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

Just think your points here are excellent. But we have some social nets already in place to take care of people that can't afford it.

But you are right in that we have many that don't qualify for that yet will lose maybe much of their livelihoods over some expensive treatments for catastrophic illnesses.

I just didn't see why the government had to get so involved in this. Why not just have made another layer of government help for those that have catastrophic illness, or programs available to help share the costs for more needy people?

I don't see why we had to change the entire structure of health care. Seems like there are numerous possibilities in how to address these things.

In order to redistribute wealth

Maybe.

Because lord knows the old way, of our wealth going into the pockets of insurance companies and them screwing us to the floor in return was working out SO well. Why would ANYBODY want to change a perfect system like that ?

Oh, right - Those greedy rich scum who believe that everything the middle class has is supposed to be THEIRS (I believe it's called a "sense of entitlement"), and the middle class can just go breed more of themselves. Funny, ain't it, how the greedy always see all "redistribution of wealth" as evil, unless it's being redistributed to THEM.

True, they stay up all night trying to figure out how to avoid ever working with their hands. Look at Walmart. They have coldly calculated exactly how much to not give their employees so that they qualify for food stamps that they need to spend in their stores. That's a dominant part of their business plan. They copped a nice profit this year and anticipate another good year creating misery.

I hear the derision of those that make a lot of money, and I do believe that in some or maybe even many cases it is completely justified, but the fact that it seems to be used more to jab at or decry republicans leaves me in wonderment.

When democrats get paid a few hundred thousand for speeches, or even as "problem" mentioned how Max Baucus made a few million from special interests doing the ACA bill.

I don't know what the truth is about everyone and everything, but if democrats take advantage of situations too to line their own pockets Aren't they all just a bunch of rotten self serving slouches.

I mean maybe insurance companies are especially notorious, but maybe each one needs to be looked at individually. All people are not the same. I notice sometimes in dealing with friends that they have idiosyncratic tendencies. Sometimes the ones that seem very cheap are also the ones that give of their time for a low price, while others that feel that their time is valuable also give big tips and spend extra money on their friends and others.

I just am not sold on this typecasting of these groups where they fit so evenly into this nice narrative.

I think the whole most of Washington are dancing around the same pot of public gold.

No!

To give all Americans the ability to afford Health Care, not redistribute more wealth to insurance company CEOs who abuse "pre-existing" medical problems, abuse cancellation clauses every time a "poor" person who can't fight back gets sick, etc, etc.  All in the name of making rich people richer -- that is wealth redistribution.

Here is your wealth redistribution

p.s.  I want to thank you base, for again giving us the opportunity to show how wrong you are, again.

I’ve been at the race track most of Friday and all of Saturday playing the ponies, so am way behind on all of this.

Nevertheless, Lifesighs is right: the military system works pretty well. But, if we are to discuss government run health care, how about Medicare,  It needs to do much more to control runaway costs, but otherwise also works well.  At least if you listen to that lady a few years ago who demanded to someone (I can’t recall who) that they “keep the government out of my Medicare.” The rallying cry for many who wanted a single payer system was “Medicare for all.” Unfortunately for the these folks, that, nor any other form of single payer approach, is possible in this political climate.

I like your reply Lorouch, but I feel that what we have now is like a weird compromise that makes it hard for many to like. I liked the simplicity of Lifesighs point to find the best system and model something after it. At least it makes what one is trying to do reasonably understandable to the many. Right now we have  such a bunch of pieces making up some kind of health care phenomenon, that first off it is overwhelmingly confusing. That makes it both easier to attack and harder to be convincing in defending it (just saying in general).

And I agree that the political climate has it's elements that effected things. But this was also true with Bush going into Iraq. He did his best to make it happen and it did. And he may have meant well and he probably was very colored in his thinking by his Dad and feelings about Saddam and maybe other voices around him, but what is undeniable is that they had no real good plan once they accomplished regime change. I think this is a little similar in that getting this bill passed in any form under any condition was way more important than making sure that this was going to effect a benefit that was accepted as a real plus by any large majority. 

You don't have to agree, but I think it makes sense that way to me.

Thanks also for your thoughts!!! 

But this also reminds me of just how politics plays a more material role in what the government actually does than solving problems.

Or in other words we have a more political oriented government than a solution oriented government.

In any ones book this is not a good thing.

And, by the way, I don't agree with Krauthammer often, but I did after reading one of his columns a little over a week ago. I am referring to the column in which he said that the Washington Redskins should change their team name and set forth his reasons for dong so. 

Based on Krauthammers arguments, I also think he's right about how words evolve. 

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service