Tuesday, 11 June 2013


Ed Miliband ought to learn from Mitt Romney when it comes to elections.

Labour are holding out for the economy to suck that much, that they can pin the blame on David Cameron and the Tory party. 
The goal of opposition is to be the magnifying glass for the people. They are meant to highlight areas and portray to the public the 'wrongs' of current policy.

What Miliband and Ed Balls are doing wrong is that they haven’t been able to portray an alternative vision. Many people insist that an opposition isn't there to get involved with the specifics but merely to call-out. I say that if that tactic was working, Cameron would be in severe trouble and having to reshuffle every few months. 
Labour are NOT gaining in seats (Bradford-West & Eastleigh). 
They aren't rallying the troops to get behind their agenda. 
They are bereft of ideas and true leadership.

On Welfare – THE area for any Labour party to stockpile votes in any election, they don’t know what they want and it is killing them. Since Ed gazumped his brother to the leadership, he has constantly attacked the Tory-led coalition after they instituted a limit of benefits rises to 1 per cent. Now  - the story is that Ed has changed his mind.
“Social security spending, vital as it is, cannot be exempt from that discipline. Labour, if elected, would introduce a cap on ‘structural spending’ – such as housing benefit and disability allowances which are not affected by sharp upturns in unemployment – for three years.
So he was against any limits but now he is for them!!

In America, Mitt Romney essentially ran against Barack Obama and not for his own agenda to fix major flaws in the country.

At some point, you have to offer your own meaningful vision. With U-turns of serious proportions from Labour on welfare and a complete lack of clarity on issues, it is clear that unless things change boldly, the idea of Prime Minister, Ed Miliband is far from likely, nigh-on impossible. 

Sunday, 9 June 2013

Why is ObamaCare (still) so unpopular?

According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey it finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters now hold at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 54% view it unfavorably. Passion remains on the side of the opponents, with 15% who view the law Very Favorably compared to 40% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of it.

The answer is pretty simple but it is an important question. When you have approx. 30 million uninsured American’s and rising healthcare costs most recently in the last years; one would think the idea of tackling it would be paramount.

Most know the political angle and how it was rammed through a Democrat super-majority in Congress, but the essential question is whether it’s a good law or not? When I say good law, I mean will it:

a) Increase the insured, b) lower premiums and c) improve the quality of care.

a)    What ObamaCare certainly does is increase the insured. By aggressively expanding Medicaid eligibility at a subsidized rate it will bring millions into the system and giving them an opportunity for coverage.  

b)    It simply cannot lower premiums. The way ObamaCare was designed was to refuse insurance companies from rejecting people due to a pre-existing injury. ObamaCare also requires additional benefits to be offered regardless of the applicant(s). This range from: No Pre-existing conditions rejections, to, no caps on annual benefits.  When you have such a list of benefits that need to be added to a policy, the premiums will naturally skyrocket.

c)    The idea of improving quality of care comes when you have the ability to heal the sick. The people that do that are doctors and they are scathing about ObamaCare. A survey was done in 2010 by the Physicians Foundation in which 4 out of 10 were dissatisfied with the law and indicated that they would leave the profession, rather than treat the expanded Medicaid roll. There is already a doctor’s shortage and the idea of ObamaCare fully implemented will make things worse as the ratio of doctors to patients will grow rapidly and worsen the quality of care.

ObamaCare is amazing for the slightly ‘better than poor’ of America. It increases the eligibility for subsidised coverage, which they will definitely take at no cost to them.  
The saying goes: there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The taxpaying folks of America will pay for ObamaCare in higher taxes, premiums and fines. Additionally, companies will most likely drop insurance cover from their salary options and employees will have to buy into Health Insurance Exchange Programs.
This is like the government offering you restricted options of what insurance you need to have. If you do not insure yourself then you can receive a maximum fine of $2,085!  

With 300 million Americans and only 30 million uninsured whether it because they cannot afford it, or are ‘too healthy’ to care about paying a premium, the concept of ObamaCare maybe noble but it doesn't solve the problem.

My father has a great saying: why carpet the whole world, when you can just wear slippers! There was no need for the ObamaCare. The healthcare system in America didn't need a $1trillion+ bill. It needed mild reforms and smart adjustments to lower premiums and increased coverage.
One idea is that you can purchase insurance from wherever you like. Currently insurers are allowed to sell policies only in states where they are licensed to do business. This essentially means that you can’t purchase Health Care across state lines. So for example if live in the state of New York but the state of Colorado has better insurance provider and can offer me cost saving, then I cannot purchase! I am stuck in my state regardless of affordability, accessibility and cost. 
Surely lifting such a moratorium will reduce premiums as the idea of a free-market increases competition and lowers cost for all.

Moreover shouldn't we make it more difficult for doctors to be sued? To fend off any complaints of malpractice, a doctor will carry out more tests than necessary. That only raises costs and doesn't achieve much. According to a recent study 2.4% all spending on Healthcare spending is done to avoid being accused of medical dereliction. That money must be spent elsewhere and it is a fallacy that ObamaCare negated the need to reform that vital aspect.

In 2007, candidate Obama was championing for lower uninsured, controlled premium increases and higher quality of healthcare. If that sounds too good to be true, you’re correct; it is. 
By adding millions onto a system with a pork-load of benefits commonsense dictates that it can only increase premiums. It’s a shame Obama doesn't have any.