« | »

AP: Obama-Care About Wealth Transfer After All

From a suddenly admitting the obvious Associated Press:

Big impact on income gap is health law’s new angle


WASHINGTON (AP) — Maybe the health care law was about wealth transfer, after all.

New research shows that the Affordable Care Act will significantly boost the economic fortunes of those in the bottom one-fifth of the income ladder while slightly reducing average incomes on the rungs above.

How many years have we been saying this? And being mocked for saying it? But now that the AP thinks Obama-Care is safe from repeal and they think they have gotten the country worked up about ending income inequality — they finally admit it. Yes, Obama-Care is about wealth transfer, after all. And we are supposed to be glad about it.

Of course, that is all Obama-Care has ever been about. It has nothing to do with improving our healthcare or even making it more affordable. In fact, wealth transfer is the real motive is behind every single one of Obama’s policies; from ‘education’ to ‘infrastructure’ to any ‘carbon tax.’ Everything Obama does or wants to do involves income redistribution.

Economists at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, a Washington public policy center, found an average increase of about 6 percent in the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of the United States, meaning those making below approximately $20,600 a year.

So we are supposed to believe ‘the poor’ have had their incomes boosted by 6% thanks to Obama-Care, when hardly anyone has signed up for Obama-Care or Medicaid? When 90% of those few who have signed up already had Obama-Care or Medicaid?

We are supposed to believe ‘the poor’ have had their incomes boosted by 6% thanks to Obama-Care, when spending $20 trillion in the ‘War On Poverty’ has barely affected the poverty rate in the US? (It was 17% in 1965. It is 15% now.)

The study used a broad definition of income that counts the value of health insurance, which is not normally measured by Census Bureau income statistics.

In other words, the radical leftists at Brookings just made this number up and trotted it out when everyone was talking about income inequality as another way to try to promote Obama-Care.

Changing the distribution of incomes was not a stated objective of the health care law, co-authors Henry Aaron and Gary Burtless wrote. "Nonetheless, the ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law."

"This is certainly a very big deal for the income distribution of the United States," Burtless said. "If you are raising the incomes of the people in the bottom fifth by 6 percent, then we are talking about a big change." …

The findings come at a time when Obama has pledged to work on narrowing income gaps in his second term. The issue is a key political goal as Democrats fight to retain the Senate in this fall’s elections…

What an amazing coincidence! What an amazing coincidence! Did the DNC fund this ‘study’? (Oh, that’s right. It’s from Brookings. So the answer is, yes.)

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 30th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “AP: Obama-Care About Wealth Transfer After All”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Again, the Keynesian theory that wealth is a fixed supply. That the have-nots must be “taken care of” while the hypocrites in the government elite ride in their limos and eat arugula.

    Sadly, we have become too civilized a nation for me to state what I feel the real solution should be.

    Our betters have decided that the middle class, that bastion of racist/sexist/homophobia must be DESTROYED. It has done irreparable harm to the fairness of it all and made people live unfair lives. By having a house, I have thus prevented someone else from having one. By getting an education (on my dime, BTW), I have thus deprived some needy black kid from having one and therefore, caused him to join a gang, stick needles in his arm and steal.


    The blueprint for utopia is in North Korea, Cuba, the old USSR (soon to be the NEW USSR), all of North Africa where nobody has anything.

    The premise that the United States was founded on selfishness is correct. But the socialists and the conservatives then part ways as to how that worked out and why. Yet at the same time, the socialists at the very tippy-top (Soros) with so much money and the power that comes with it, still want to punish me, who makes less than 100k a year, lives alone and has a good job. If that’s not some kind of glaring insecurity personality disorder, the likes of which permeates ALL socialists, then I don’t know what is.

    Dain Bramage.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Fine time to mention it, AP

« Front Page | To Top
« | »