Categories

Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

When superPACs and other special interest organizations make a major ad buy in a formerly safe congressional district, it’s usually proof that the incumbent is in trouble. When that major ad buy happens months before the election, it’s a guarantee that he’s in trouble. That’s why this ad is proof, at minimum, that Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi and AFSCME are worried about Stewart Mills flipping this seat this November:

What’s interesting, and predictable, is that Nolan’s special interest allies are lying through their teeth about Mills supporting “tax breaks for the rich.” Let’s look at Mill’s issues page for the truth:

The Eighth District is a Main Street economy and job growth here comes from the ground up. That means we need tax reform that’s geared toward small business growth. Stewart doesn’t believe that Washington creates jobs- entrepreneurs and business owners create jobs.

When Republicans talk about tax reform, they’re talking mostly about tax simplification. That’s because tax compliance hurts small businesses far more than it hurts big corporations. Big corporations have tons of lobbyists to get favorable tax breaks and tons of accountants that stay on top of the ever-changing tax code.

Meanwhile, an entrepreneur might be the chief salesman of the product, the guy who does payroll and fills in when someone’s missing. He’s also the guy who has to stay on top of the onslaught of regulations and changes in the tax code. In short, tax compliance hurts small businesses far more than it hurts big corporations.

In other words, the AFSCME/House Majority PAC ad is BS.

Another important part of the AFSCME/House Majority PAC ad says that Stewart Mills opposes the minimum wage. I’ve paid a ton of attention to the Mills campaign. I’ve yet to hear him talk about the minimum wage. His stump speech is mostly about a) starting over and getting health care reform right, b) making PolyMet and job creation in Minnesota’s Eighth District a reality and c) standing up for the Second Amendment.

There’s nothing in there that’s about “tax cuts for the rich” or the minimum wage. Those mining jobs are anything but about the minimum wage. Those future miners certainly aren’t “the rich.” That’s who Stewart Mills will fight for if he’s elected, mostly because it’s the right thing to do.

After the DFL convention, Rick Nolan railed that Stewart Mills was the personification of the one-percent:

Nolan started off the campaign with a shot the Republican contender Stewart Mills. “He is, no mistake about it, a one percenter who is there to represent the 1 percent not the 99 percent,” Nolan said.

I said then what I’ll repeat now: Mills Fleet Farm is one of the most blue collar retail chains in the nation. They have lots of auto parts, lawn care products, sporting goods and a smattering of clothing, ranging from blue jeans to flannel shirts. What they don’t have are products that might be found in Macy’s or Nieman Marcus.

According to University of Wisconsin Superior Political Science Professor Alison Von Hagel, “I guess one could say it could be seen as putting words in his (Mills) mouth.” That’s understatement.

I’d argue that it’s filled with assumptions based mostly on ideology, not fact. In that sense, it’s what I expect from far left liberals like the DFL and Nancy Pelosi. Their relationship with the truth is minimal at best.

Stewart Mills is a salt-of-the-earth type of guy. He’s totally comfortable hanging out at the Mills family hunting shack. That isn’t to say he’s uncomfortable running the Mills Fleet Farm benefits program. He knows that pretty well, too, which is why he wants to start over on health care reform so that it’s affordable for everyone.

Right now, thanks to the ACA, it isn’t affordable for many.

That, of course, isn’t part of the AFSCME/House Majority PAC ad. That truth doesn’t fit with the Democrats’ storyline. If it doesn’t fit with the Democrats’ smear campaign, it’s ignored.

High-ranking people in DC thinks Nolan’s in trouble. That’s why he was put on the DCCC’s equivalent of the ‘Endangered Incumbents List.’ That’s why the House Majority PAC and AFSCME paid for this ad this early. If they thought Nolan wasn’t in trouble, they would’ve saved their money until the stretch run.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sean Davis’s article utterly demolishes the Left’s argument that the DC Circuit was willing to throw millions of people off health care because of a “drafting error.” Here’s a key portion of Davis’s demolition of that argument:

Let’s take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a “drafting error”?

Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it’s almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another “drafting error”?

Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare’s health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another “drafting error”?

Either these progressive pundits are the worst liars in the world or the person who wrote the legislation is the most inept person ever to draft legislation. I’m voting for the former, not the latter.

It’s obvious that the bill was written properly. It’s obvious that Democrats didn’t think 36 states would opt out of establishing a state-run health insurance exchange, aka HIX.

The media’s fiction that this was a drafting error is intellectually dishonest intended at painting the judges as hate-filled conservatives who don’t care about poor people. The truth is that it’s Democrats that intentionally played politics with poor people’s lives.

They’re the people who wrote the law to not include subsidies for people buying insurance through Healthcare.gov. They’re the people who didn’t see anything wrong with the bill until after it became obvious that they’d miscalculated the popularity of the HIXs. They’re the people who made faulty assumptions.

Mr. Davis has written and/or proofed standalone legislation and legislative amendments:

When I worked in the Senate, I spent countless hours reading through various appropriation and spending bills. I also drafted hundreds of amendments, as well as a standalone public law. During the years I spent reading through proposed legislation, it was not uncommon to find obvious errors in bills and amendments. Sometimes you would see a date written as 3015 instead of 2015. Sometimes a non-existent section would be referenced, or a section number in a table of contents might be wrong. Other times, you might see a dollar figure that had too few or too many zeroes (seriously, that happened). You might even find a misspelled word or an incorrect line number every now and again. Those were true “drafting errors,” the typos of the legislative world.

The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error. The refusal to grant equal authority to two programs authorized by two separate sections is not a drafting error. The decision to specifically reference section X but not section Y in a portion of a law that grants spending or tax authority is not a drafting error.

Simply put, the Left knows that they’re in real danger of having the heart of the ACA ripped from the bill. If the subsidies disappear, the ACA, aka Obamacare, disappears, too. They know that they can’t argue the law. Arguing that is foolish. Appealing to the judges’ partisanship is the only avenue they have for winning.

At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats made a faulty assumption. At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats thought this bill would be much more popular than it is. They wrote the law based on the opinion that the ACA would pressure Republicans into supporting a terrible bill.

Democrats were wrong about that.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The whining on the left hasn’t stopped since the DC Circuit Court’s ruling on Halbig v. Burwell. This article is a perfect example of the Left’s whining:

The Affordable Care Act was designed to offer premium tax credits (subsidies) to people to purchase private health insurance on government-run exchanges — at least those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level. The belief among legislators was that the exchanges would be state-based, so the section of the law authorized subsidies to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State.”

Simply put, this is proof that the people writing the ACA wanted one thing but didn’t write the bill properly. If they wanted everyone “earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level” to get premium supports regardless of which exchange they bought it through, they should’ve written that into the law.

The assumption that “the exchanges would be state-based” is a sloppy assumption. Sloppy assumptions make terrible laws. It isn’t the judges’ fault that Max Baucus didn’t write the bill properly. Further, it isn’t the judges’ fault that the writing of the law was shrouded in secrecy.

Had this been a transparent operation, someone might’ve caught Sen. Baucus’s mistake. Had Sen. Baucus not made a terrible assumption, if that’s what it was, the bill might’ve been written with more clarity.

Blaming Democrats’ mistakes on Republicans is pathetic. Sen. Baucus, Sen. Reid and then-Speaker Pelosi made a series of decisions that produced sloppyily-written legislation. That’s on their heads, not the judges’ heads. It’s one thing to argue intent when the legislative language isn’t clear. It’s another to argue when the legislative language includes a straightforward, declarative statement.

At that point, that straightforward, declarative statement is what judges should base their opinion on. The Democrats’ attorneys argument is essentially that Baucus, Reid and Pelosi made a mistake in writing the bill, therefore the judges should clean up their mistake.

That isn’t the court’s responsibility. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi want to fix the law, the only constitutional remedy is to submit the correction to the legislative process. I wrote yesterday that the Democrats don’t want to do that because House Republicans might actually want to include other provisions in the bill that Democrats don’t like. That’s tough. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have that type of leverage, they should’ve written the bill right the first time.

Their whining now just indicates that they’re looking for a skapegoat to blame for their mistakes. It’s time for them to put on their big boy pants and accept the fact that they put together a sloppy piece of legislation. It isn’t the court’s responsibility to clean up politicians’ messes. That’s the politician’s responsibility.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Betsy McCaughey’s post is a great starting point to discuss the Left’s dishonesty:

“Really, we should be afraid of this court,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 Hobby Lobby ruling.

What the Supreme Court ruled, if it’s distilled to its core, is say that female employees at Hobby Lobby have to pay for their own birth control if they want to use 4 types of birth control that are called abortifacients. The decision didn’t make any form of birth control illegal, though that’ what Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray are lying through their teeth to make you think that:

Sen. Patty Murray announced, “After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with a woman’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong.”

Here’s Ms. McCaughey’s reply to Sen. Murray’s diatribe:

Another whopper. Nothing in Hobby Lobby gives employers control over a woman’s birth control choices. The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby and a related chain of Christian bookstores, objected to paying for four types of birth control that their religious teachings consider abortifacients. Their health plan covers 16 of the 20 types mandated by the Obama administration’s insurance regulations. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby is protected by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 and doesn’t have to pay for the other four products. But women can still choose to use them.

I’d argue that, though RFRA was cited in Justice Alito’s opinion, Hobby Lobby was protected by the First Amendment. Government doesn’t have the right to force people to ignore their religious beliefs.

As a sidenote, I’d question the left’s argument that corporation aren’t protected by the First Amendment. That’s a silly argument. Should a sole propietorship be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should limited partnerships be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should 10 women who formed an LLC be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs?

The question that Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Murray won’t answer is if a LLC with 2 shareholders should be exempted but LLCs with 10 shareholders should be forced into abandoning their deeply held religious beliefs. Pelosi’s and Murray’s opinions are intellectually flimsy, both from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint.

That isn’t surprising because the hardline left is as intellectually dishonest as they are morally bankrupt.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

A few days ago, Nancy Pelosi spoke about the VA crisis in a dishonest way. Here’s the video showing Ms. Pelosi’s dishonesty:

Here’s what she said that’s infuriating:

Maybe when we go into war, we should be thinking about its consequences and its ramifications. You would think that would be a given. But maybe, it wasn’t and so we go into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we leave Afghanistan for Iraq with unfinished business in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we have all these additional veterans.

This is the latest Democrat chanting point. Predictably, it’s dishonest. Ed Morrissey’s post highlights something Chairman Jeff Miller said in last night’s hearing:

‘Why have you not told this committee yet who was disciplined in Augusta, Georgia and Columbia, South Carolina, where nine veterans died because they were on a waiting list for colonoscopies?’ [Rep. Jeff] Miller asked [Mooney].

The fact that 9 vets died while waiting for colonoscopies is telling. That’s because a doctor wouldn’t order a colonoscopy to diagnose whether a vet is suffering from PTSD. What makes sense of the colonoscopies is that it sounds like the type of test that veterans from the Vietnam War or Operation Desert Storm would receive once every 5-10 years because they’re Baby Boomers.

Baby Boomers require more care as they age. According to Kim Strassel of the WSJ, the vast majority of the costs for VA hospitals is for treating Baby Boomers as they get to that age when they get treated more often.

It’s apparent that Ms. Pelosi’s diatribe was an attempt to deflect attention away from the VA system’s failures by talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s intentional misdirection and it’s shameful.

The truth is that Gen. Shinseki and his executive staff didn’t pay attention to the problem. Ed’s questions are the right questions:

What’s missing? Accountability. There isn’t one word of explanation about what Shinseki has done over the last five and a half years since taking over the Department of Veteran Affairs to prevent this kind of systemic fraud and widespread collapse, even after having his budget increased by 78% during his tenure by Congress. In the past six budget cycles, Shinseki has received $235 billion in extra funding over the FY2008 baseline for the VA budget. Where did the money go? What has Shinseki been doing for the past five-plus years? He writes this essay as if he’d just landed on the job, not as if he’d been in charge all along.

Call Shinseki’s stunt the ‘Obama Gambit’ in honor of the man who’s pretended that he’s never been president.

This administration has been in charge for almost 6 years. They’re still acting like they’re going through the transition from the Bush administration. The cabinet posts have been filled for 5+ years but nobody’s done a thing. Hillary didn’t get urgent cables from the ambassador serving in a dangerous part of the world. President Obama didn’t know about the IRS scandal until he read about it in the newspaper. Apparently, Gen. Shinseki didn’t know about this VA crisis until the Phoenix whistleblower stepped to the microphone.

It’s like a baseball manager filling out a lineup card, then not sending the players onto the field. This administration won’t make decisions. They’re more pontificators than administrators.

The VA crisis is the predictable outcome from an administration that specializes in talking, not doing.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The select committee tasked with finding out what happened in Benghazi is an intellectual mismatch. On one side, you’ve got MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.) On the other side is Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC). While it’s a mismatch in terms of intellectual heft, it wouldn’t improve if the sides were evenly matched. Chairman Gowdy would still win the debate.

Make no mistake about this. Chuck Todd didn’t attempt to hide his bias:

CHUCK TODD: Congressman Gowdy, you’ve heard that Nancy Pelosi would like it to be an even number on the select committee. Obviously some Democrats are even talking about boycotting it. But if you’ve got the House Democratic leader already willing to negotiate on the size of the committee, why not take her up on it? Why not–doesn’t it help the credibility of your investigation if it is truly an even split between the two parties?

TREY GOWDY: Well Chuck, do you challenge the credibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee because it’s certainly not evenly split? Neither is the House Judiciary.

TODD: Well this is different though. This is a select committee and select committees are different. Look I know what the previous history is. I understand that, but my point is–don’t you want to — this has a whiff of politics to it. To some people more than a whiff. Don’t you agree that if you accept her terms you actually get more credibility, which I assume is something you’d want.

It’s sad that Todd bought into Ms. Pelosi’s gimmick, though it isn’t surprising. Democrats will consistently criticize the work of this committee because they want people distracted from the fact that
President Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be found while the terrorist attack was happening. Democrats certainly don’t want people to notice that the Obama administration didn’t properly deploy the military prior to the anniversary of 9/11.

Finally, Democrats can’t afford to have it get out that President Obama and Secretary Clinton ignored Christopher Stevens’ urgent cables asking for more security. If people notice that, they’ll know that Hillary isn’t qualified to be the next commander-in-chief.

The early signals from Chairman Gowdy indicate that there won’t be lots of open hearings for the committee. Instead, it sounds like the committee’s work will focus on getting important documents from the administration, then deposing witnesses based on the information they get from the administration.

I’m betting that most of the reporters covering Chairman Gowdy’s press conference could answer Chairman Gowdy’s questions:

Chairman Gowdy’s last statement has some bite to it. The media deserve every bit of it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kirsten Powers column is devastating to Democrats attempting to paint the Republicans’ investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack:

“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. …Why aren’t we talking about something else?” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.

Here’s why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Democrats have criticized the Benghazi investigation because it’s been a disaster from start to finish. There isn’t a part of this story that casts President Obama or Hillary Clinton in a positive light.

First, the State Department looks terrible because they ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. This wasn’t a systemic failure, as the Accountability Review Board’s report said. This disaster happened because Hillary Clinton’s leadership was missing throughout this disaster.

Next, the Obama administration’s national security team looks terrible because they didn’t pre-position the military so they could’ve responded to terrorist attacks, which they knew were imminent.

Third, the Obama administration’s political team looks terrible because Ben Rhodes’ email highlights the fact that their first priority was hiding the disaster. Their first priority wasn’t to admit that theirajor mistake got 4 American patriots needlessly murdered.

Fourth, the “most-transparent-administration-in-history” kept lying for weeks after the initial pre-planned terrorist attack.

Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration’s response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won’t end well.

That’s the understatement of the year.

Last week, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were “guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there.” So much for operating on the best intelligence.

D-u-u-u-d-e, that’s too much BS. That flimsy story shouldn’t be believed.

White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.

Dishonest people deserve to be investigated when their actions get people killed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the past few years, we’ve seen the Democratic Party crank up their smear machine. This week, Nancy Pelosi said something stunning. Here’s what she said:

PELOSI: I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the lifelines to struggling families and hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honesty. What he said was that, to the Republican Caucus, these people are invisible and the Republican Caucus is indifferent to them.

Greta played that disgustingly dishonest diatribe during her interview with Sean Hannity. This video is instructive to Republicans:

This isn’t the first time a Democrat lied about an anonymous Republican who had the dirt on another Republican. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Harry Reid said he had proof that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid income taxes for the last 10 years. Of course, he didn’t offer proof of his accusation. Most Republicans still think that Harry Reid was simply lying through his teeth.

When it comes to dirty politicking, Democrats don’t hesitate in lying through their teeth. When Harry Reid lied through his teeth during the presidential election, I didn’t question Reid’s honesty. I knew he was a liar. I’m not questioning Pelosi’s honesty now. I don’t have to because it’s apparent that she’s lying. What’s troubling about Pelosi’s statement is that it’s proof that lies roll off her lips effortlessly.

This isn’t the first time she’s been caught lying. Let’s remember that she said with a straight face that unemployment checks help grow the economy. Nobody’s that stupid. Let’s remember that she’s the liar that insisted she hadn’t been briefed about the Bush administration’s waterboarding of high value target terrorists. Then there’s Pelosi’s insistence that the Catholic church’s position on human life only started 50 years ago and doesn’t impact abortion in any case.

The best way to determine if she’s lying is by determining whether her lips are moving. If they’re moving, it’s almost certain that she’s lying.

While Greta interviewed Sean Hannity tonight, Greta told Sean that he’d taken Pelosi’s bait before asking why he’d respond to Pelosi’s lies. At first, I sided with Greta on this. Then Hannity talked about the amount of lies coming from Democrats. I still don’t agree with how Hannity responded but I don’t entirely agree with Greta either.

I agree with Greta that Hannity shouldn’t respond with a statistical argument. That being said, I agree with Hannity that Republicans can’t just pretend Pelosi’s lies don’t exist. My point is that Republicans have to respond to Pelosi’s lies by going on offense. Start with highlighting the fact that Democrats will say anything if they think it’ll change a few votes. Highlight the fact that this isn’t the first time Ms. Pelosi got caught lying by citing the other times she’s told outright whoppers. In this instance, I’d fight Ms. Pelosi’s lies by questioning who this Republican friend is. Next, I’d ask why she called this Republican a “colleague.” Does that mean this alleged Republican is a member of the House of Representatives?

If she’s unwilling to provide the details, I’d then go on Greta’s show and say that I’d questioned Ms. Pelosi about who would say such a despicable thing but that she wouldn’t identify this alleged Republican friend of Ms. Pelosi’s. Finally, I’d state that I’m highly skeptical of her allegations, followed by the fact that I think she’s lying.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

This NYTimes article lowers the boom on vulnerable Democrats. Meanwhile, this video will certainly pop up in campaign ads this fall after CBO’s announcement:

Here’s the devastating part of the CBO’s announcement:

A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year’s midterm elections.

The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.

The administration’s spin on this report was disastrous. One of the talking points sounded like the reduction in hours would let people cut their hours to keep their subsidies. The administration then suggested that those people will be able to pursue more creative activities. What they didn’t say is that other families would get hit with paying those subsidies.

The simple fact is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act is a job-destroying disaster. The administration will attempt to suggest otherwise but that’s pure spin. The proof is in the monthly jobs reports, most of which have been disasters.

What isn’t getting reported enough is that the subsidies cover the health insurance premiums but they don’t subsidize those policies’ high deductibles. In most of the policies sold, those deductibles are enough to bury families in debt.

What that means is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act a) is expensive, b) is a job-killer and c) will devastate Democrats next November.

Glenn Reynolds’ latest USA Today column highlights why the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka the ABACA, is destined for failure:

In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:

One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish Democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

Simply put, people, making decisions based on their own self-interests, are saying no to the ABACA. They’re saying no because it’s a rip-off. It’s a rip-off because it was designed by politicians, whose highest priority was passing a bill, not cutting families’ health care costs.

While the political class worries about ‘the art of the possible’, families worry about doing what’s right for their families. The fact is that politicians ignored their constituents when they wrote this bill in Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s offices. By making this federal legislation, President Obama eliminated the states’ experimentation, which is the strength of the US’s federalist system.

Top-down, government-centric systems don’t work because they implement a system that isn’t individualized. Does anyone think that a nation that loves its iPhones and individualized apps would accept a system where their health insurance and health care choices are made for them?

It’s possible that something called the Affordable Care Act will still be in place a decade from now. If it still exists, which isn’t guaranteed, it won’t look anything like the system that’s currently in place.

That’s because Americans aren’t satisfied with accepting conventional wisdom. When we see difficulties, our initial instinct is to fix them.

Now, as February draws near, things don’t look much better. Far fewer than half the number needed by March 31 have signed up. And, as it turns out, most of the people signing up for Obamacare aren’t the uninsured for whom it was supposedly enacted, but people who were previously insured (many of whom lost their previous insurance because of Obamacare’s new requirements). “At most,” writes Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle, “they’ve signed up 15% of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. … Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?” It looks that way.

Based on public sentiment, this would’ve been the right time to let a good crisis go to waste. It’s pretty apparent that the people are speaking with a loud, passionate voice that they want this system scrapped. They aren’t sending mixed signals on this. They aren’t sounding an uncertain alarm. They’re saying that a) they don’t want to return to the previous system and b) they’re rejecting President Obama’s top-down system.

What they’re saying with exceptional clarity is that they want to design a system that a) puts them first, b) puts doctors, not politicians and bureaucrats, in charge of the health care system, c) lowers health care costs and d) lets them create their own network of health care providers.

The Anything But Affordable Care Act is 0-for-4 on those merits. That’s why it’s destined for failure.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,