who do, it will make it more expensive to hire new workers."
The first question that comes to my mind is, why would any employer choose to provide medical insurance plans if the government continues to move along this path? If an employee is involuntarily terminated, there was a reason for doing so which results in the lowering of overhead unless a replacement is hired at an equal or higher rate. What if the employee was released for reasons that were adverse to the company? Should the employer be saddled with the 65% costs? I would think employers, especially the small businesses, may begin to consider eliminating the health benefits package and offer a cash subsidy for employees to purchase their own coverage.
The anti-business atmosphere will steadily add to the cost side of the ledger. If this doesn't drive business from the market, it will definitely add to the price of goods and services to the consumers. I don't know if the legislators really consider the unintended consequences for the actions they take. They either don't know or don't care. This is another case of hurting many to help a few. Every regulation or law they enact that adds costs to a company's bottom line, increases the price consumers pay at the register. This is only avoided when the government take the dramatic step of price controls. When price controls begin, the profit margin for companies shrink as their costs are increased. There comes a tipping point where it is no longer worth keeping open the doors of the establishment.
This is only the beginning. If you are unconcerned because it doesn't affect you, be aware that your turn will come. When the health care system is completely controlled by the federal government, the companies will be required to pay into the system if they are not providing coverage on their own. Again, these cost increases will be passed onto the consumers. We are all affected by these kind of actions. Even the folks on welfare will have less to spend when the prices are raised. Don't get too excited about the $13 per week in less withholding tax. When prices go up that money will be eaten up quickly.
Whether it be the so called Fairness Doctrine or Localism, when the government employs censorship, it is setting itself up to control information. Does the TASS News Agency ring a bell? Or how about Al Jazeera? President Obama has said that he opposes reenacting the Fairness Doctrine, but in this age of double speak, he does not outright tell his party or fellow leftists to leave the issue alone. If Congress leaves it alone, there is still the FCC which can implement the policy. If not them, local boards could be established to review broadcast content to make sure locals are heard rather than nationally syndicated shows. In any case, the government controlling the political opinion being broadcast is one step in contolling the population. Many of President Obama's FCC appointees are in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as is the Congressional leadership.But why would the Government want to control what the people hear? The reason the recent rash of spending bills have been pushed through quickly, always a crisis that needs immediate attention, is that the longer the wait for the vote, the more the people learn, the more they get upset, the more they speak up, the more they contact their legislators. As each day passes, the public opinion drops and the vote is made more difficult. As the ruling party tries to push through its agenda, they do not want to be questioned or defied.Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is:6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.Remain alert to what happens over the coming year in this matter. Will the same people that complained about President Bush and his policies and civil rights voice their objections to those of President Obama? If they do, will the media do any reporting on it?Consider NBC who is widely reported to be in the tank for President Obama, especially MSNBC during the campaign and election. NBC is owned by GE, whose CEO is Jeffrey R. Immelt since September 7, 2001. According to his bio at GE.com, Mr. Immelt is on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. He was also named a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Get the picture? And what of the $140 billion dollar bailout loan from the government? Who owns whom?
There are more examples to be had, but let's consider a famous quote from the 1940's.First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.Pastor Martin Niemöller