Obamacare: The Continuing Calamity

 

It doesn’t get better:

— Be sure to read this piece by Jim Geraghty, which discusses the new spin from Obamacare defenders: The people who no longer can keep the insurance they wanted to keep all along will supposedly get the same kind of plans, under a different label. Geraghty counters with the obvious question: “If the new plans are the same as the old with a different label, why do they have to change them?” 

Then there are nine million people who have to get completely different plans, because their previous plans did not comply with Obamacare requirements. The fact that some of those nine million wanted to keep their plans and did not mind that they did not meet the more stringent requirements apparently doesn’t matter to this Administration, or to supporters of Obamacare.

Note the statement by Ryan Lizza that “Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about ‘keeping what you have’ could not apply to this class of policyholders.” As Geraghty states, “[t]hat’s a very gentle way of saying, ‘the president lied.’”

Bonus material: Back in 2008, Ezra Klein advocated lying to the American people by telling them that they could keep their current plans, even though, as it turns out, they can’t and even though Klein knew that they would not be able to. Any news organization worth its salt would fire an employee who advocated this brand of mass dishonesty, but I imagine that the Washington Post is not worth much salt, and Klein will be allowed to keep his job.

— The small mercies of the disastrous health care rollout: Congressional Democrats are feeling “anxious.” I guess that is meant to make all of the people who lost plans they were happy with–and were assured that they would be able to keep–and all of the people who no longer can see the doctors they want to see feel better about their respective situations or something.

— A grand total of six people were able to enroll in Obamacare in the first 24 hours of the plan’s rollout. Yes, you read that right. Six people. In the entire country. But to be fair, “[b]y the afternoon of Oct. 2, the number of enrollments was ‘approximately 100,’ CBS says.” So, things are looking up! Just by way of perspective, however, “[t]he health care exchanges need to average 39,000 enrollees a day to meet the goal of seven million by March 1.”

— I guess that it must be good to be a campaign donor for Team Obama. First, you get paid to turn the health care website into an utter disaster. Then, you get paid to fix it. Bonus: You get to be made ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago.

— New Jersey college students discover that they cannot purchase low cost health insurance at their schools because of Obamacare’s more stringent requirements. Additionally, they cannot sign up for Obamacare because of the website problems. So, they don’t have any insurance coverage. Presumably, we are supposed to believe that this is yet more evidence that Obamacare is a godsend to the country.

There are 3 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KCMulville

    Part of Obamacare’s premise is that people who don’t have insurance receive the services anyway, which creates a free-rider problem. The free-rider factor comes in two ways:

    • poor people who can’t afford to pay, and
    • rich people who gambled that they didn’t need it, but were mistaken in that gamble

    That’s why ACA mandates that everyone obtain insurance.

    But what’s interesting is that the mandate winds up being extremely broad. Not only does everyone has to have insurance – they have to have insurance that covers every flavor of free-rider-dom.  The reason why “maternity care” is a shibboleth is that few people will free-ride those services, so why is it part of the mandate?

    Instead, it’s required because Obamacare is a nationwide standard; it doesn’t have the ability to micromanage to individuals. Obamacare isn’t capable of making a policy that reflects individual needs … or, just as important, it can’t create individually-based mandate restrictions.

    Again, we’re seeing why a market can be much more efficient than a top-down, one-size-fits-all solution.

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Didja read the comments on that New York Times article? 

    • #2

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.