Poll: Record high number oppose ObamaCare

A record high number of registered voters (59%) oppose ObamaCare and a record low number (36%) favor it. Interestingly, the increase in opposition comes from Democrats and independents. 30% of Democrats, up from 22%, oppose the law. Among independents, 64% (up from 53%) oppose it.

Some apparent reasons for opposition to the law include the fact that majorities think the new law will increase their taxes (63 percent), increase their insurance costs (62 percent) and increase the federal deficit (56 percent).

Meanwhile, just one voter in five thinks Obamacare will increase the quality of their health care (19 percent).  More than twice as many expect the quality of their care to get worse (39 percent) and another 37 percent think it will stay the same.

  • By 42%-27% voters think that Obama’s policies have hurt, not helped, the economy
  • A whopping 74% feel as if the country is still in a recession
  • By 55%-30% they think cutting taxes and reducing regulations would help the economy
  • 55% vs 37% think that long-term unemployment benefits discourage people from trying to find work
  • A majority (52%) think the government should provide unemployment benefits for at most one year
Advertisements

Government knows best

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” — Thomas Sowell

Are you smart enough to make your own decisions or do you need the government to make decisions for you? Our governments – federal, state, and local – more and more think that you are not smart enough so they make decisions for you.

Imagine that you have lived in your house for 20 years. For you and your husband that house is perfect; you love it just the way it is. Then tragedy strikes and it burns down. Fortunately, you have insurance and you quickly decide to rebuild it precisely as before.

Then the government says “Nope, we won’t let you rebuild it as it was. Your ceilings were too low; you must raise the ceilings and roof.” No matter that you lived with those ceilings for umpteen years and they were just fine for you, government knows best and you’ll have to make the ceilings higher.

Later, the government tells you that you must install more outside faucets. Personally, I have never lived in a house that had more than two faucets outside. Most had just one. Now government says “We won’t let you live in your own house unless you have three outside faucets. Oh, and while you are at it make sure you have outside electrical outlets on three sides.”

You grumble and curse but you do what government decides is good for you, and finally your house is finished and ready for you to move in. “Not yet!” says the government, “Your water heater is 30 gallons; you should have at least a 40 gallon tank.” But you reply, “30 is plenty for us. That’s all we ever had.” Doesn’t matter, the inspector says. Someday you might sell the house and the next family might want a larger heater. Well, they can install a larger water heater, you reply. Finally you give in and replace the perfectly good water heater with a slightly larger one just to get the government off your back.

The above happened to a friend of mine. She is still seething that she and her husband do not have the right to choose what is right for themselves, that the government makes those choices for them.

Many government agencies treat citizens as if they are children incapable of making good decisions themselves. The Department of Energy (DOE) justified recent regulations on the basis that consumers needed to be protected from their own “irrational” choices. The DOE determined that 79% of the benefit of the new regulations was “correcting irrational consumer behavior” while only 3% of the benefits was reducing CO2 emissions.

Federal agents raided an Amish farm at 5 a.m. for the crime of selling raw milk to people who wanted to buy raw milk. I have never tried raw milk, but many say that it tastes better and is much healthier. If adults decide to drink it, should their decisions be blocked by armed federal regulators?

A Pennsylvania city spent $2 million renovating its ballpark. The teams were about to play, fans were about to enter the stadium when a government inspector refused to allow it to open because the “mirrors in the men’s room were a quarter-inch too low.” A speech in Congress complaining about such micro-regulating received a very rare standing ovation.

A magician was told that he needed a federal “animal exhibitor’s” license to display his one bunny rabbit. Later he was ordered to write a disaster plan to save the rabbit from “Fire. Flood. Tornado. Air conditioning going out. Ice storm. Power failures”, etc.

Some towns have regulations about how tall your grass can be. In Georgia, a “Code Compliance Officer” entered a woman’s house, located her bedroom, and woke her up to give her a ticket for her front lawn being too long. Lest you think that is urban legend, it is a true story and it indicates how full of self-importance some of these regulators are.

Around the country, kids selling lemonade or girl scout cookies on their own land suddenly find police officers telling them to cease and desist because they are violating some regulation. One enterprising teenager saved up his money to buy a hot dog stand. He and his parents thought they had followed all the regulations, obtained all necessary permits, but he was shut down for operating too close to a restaurant. It had nothing at all to do with safety, and everything to do with restaurant owners not wanting competition.

In some states only a licensed funeral director could sell a casket. It had nothing to do with safety – the casket sellers were not handling any bodies. The funeral directors wanted a monopoly so they could keep their prices high.

Should you have the right to choose an interior designer, floral arranger, or hair-braider or should government make that decision for you?

How about a compromise? Let the government issue all the licenses and regulations it thinks are good for you. But let them be advisory, not mandatory. If you trust only a licensed floral arranger then so be it. But if you choose to hire an unlicensed interior decorator or floral arranger let the government not interfere.

Does the FDA Slow Medical Technology Innovation?

Even a progressive understands the harm of excessive regulation:

I’ve been using the metaphor of “throwing pebbles in a stream” to describe the effect of regulation on innovation. No single regulation or regulatory activity is going to deter innovation by itself, just like no single pebble is going to affect a stream. But if you throw in enough small pebbles, you can dam up the stream. Similarly, add enough rules, regulations, and requirements, and suddenly innovation begins to look a lot less attractive.

There are now more than one million federal regulations. For medical device manufacturers the regulatory approval process takes 54 months in the U.S., compared to only 11 months in the EU. Some would say this protects us from harmful devices. But the flip side is that potentially life-saving devices are denied us for years.

A simple compromise is to let the government identify a product as safe or not, but let it be advisory, not prohibitory. Let consumers be free to choice. If a patient and her doctor decide that a not-yet-approved device is the best chance to save her life, let them be free to choose that device. If another patient and his doctor decide not to try an unproven device, then let them wait for regulatory approval.

“unfree nation supervised by an overweening and bloated bureaucracy”

[They] see the uninterrupted forward march of the American left. Entitlement spending never stopped growing. The regulatory state continued to expand. The national debt grew and grew and finally in the Obama years, exploded. They see an American population becoming unrecognizable from the free and self-reliant people they thought they knew. And they see the Republican Party as having utterly failed to stop the drift toward an unfree nation supervised by an overweening and bloated bureaucracy. They are not interested in Republican policies that merely slow the growth of this leviathan. They want to stop it and reverse it. And they want to show their supporters they’ll try anything to bring that about. (my emphasis)

That Brit Hume commentary has it just about right. Too many Republicans, especially in Washington, are content with Big Government as long as they have a hand in running it. The grassroots and, polls show, the American people prefer smaller government:

far more voters continue to favor a smaller government with fewer services than a bigger government that provides more services. — Pew Research Center

 

Regulation kills jobs

Government policies are stifling young, hungry entrepreneurs,” says Andy Pudzer, CEO of CKE Restaurants. Worst among these is ObamaCare.

About 40% of Mr. Puzder’s employees are part-time and therefore exempt from ObamaCare’s coverage mandates. “That percentage of employees will probably go up. … Through attrition, three full-time employees go away and you hire four part-time employees who basically have the same hours.”

As government raises the price of hiring living workers, by raising the minimum wage and mandating higher benefits, companies find it more efficient to replace humans with machines.

Mr. Puzder also expects fast-food restaurants to deal with ObamaCare by replacing workers with kiosks. “You’re going to go into a fast-food restaurant and order on an iPad or tablet instead of talking to a person because we don’t have to pay benefits for any of those things.”

Pudzer’s company is expanding rapidly and now has “3,300 restaurants in 42 states and 28 foreign countries.” It plans 300 new restaurants in the “business-friendly” state of Texas.

One place it is not planning to expand is California because “California is not interested in having businesses grow.” Compare how long it takes his company to get a building permit. In Texas, it takes 60 days; in Los Angeles, 285 days.

California’s cumbersome labor regulations have forced the company to “fire managers who don’t report their work hours because they present a legal risk.” He tells the fired managers “to go to Tennessee or Texas, where we’ll rehire them and they’ll learn entrepreneurial skills.”

Corporations based in California are increasingly moving “where labor and the cost of doing business are cheaper. The ultimate victims are middle-class entrepreneurs, like restaurant managers, and the low-skill workers they employ.”

Government stifles creativity, kills jobs

A mother has a good idea, starts a business out of her home, grows it to 22 states, then bureaucrats tell her it might be illegal.

A man develops cutting-technology to remake the taxicab experience. Customers like it, drivers like it. The company has expanded from San Francisco to 30 cities in 10 countries, and has provided hundreds of thousands of rides. Regulators keep trying to kill it.

These are just two examples of excessive regulations that kill jobs. (See also Regulations kill jobs and the economy and The cost of regulations)