Real purpose of Obamacare is to destroy private insurance, says retired colonel

Tuesday, November 19, 2013
By Paul Martin

by: Jonathan Benson
NaturalNews.com
Tuesday, November 19, 2013

What if the actual intent of the Obama regime’s massive healthcare overhaul had nothing to do with expanding coverage to more people and everything to do with intentionally crashing the private insurance market in order to replace it with a government-run, single-payer socialist system? This is what one retired Air Force colonel says was the real purpose of Obamacare all along, that is until its failure to launch as intended threw somewhat of a monkey wrench into the works.

Outlining each step of the journey towards socialist medicine as it was meant to take place, Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.) explains in a recent piece for Right Side News how Obama had planned from the start to incrementally usher in a single-payer system by first implementing a failed Obamacare. The plan was to repeatedly tell people that they would be able to keep their existing plans, only to later pull the rug out from underneath them and blame the private insurance industry for the fallout.

According to Col. Snodgrass, Obama’s famous lie that people would be able keep their doctors and health care plans “no matter what” was central to his overarching scheme of destroying the private insurance market. Written into the provisions of Obamacare were specific mandates and regulatory policies that the Obama regime knew would cost millions of people more money while providing less coverage, a tumultuous debacle through which a whole new medical paradigm could emerge.

“Obama’s scheme envisioned governmental single-payer healthcare coming into being after the existing private healthcare insurance market was destroyed by a chaotic rollout of Obamacare,” writes Col. Snodgrass. “The mechanism that is a key aspect of the chaotic rollout currently destroying private healthcare insurance is federal regulatory power that causes the discontinuation of existing private policies by imposing new, high-priced, frivolous requirements (e.g., maternity coverage for young men and old women) that were not in existing plans.”

The Rest…HERE

Leave a Reply

Support Revolution Radio