Stealth Redistribution In the United States, Starting With Obamacare

0
Share

The lie that people could keep their healthcare if they liked it is much worse than anyone thought. It’s not simply a lie, it’s fraud. When Mr. Obama said, ‘If you like your healthcare, you can keep it,’ it was to cover up the redistribution that is inherent in Obamacare.

The White House has been selling redistribution by stealth, including misleading the public about Obamacare, which requires a massive redistribution of wealth. It is now obvious that Obamacare is redistribution and the New York Times agrees.

sign

The New York Times published an article titled, ‘NYT: The administration doesn’t want you to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but just to be clear… it is.’ According to the article, the White House made it clear the word ‘redistribution’ was not to be used, especially in relation to Obamacare so they could sell it as something other than what it was.

Mr. Obama doesn’t want the word ‘redistribution’ used according to the New York Times, because it is ‘toxic.’

It’s also Marxism.

David Axelrod now wants to make redistribution into an acceptable concept. Selling Obamacare to the public, Axelrod was quoted in the article as saying, ‘The reality is any big change, is hard to accomplish. In America, we’ve created a sense that everyone can expect to win – nobody has to sacrifice.’

Axelrod also argued that widening income inequality has for some Americans, changed the meaning of the word. “The whole redistribution argument has shifted in the country because there’s a sense that a lot of redistribution has been to the top and not the bottom.’

Axelrod is pawning redistribution off to Americans as a little ‘shift’ because the ‘top’ has too much.

How is that for semantics?

From the article:

‘Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,’ said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.’

The word ‘redistribution’ is ‘toxic’ to the White House and it has been ‘hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act’ more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking socialized medicine. But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.’

The designers of the law stated that the White House knew Obamacare was redistribution but the White House knew how ‘explosive the word was’ so they proceeded to lie or, should I say, semantically alter the truth about the law.

It is now obvious that it is redistribution. The young have to pay for the elderly, men have to pay for the women, the healthy have to pay for the sick, tobacco users have to pay for everyone, drug users pay nothing extra for their health insurance, and so on. The government decides what is fair and who gets everyone else’s money in this type of redistribution scheme.

Like all redistribution, it ends in more people being poor and the rich getting much richer. It has already begun. People who paid for healthcare are, in many cases, being thrown off their insurance and being forced onto Medicaid – Obamacaid. People with full-time jobs are being forced onto part-time jobs. They won’t be able to pay for their healthcare at some point and will also end up on Obamacaid.

I heard one pundit today claim it isn’t really Marxist redistribution because it doesn’t necessarily redistribute to the poor from the wealthy. Obviously that is meant to obfuscate reality.

A candidate for the Council of Economic Advisers was turned down because she is a fierce economic justice advocate, according to the article. It wasn’t her ideas that were a problem, it was the fact that people know economic justice is the redistribution of economic resources.

According to the NY Times, when Obama rolled back the Bush tax cuts for higher earners, it was not allowed to be called economic redistribution, though it was, instead it was sold as restoration of Clinton’s top-end rates.

Mr. Obama is selling his redistribution schemes as ‘not about taking from rich people to give to poor people.’ It’s about ‘making investments in our country so everybody’s got a fair shot.’

Investments! Fair shot! It’s absurd at the heart of it but the semantics make for good soundbites.

Mr. Obama is also pushing social engineering off on us. Social engineering requires redistribution. That is what mapping is about. Obama is mapping all neighborhoods in the United States and has made known his plan to reallocate the assets and resources equitably among them. He particularly sees the need to put minorities in wealthier neighborhoods or bring the wealth from other neighborhoods to them.

He wants college to be free. The only way that is possible is if the money is redistributed.

His ideas for housing also involve redistribution. Plans such as taking over properties via Eminent Domain and giving them to the less fortunate is a redistribution of wealth.

His budgets have included plans for taking over retirement funds and letting the government handle the funds. That would be trillions of dollars the government could use to sort and dole out.

Treaties Mr. Obama supports, such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, involve redistributing money and resources from the United States to poorer countries.

Almost everything Obama does involves redistribution. Redistribution is at the heart of Marxism.

In Das Kapital, Marx said the world revolves on a capitalist economy where people with money hire people without money to make things and provide services. He believed that capitalism was self-defeating and needed to be replaced with a system where work is performed for the common good, i.e. communism.

Marx was a collectivist who suppressed individuality.

Socialism wasn’t good enough because it did not deal with economic issues. He proposed a new communist economic system that demanded the redistribution of wealth because he saw that as more equitable.

People don’t want to work hard and give the fruits of their labors to people who don’t work hard. For that reason, it cannot work.

Someone needs to convince Mr. Obama and his minions of that.

And they want to take our guns too. I don’t think so!

Share