Wal-Mart has become the chief target of many Americans on the political left. In fact, the ninety-nine percenters, aka, the occupied Wall Street movement, often criticize Wal-Mart, saying that Wal-Mart is responsible for killing off competition, hence, making your local small businesses extinct.
Why, then, doesn’t the liberal-left oppose Obamacare? Like Wal-Mart, this massive government entitlement will destroy competition. Because of Obamacare, many hospital systems are merging to reduce costs, making the patients smaller. In addition, hospitals are buying up private family practices, and this has made it more difficult to find and maintain an intimate relationship with a primary care physician.
Here are the similarities that Wal-Mart and Obamacare share—their gargantuan size and causing extinction amongst competition.
According to U.S. News, in September 2013, the Cleveland Clinic was expected to cut $300,000,000 from its budget and is expected to lay off employees. The Summa Health System in Ohio has laid-off 232 employees and cut 118 jobs. Also in Ohio, the MetroHealth Center has laid-off 450 employees. These are just a few examples in one state. The “demon” of capitalism, Wal-Mart, has added 100,000 jobs since the passage of Obamacare.
The rationale for Healthcare Reform was because 15% of Americans could not afford healthcare, along with millions of others having sub-standard plans. Obamacare corrects this problem by mandating a “Cadillac Healthcare Plan” for all Americans, eliminating the sub-standard plans and granting subsidies to Americans so they can also afford the Cadillac plan.
Can the Obamacare model then be used to solve other necessities? For example: clothing.
Healthcare is a product Americans buy, and Americans buy products in department stores, so let’s keep comparing healthcare to department stores. As it stands, 15% of Americans do not have or cannot afford a healthcare product. Let’s say 15% of Americans equally cannot afford to shop at Bloomingdales. It’s safe to say that American’s need healthcare as much as they need clothing, so using Obamacare as an example: Congress passes the Clothing Care Act mandating that Wal-Mart sells the same products as Bloomingdales, i.e., Versace; Gucci (Cadillac Healthcare Plan), thus increasing government revenues through sales taxes. Despite Wal-Mart being the department store people chose in which to shop in order to buy affordable necessities, they now must, under the reasoning of Obamacare, be forced to buy an Armani shirt at Wal-Mart so their neighbor, who could not afford one, now can with a subsidy under the new Clothing Care Act. The consequence of the Clothing Care Act is less people will shop at Wal-Mart. The loss of sales results in Wal-Mart closing several of its locations, thus, more people will be out of work.
Is Obamacare really intended to provide healthcare-for-all, or is it just another liberal attempt at wealth redistribution?