OBUMMER CARE #16
If you owned a product or service that everyone needed whether they wanted it or not, you could easily dictate all the conditions under which that product or service would be offered to the public. If your ownership of this necessary product/service occurred in a culture and business environment where the maximization of private profit was the driving force, there would be practically no limit to how much you would provide this product for and under what terms. We would hope that there would be massive consumer protest if your monopoly position was abused to what your customers considered intolerable levels. If these intolerable conditions were reached only some kind of intervention on the part of a cumulatively larger force than the monopolizing owner’s could restore some kind of reasonableness to the market. This is precisely the situation in the American economy and it is not for any frivolous reason that our economic system is called monopoly, corporate capitalism. People can protest this label as much as they want but no amount of protestation can change historic reality. If we set the not so arbitrary date of 1790 as the date from which the United States began to function as a State and economic system very similar to the one we have today we can see that this drive for monopoly, cartelizing of economic power and collusive activity got under way very early in the in the history of our Republic. Barely 100 years into the game the Sherman (Anti-Trust) Act had to be passed to essentially maintain social order and to prevent further egregious monopoly behavior on the part of large business concerns. Since the passage of that act the history of American business has largely been and attempt to control the monopoly behavior of large business concerns on the part of whatever countervailing forces were available in any period of time. In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to regulate abuses that large business concerns engaged when finding areas for rapacious economic behavior that were not “covered” by the Sherman Act. 22 years later the Robinson-Patman Act was passed because business buccaneers still found ways around legislation. A thesis maintained by some social scientists is the thesis which states that the natural development of large business enterprises in a private property, private profit maximization economic system is the one that naturally leads to cartelization and collusive activity. More recently some political scientists who promote the idea of “democracy inversion” state this move to cartelization by necessity leads to Fascism, which is the ultimate collusion of State and large business concerns for mutual sustenance and benefit. The mechanics of just how this system develops would be a rich area for some enterprising social/political scientist to investigate. The whole system could be summarized by the description that the big get bigger, the smaller get eaten, and in our economic system the big need to continue getting bigger. Fascism cannot be contained within national boundaries. National boundaries are too limiting for forces which need to get bigger and control more and more. Obviously this is not something we can look into in this piece. However, let’s look and see whether there is some evidence to support the statements made above. Clearly, what we don’t have to look into is whether this is the economic milieu in which Obummer Care has to function. Where else could it function?
Prior to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late eighties it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that there were thousands of banks of various sizes operating in practically every community is America. Since that crisis, smaller banks could not compete with larger entities and their assets we absorbed by bigger banks. This process continued without abatement well up to the financial meltdown of 2008. Since 2009 over 1400 banks which by now were no longer “smaller banks” were swallowed up until today where there are only six “to large to fail” banks left which control over 90% of all United States banking activity and control 67% of all financial assets.
When Obummer Care was being drafted by whomever it was drafted by do you think hundreds of insurance companies each had their say on what provisions would be put into the legislation. How would this be even be practically doable? Will we ever find out just how many and which insurance companies had input into this bill. Given the nature of American monopoly capitalism, would the viability of smaller insurance companies have been of even minimum concern? On the so called Obummer insurance exchange it turns out that in over 500 of the economically weakest counties in 15 States only ONE insurance company is offering policies that “meet up” with required Obummer Care guidelines. The notion that the American consumer can go into a competitive free market place and choose the plan that best meets their needs is a ludicrous howl that only the most bamboozled and uninformed consumer could possibly believe. Especially when this line is reeled out by an Administration that has been nothing but disastrous for small to medium size businesses. Unfortunately, this kind of uninformed consumer accounts for the great majority of American consumers whether they be Obama idiots or not.
This move towards the concentration of power and wealth extends to all sectors of the American economy. There are no exceptions. In 1995 there were close to a hundred companies that produced prepared foods that were considered health foods. These were all by and large brands that were held in good esteem by many Obummer supporting idiots. In 2005 only 15 of these companies remained. The rest were absorbed by mega corporations like Nestlè, Coca Cola, Pepsi, and ConAgra, all ironically companies that are strong opponents of GMO labeling. How many Obummer idiots are aware of this. Once a monopoly cartel situation is established, the consumer is the ultimate big time loser. This fate will be the inevitable fate of Obummer Care recipients which will soon be everyone in the United States.Read More