TBD

TBD on Ning

Obamacare laid bare

Every disaster has its moment of clarity. Physicist Richard Feynman dunks an O-ring into ice water and everyone understands instantly why the shuttle Challenger exploded. This week, the Obamacare O-ring froze for all the world to see: Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”

The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism and (c) subterfuge.


Charles Krauthammer

(a) Those letters are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false. Why were they sent out? Because Obamacare renders illegal (with exceedingly narrow “grandfathered” exceptions) the continuation of any insurance plan deemed by Washington regulators not to meet their arbitrary standards for adequacy. Example: No maternity care? You are terminated.

So a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.

But perhaps Obama didn’t know. Maybe the bystander president was as surprised by this as he claims to have been by the IRS scandal, the Associated Press and James Rosen phone logs, the failure of the Obamacare Web site, the premeditation of the Benghazi attacks, the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone — i.e., the workings of the federal government of which he is the nominal head.

I’m skeptical. It’s not as if the Obamacare plan-dropping is an obscure regulation. It’s at the heart of Obama’s idea of federally regulated and standardized national health insurance.

Still, how could he imagine getting away with a claim sure to be exposed as factually false?

The same way he maintained for two weeks that false narrative about Benghazi. He figured he’d get away with it.

And he did. Simple formula: Delay, stonewall and wait for a supine and protective press to turn spectacularly incurious.

Look at how the New York Times covered his “keep your plan” whopper — buried on page 17 with a headline calling the cancellations a “prime target.” As if this is a partisan issue and not a brazen falsehood clear to any outside observer — say, The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who gave the president’s claim four Pinocchios. Noses don’t come any longer.

(b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained presidential spokesman Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.

Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.

Because what you really need is what our experts have determined must be in every plan. So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use.

It’s Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: “We’re the government and we’re here to help.”

You hide.

(c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health-care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.

Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.

So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.

And then when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you’ve learned the real meaning of “free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor — best, by subterfuge.


Views: 277

Replies to This Discussion

Worthwhile criticism and recounting of the situation, with a viewpoint, of course.

And points out the nature of politics and politicians we are dealing with today.  To say that this state of affairs makes more and more people and voters cynical, and turn away and turned off, is but an understatement.

Trust is not fungible, it is or it isn't.  And yes, much of the time is what is believed as much as it is complete, large bag of facts, which makes trust most expensive to loose, and almost impossible to get back, at any cost. 

And yes, a catch phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...", you believe it, or you don't.

Wow!  O-Rings and Obamacare.  You are a regular Dick.  Tracy.  

Is that anything like, "There is no such thing as Global Warming 'cuz it snowed last week.

Genius LOL...

You have shown a misunderstanding of what was in the article LLL All you got out of it was O rings? This is what's wrong with the left.

You wrote it  -- you own it.

If O Rings are the lefts' problem too, is it fair for me to say that the NUTS are the Right's problem?

Nope, you seem to have a lock on that.

Sorry, the right is the poster child for crazy, and you are ours.

Shall we have a vote?

If people want to see more than one side it is quite possible.


If people want to say that this article slants towards a negative opinion of the president and his policies they would be perfectly reasonable to reach that conclusion.

However, if they want to read the information and see that there are legitimate points made here as well it would also be perfectly reasonable and I also feel that it would be helpful.

It would be helpful because we all here live in the same boat so to speak.

If there is anyone here that doesn't believe that things could be better, I'd like to see them make a non-delusional argument for that.

If everyone can take a tiny step back and look at our country and it's problems as something that we all have an investment in, it could really serve us well to help each other find the things that we share in common and grab arms and work towards those common goals.

If you seriously were on a boat far out at sea and you needed food and you could row to shore, wouldn't you be better served by working together as a team to get every available person to pitch in and help?

If we sit around throwing digs at each other and trying to insult each other and the side that you think is wrong, it seems to me that that is counterproductive.

Unless you feel that things are perfect and your time is best used cutting your neighbors throat because they don't agree with you, then promoting the common pissing matches found all over the web could be not only an ineffectual use of your time but may actually be a detrimental strategy. JMO!

The points Krauthammer makes of the fact that people have been told that they can not keep their present health care plans (and it seems to be well reported on) and yet they can not, and the other points that he makes of government changing the game and taking away your options with material penalties to boot for non compliance is not a matter that is a lie or non worthy of discussion, but a real consequence.

And on the other side the fact that there will be people that have and will benefit by the ACA is another fact that is reasonable to acknowledge by everyone.

There really is plenty of room for intelligent and civil talk that helps to enlighten and is not meant as a confrontation but a sincere request for attention to the many details.

This point is legitimate and seems hard to deny (but let me know if it has no substance please):

"So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use."-Krauthammer

This has to add to the cost of the policy both for the individual and for the mass of policies. Now, one might argue that since these areas won't be used by those people it can bring the cost down later and help equal things out, and that makes sense as well, but what of the couple that presently pays $400 a month for their coverage and now must pay $1200 a month to buy coverage that they are required to even if they don't need some of what it contains? This obviously will put a strain on many.

And many said that the goal of the ACA is to get to single payer, so if more people get onto the government system it is a good thing.

But then it comes back to the issue even more so that we were misled. And I know I heard someone say here that "The ends justifies the means is wrong."

Is it not still wrong in this instance?

It is much to me like MIlton Freidman said in an interview; "Where are these Angels that are going to administer this great society (or words to that effect)?"


The health care is free, but it is not because someone is providing a service and they need to be paid, so it can not be free.

Capitalism is what drives most of us. Who here is not driven by capitalism? I want to know. Anyone here who does does not act on their own behalf? Who always works for free and gives without measure to anyone who asks?

If we have the government take over health care sure many people will get health care that may not have been able to afford it, but without capitalism and competition you will dry up or put (the perfect words) a "governor" on that engine.

The issues here to me are ideological ones and that is at the core of these debates, yet instead of talking ideology we just mostly get led into flame throwing matches to tout one "essential good' over another except that usually the fight is not honest enough to actually have one good matching another, because way too often the energy is in trying to pretend that there is "good" on only one side and that there exists nothing but "evil" on the other.

That is a falsehood!

"government take over health care"

The government is not taking over healthcare like every other civilized western industrialized country is.

The ACA is a boom for Health Care Insurance Companies.  I thought you Conservatives were pro big business?  

It sounds like you don't know who you are.

I know exactly who I am LLL.  

 quote by base2final

" I'm not only racist, I am a lying bigot teabagger."

i'm sorry but just cause krauthammer says it doesn't make it so.

"Because what you really need is what our experts have determined must be in every plan. So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use."

 there is a particularly galling attitude from certain people that 'the liberal agenda. or liberals in general means that all liberals cheat and lie and do dastardly stuff to get their way, why it is in their genes or sumpin. that's why ! so everyone must know everything beforehand and it was a fucking PLOT....

"And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it."

but be that as it may, there is no substantiation for any numbers he is throwing around. 400 to 1200....what about the 1200 to 400? seems like everyone is attempting to prove up by what is called anecdotal evidence...i knew a guy who knew a guy who.....

and people keep overlooking the fact that the govt can't FORCE insurance companies to continue policies that they CHOOSE to not offer anymore. some companies may have run the numbers and decided there wasn't a profit in offering the cheap policies if they really had to actually COVER medical costs

and do remember krauthammer is the voice of conservatism all the way back to reagan....and this is not a piece of journalism reporting any facts but rather an opinion piece from the far right

 "there is a particularly galling attitude from certain people that 'the liberal agenda. or liberals in general means that all liberals cheat and lie and do dastardly stuff to get their way, why it is in their genes or sumpin. that's why ! so everyone must know everything beforehand and it was a fucking PLOT...."-problem 

Just in reference to this one segment:

I have never said that!  I do not recognize the word liberal as meaning anything like what progressive or leftist or socialist or communist mean.

I was a liberal when I was younger and I have not changed some of those views to this day. I consider myself a conservative and a liberal. I really care not what anyone else wants to label me or others. I define myself and you no other human gets that privilege unless I agree to it. 

But as a liberal I never envisioned a larger and stronger and more dictatorial government in any sense ever.
I see liberal and I think one that is for freedom. And and one who wants to be liberal or generous.

You define yourself whatever you are. But I do not accept that most people that are called liberals actually are that.

As to agendas, most everyone has some agenda so what is the buzz about agenda like it is a 4 letter word.

It is not, it has 6 letters.

Trying to deny that any agendas exist is silly.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service