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

I said this:
"I see that a representative form of  government to be a plus. The more that one enlists the government into controlling more activities, the fewer choices the many varied and diverse layers of people get to enjoy. "

And you started a reply with this:

"a common confusion is evident here. a political form of government is not the same as the economic system."-Problem

I will admit your paragraph went over my head.

it really isn't complex. the economic system of a country is not the same as the political system. politics is the system of governance so you can have anything from a dictatorship to a full democracy in the political arena. but the economic system is different than the political tho there are some who attempt to entwine them as a means to an end or some who just entwine them from lack of logical thinking.

 the economic systems can range from full laissez faire capitalism (tho i don't think there is a country in which that survives these days) to fully socialist state tho there aren't any of those really in the world either. most countries in the world have economies that can be described as modified capitalism or modified socialism and there is a range of those economies. in addition, there is a spectrum of power within the politics and within the economics which lead to the real entertwining and that is the contest as to which has more power than the other. in some countries, the political realm has a degree of control over the economic system thru regulation and laws. that can be good or bad depending on the laws and the enforcements. and in a lot of countries, the economic powers hold a large portion of the political power thru the use of their financial clout.

  in case you wonder where we fit, that is part of what is being contended at the present time. the financial interests have wanted less regulation, fewer laws, less culpability and fewer safeguards for the working people. thus you have large dollar interests wanting to gut osha, the epa and many other regulatory agencies to allow the large interests to pursue wealth unimpeded by strictures of law.

while in some countries, it would be wise to kiss the ass of the junta leader to be able to save your business, in this country, to be quite blunt about it, in a meeting with a large donor, who kisses whose ass? the money man or the political person....

I'm not sure why noting that a representative form of republic is lessened by too many regulations? I mean if the government now controls my health care and takes away my present insurance because it does not comply with the new rules it feels like I have less of a voice. Or in other words, by eliminating more of my choices I have been limited. If this was enacted by a small majority and polls show that a small majority oppose it, surely representation has been narrowed. 

I guess also lobbyists absolutely get in the way of representation as well.

I get that there are differences in economics and governing systems, and I appreciate your delineating further some examples of such! i am not well versed in those that you mentioned. But I get the gist I think.

Socialized health care works in many countries, find where it works best and adopt that method. Socialized health care works fairly well here in the US Military. Not perfect but better than what we have from the Insurance industry in the US.

exactly...

and if the system we have had was "all that", we would not have so many uninsured nor so many left wanting for medical care that doctors without borders schedules clinics within the us as tho we were a third world country. those treated by charitable endeavors such as those include the employed who just plain do not make enough to afford medical care or medical insurance and the elderly and the retired who discovered the game and the rules had been changed on them once they weren't useful anymore.

More reasonable comments. I agree that we have issues that need addressing. Just very troubled by what has transpired as the solution.

 a fair reply, and simple. I  like it as a reasonable argument or starting point.

and a point to ponder....if you don't like the ACA, what do you propose as an alternative? the republicans had loads of time to actually introduce a plan of their own but did not. and there were some who actually opined that we didn't need to change a thing because we had the finest medical care in the world..well yeah, if you are a representative you sure do. in the meantime, what about the men, women and children who aren't? and what kind of citizens will some of those children grow into without adequate medical and dental care during the growing up years?

That is the heart of the issue.

Started to watch the poor kids. I subscribed to Frontline> Think that that video will be good for me to watch. "

Thanks Problem!

Great response, and again this is the first that I saw it now. I think your point is well spoken. I have heard Dr Ben Carson address this a bit and he said that he has talked to many in Washington, and that they had numerous plans that they were discussing.

Again the political game makes this hard I think for both sides. I doubt that anything that the house came up with would ever be voted on in the Senate with Harry Reid there.

But I think if enough people both on the left and the right started coming up with ideas and letting Washington know that we want something that maybe attempts to modify what we have and see if some smart people can come up with some reasonable compromises that could help.

But Politically I don't see Harry Reid ever giving up a thing unless he is forced to cause of lack of votes. And I don't see the republicans ever getting anywhere but exploding over the different factions. it is not pretty.

Remember when we had that commission of economic brains to work on solutions to addressing our debt? And they came up with some ideas, and whatever they came up with was completely ignored. Was it Simpson Bowles, or something like that?

So????



Are we never going to utilize their work?  Why? or Why not?

Did everything just magically cure itself? Or are these problems still in existence?

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service