One of the arguments I continue to hear over and over again is that "Obama is for the middle class, Romney works for the rich". NEWSFLASH: We all work for the rich! This subject is getting increasingly harder to explain due to the inflammatory class warfare from the left. People just don't understand supply and demand vs cost and profitability economics or just complete disregard common sense.
Lets try to shed some light on these fundamental truths.
We've all learned through basic economics that demand of a good or a service drives up those good's or service's cost. Tickle Me Elmo, Iphones, Ipads, Itouch, Air Jordan sneakers and even on the high end items such as Ferrari, Lamborghini and Rolls Royce. The one thing that all these items enjoyed was a HUGE demand. That demand drove up cost. Goods that could normally be sold at a reasonable price suddenly were unreasonable. BUT...people still went out in droves to buy them. Even took extreme measures to procure some of these things. Up to and including murder in the case of the sneakers. Companies control the supply side of these items in order to fan the flames of demand. It works. It happens over and over again with all types of goods and services. All this excitement keeps cost up on those goods and services cementing their production and offering.
Now, when supply and demand fall off, or cost trumps profitability companies will no longer make or provide those goods or services. A good company will make a replacement that duplicates the excitement created by the original good or service. But what happens when there is still a supply and demand, but there isn't a profit because of the cost that is controlled by the person or company that pays?
Let's look at healthcare! We'll start with birth control. A recent discussion that was had with a fellow healthcare worker was enlightening. The discussion covered several points, but we'll just hit on the economic side. With Obamacare, insurance companies will have to provide no cost birth control to women. While I believe this is admirable, it will do away with choice. Why? If you dictate to insurance companies what they will offer for a good or service, then they will ALWAYS go with the cheapest alternative. Now, when the cheapest alternative is the only profitable (for pharmaceutical companies) that's the only one they will produce. The higher cost birth control will no longer be made because insurance companies won't pay for it. No profit, no one will make it. Basic economics.
We can touch on other goods and services in healthcare that'll change...any joint replacements, numerous medical testing and rural healthcare, but people will just dismiss this as conspiratorial rhetoric. Even though it's basic economics. When it's no longer profitable because of insurance companies that will only pay a certain amount calculated through a complicated metric, some services will not be offered anymore.
COST X NEED
PROFIT NECESSITY
Tough metric huh? If you divide cost over profit, then divide need over necessity, than your left with a number. The problem being that the importance of the numbers are not equal. Cost over profit will always be greater than need over necessity. ALWAYS. If a good or a service does not break even or make money than it will not be compensated at the level for that good or service to survive. If it's in great need and necessary, but not recompensable by insurance companies, then it'll go away. No one will offer a service that isn't paid for.
If a hospital or clinic's ability to offer services and pay the people that offer them skews into the negative, that hospital will be running a deficit. A hospital or clinic is a business. Run too far into deficit and it's sure demise for that entity. There is only one entity in the USA that can offer goods and services at a running deficit and survive...The government. And they are quickly getting to the point where their own survival is being placed in question.
How hard is it to realize that in order for a good or service to be offered, it needs to be lucrative to someone offering it? Every time this argument plays out, the left brings up "Trickle Down" economics. They always emphatically pronounce that "Trickle down doesn't work!!". Newflash numba two: Redistribution has NEVER worked. Google any of the governments that champion redistribution and see where there economy is headed. Either in the crapper or headed for it. The only reason "Trickle Down" is viewed as a loser, is because it works to slow.
BUT..IT DOES WORK. Every day someone climbs the ladder of success. Every day we step up to the faucet of the trickle. Every day someone figures out how to turn that trickle into a torrent and make it big. That's the beauty of our system. Anyone can make it. With a better idea or a good work ethic we all have the chance. Under redistribution that better idea or good work ethic won't matter anymore. That will be a sad day for America.
The fact of the matter is, if we don't elect a government that is friendly to business then businesses will go where they are respected. If there is no business to provide jobs, then we don't work. If we don't work, we don't pay taxes. If we don't pay taxes the government can't provide goods and services. Vicious cycle huh? This is already happening on the local level. Some very large cities in the USA have claimed bankruptcy. Services such as Fire, Police and Education suffer and we suffer as a result. Google it. Don't just take my word, be an informed voter not just a follower.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
