Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category
According to the Hill’s Bob Kusack, Democrats think Sen. Reid is “curmudgeonly.”
They like the fact that he says things they wish they could say. That’s proof that Democrats are totally out of touch with America. This article highlights just how evil Sen. Reid and the Democrats are:
While many have condemned the strong-arming and pseudo-military tactics of the Bureau of Labor Management in its standoff with Cliven Bundy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, reserved his criticism for the Bundy family and their many supporters — which he labelled domestic terrorists.
That’s despicable. Sen. Reid should be thrown out of the Senate on a unanimous vote. The fact that Democrats think Sen. Reid is “effective” shows that they don’t treat character as an essential trait for leadership positions. What’s interesting about Andy McCarthy’s article is that Democrats don’t think highly about the rule of law, either:
The underlying assumption of our belief in the rule of law is that we are talking about law in the American tradition: provisions that obligate everyone equally and that are enforced dispassionately by a chief executive who takes seriously the constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of a man who himself serially violates the laws he finds inconvenient and who, under a distortion of the “prosecutorial discretion” doctrine, gives a pass to his favored constituencies while punishing his opposition. The rule of law is the orderly foundation of our free society; when it devolves into a vexatious process by which ideologues wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities they disfavor, it is not the rule of law anymore.
The Obama administration doesn’t believe in the rule of law being applied equally and dispassionately. The Obama administration believes in looking the other way when their friends violate the law. This administration only believes in enforcing laws if it punishes their political enemies;
The legitimacy of law and our commitment to uphold it hinge on our sense that the law and its execution are just. As John Hinderaker points out, concerns about the desert tortoise—the predicate for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—turn out to be pretextual. The ideologues who run the government only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. If you’re a well-connected Democrat who needs similar land for a solar project, the Obama administration will not only refrain from enforcing the ESA against you; it will transport the tortoises to the ranchers’ location in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to harass the ranchers.
Sen. Reid thinks it’s right to use his overly-exalted position to hurt the Bundys and to help his parasite of a son, Rory, make a quick buck. That’s what parasites do.
When law becomes a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared principles, one can no longer expect it to be revered in a manner befitting “political religion.” And when the officials trusted to execute law faithfully violate laws regularly, they lose their presumption of legitimacy. Much of the public is not going to see the Feds versus Bundy as the Law versus the Outlaw; we are more apt to see it as the Bully versus the Small Fry.
We’re most likely to see Sen. Reid as lacking the character to be a leader. Even if Democrats are ok with him as a leader, the American people shouldn’t accept him as a leader.
Lots of conservatives have ridiculed Al Franken about not being funny. They’ve criticized him for being a temperamental hard left lefty, too. While those are accurate, that isn’t Franken’s biggest problem. In fact, they’re far from it. This WashPo article works overtime to make Franken sound like a serious legislator:
“He stays home and studies for the next day,” a staffer says. Franken is known for actually reading committee witness testimony and even digging into the footnotes, looking for holes or contradictions.
Wow. Al Franken has finally started taking his job seriously. Let’s remember that he didn’t attempt to read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka the ACA. He just voted for that destructive bill because that’s what Harry Reid and President Obama wanted him to do.
So like a good little puppet, Al Franken voted for a bill that’s raised families’ health insurance premiums and deductibles while shrinking families’ networks. Sen. Franken abandoned families when they needed him the most.
While that’s Al Franken’s biggest mistake, that isn’t the only time he’s abandoned families. He’s done nothing to help the hard-working people of the Iron Range because he’s refused to lift a finger to make PolyMet a reality. That’s because Franken is more worried about raking in max donations from his friends in Hollywood and other militant environmental activists.
These hard-line environmental activists don’t take kindly to politicians they support voting for the Iron Range’s blue collar workers. That’s because they’re most worried about their ideology. Worrying about hard-working families is well down their list of priorities, if it’s there at all.
As for whether Al Franken is a serious legislator, I’ll just post this video of Sen. Franken making a fool of himself while questioning Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings:
I’d submit that Sen. Franken isn’t the serious man he’s trying to portray himself as.
Technorati: Al Franken, Stuart Smalley, Air America, Talk Radio Host, Sonia Sotomayor, Confirmation Hearings, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Rubberstamp, PolyMet, Blue Collar+Workers, Iron Range, President Obama, Democrats, Election 2014
Former Clinton advisor Paul Begala has some advice for Democrats on dealing with the Obamacare issue. According to Greg Sargent’s post, Begala’s advice is to go on offense:
Dems now debating how to talk about Obamacare seem to be leading defensively with their willingness to fix the law. Instead, Begala says, they should lead with an attack on Republicans that is framed as a medical rights issue before pivoting to fixing the law and then wrap it all up in a larger message about how Republicans have no answers to people’s health care or economic problems.
“We should open by saying, ‘my opponent wants to repeal your rights,’” Begala said. “He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination because you have a preexisting condition. He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination for being older or being a woman. He wants to take away the closing of the Medicare donut hole for seniors.”
I wish it was surprising that Begala is telling Democrats to lie about Republicans. That isn’t surprising, just disappointing. Facts don’t matter with pathetic little liars like Begala. It isn’t important to him that the Patients CARE Act includes a provision that prohibits insurance companies from not insuring people with pre-existing conditions.
As for treating people differently because they’re a greater health risk, that’s fair. People that need the most health care should pay the most for health insurance. I’d love hearing Mr. Begala’s explanation to young people why they’re getting ripped off by Obamacare, aka the ACA. Why shouldn’t their parents pay more expensive premiums? They’re the ones with the more frequent, most expensive claims.
“That’s point one,” he continued. “Then you say, ‘look, I’m open to working with everybody to fix the law. But I’ll never let them go back to the days where insurance companies could send letters saying your coverage has been canceled because you have a preexisting condition.’”
This is another strawman argument. It’s indisputable that the Republican plan that would replace the Affordable Care Act would require insurance companies to offer policies to people with pre-existing conditions.
As for the line about being “open to working with everybody to fix the law”, that’s BS. Harry Reid isn’t willing to work with anyone on any issue. He’s the my-way-or-the-highway guy.
“We can win on Obamacare, but we have to fight,” Begala concluded. “You cannot win if you do not fight.”
Begala is partially right. He’s right that it’s impossible to win if you won’t fight. He’s wrong that Democrats can win on Obamacare. It’s impossible to win when the president keeps postponing key parts of his signature accomplishment. What’s the attack line going to be? ‘Obamacare is fantastic. That’s why he’s delayed implementation of every major part of the law.’
It’s impossible to fight for a law that’s fatally flawed like the ACA. That’s the fatal flaw with Begala’s fatally flawed strategy. It isn’t that Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, needs some tweaking. It’s that the ACA is totally unworkable.
It’s that it’s expensive. It’s that the ACA is so unappealing the people are refusing to buy policies in droves. It’s that the ACA is limiting people’s network options. In short, the Affordable Care Act is awful law that was passed because it was the Democrats’ wet dream, not because it made people’s lives better.
If Begala wants to fight on that battlefield, he’d better bring lots of body bags because there will be tons of political casualties in November.
This article lays out the statistics that Colorado is actually going backwards thanks directly to Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act:
Quite apart from the issue of premium increases, the 84,881 enrollees is far below the number of people who lost their insurance plans because of Obamacare. “Cancellation notices affected 249,199 people,” Jo Donlin, director of external affairs for the state insurance division, wrote in a Nov. 14 email.
That’s the worst of the news on the Obamacare front for Colorado but it isn’t the only bad news on that front. Here’s more:
“With less than a month to go before the enrollment period ends for this year, fewer than 85,000 Coloradans have signed up for health insurance,” The Colorado Observer’s Mark Stricherz reports, noting that state officials projected that they would need 125,000 to 140,000 enrollees.
“Even in the worst-case scenario, insurers would still be expected to earn profits, and would then likely raise premiums in 2015 to make up the difference,” Stricherz quotes Kaiser Family Foundation analyst Larry Leavitt as predicting.
In other words, people aren’t buying what the administration is selling. In fact, they’re getting disgusted by Obamacare’s options.
Based on these statistics, more people in Colorado are uninsured under Obamacare than were uninsured prior to the ACA. That’s called going backwards, which isn’t what President Obama promised.
These statistics shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum, either, because they’re affecting the Senate race in Colorado:
Udall is clearly worried about how Obamacare affects his re-election prospects. Donlin accused him, in that email, of trying to “trash” the state’s cancellation figures. When CNN’s Dana Bash asked him in January (before Gardner entered the race) if he would campaign with President Obama, Udall repeatedly refused to give a direct answer to the question. “Coloradans are going to re-elect me based on my record, not the president’s record,” Udall told Bash.
That’s rich. I can’t imagine Sen. Udall has voted differently than Harry Reid many times since arriving. Voting with Harry Reid is the same as voting with President Obama.
Most importantly, Sen. Udall voted for Obamacare, aka the ACA, which has led to Colorado’s disaster of having more people uninsured under Obamacare than there were prior to the ACA. That’s a political disaster waiting to happen for Sen. Udall. He’s got to be sweating his decision to vote for the ACA.
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.
Harry Reid’s disgraceful diatribe included his accusation that people who told the truth about the Affordable Care Act’s disasters were un-American. Sen. Reid’s accusation is disgusting, one worthy of throwing him out of the Senate. Still, let’s not dwell on Sen. Reid’s comments to the exclusion of learning the definition of patriotism. Without a doubt, this person is a patriot:
There doesn’t seem to be any other large company trying to do this so it might as well be us. Somebody has got to work to save the country and preserve a system of opportunity. I think one of the biggest problems we have in the country is this rampant cronyism where all these large companies are into smash and grab, short-term profits, (saying) how do I get a regulation, we don’t want to export natural gas because of my raw materials.
Well, you say you believe in free markets, but by your actions, you obviously don’t. You believe in cronyism. And that’s true even at the local level. I mean, how does somebody get started if you have to pay $100,000 or $300,000 to get a medallion to drive a taxi cab? You have to go to school for two years to be a hairdresser. You name it, in every industry we have this. The successful companies try to keep the new entrants down.
Now that’s great for a company like ours. We make more money that way because we have less competition and less innovation. But for the country as a whole, it’s horrible. And for disadvantaged people trying to get started, it’s unconscionable in my view. I think it’s in our long-term interest, in every American’s long-term interest, to fight against this cronyism.
As you all have heard me say, the role of business is to create products that make peoples’ lives better while using less resources to do it and making more resources available to satisfy other needs.
When a company is not being guided by the products they make and what the customers need, but by how they can manipulate the system, get regulations on their competitors, or mandates on using their products, or eliminating foreign competition, it just lowers the overall standard of living and hurts the disadvantaged the most. We end up with a two-tier system.
Those that have, have welfare for the rich. The poor, OK, you have welfare, but you’ve condemned them to a lifetime of dependency and hopelessness. Yeah, we want hope and change, but we want people to have the hope that they can advance on their own merits, rather than the hope that somebody gives them something. That’s better than starving to death, but that, I think, is going to wreck the country.
Is it in our business interest? I think it’s in all our long-term interests. It’s not in our short-term interest. And it’s about making money honorably. People should only profit to the extent they make other people’s lives better. You should profit because you created a better restaurant and people enjoyed going to it.
You didn’t force them to go, you don’t have a mandate that you have to go to my restaurant on Tuesdays and Wednesdays or you go to prison. I mean, come on. You feel good about that?
In my estimation, that’s the definition of American patriotism. Capitalism and innovation being used to make the United States the greatest nation on the face of the earth is the definition of patriotism.
When companies makes money because their lobbyists get the government to build roadblocks in front of the competitors, that’s crony capitalism, which hurts the American economy overall. When companies’ profits increase because they’ve built a product that improves people’s lives, that’s competitive capitalism. That type of capitalism is the type of capitalism that strengthens the economy while improving people’s lives.
People that put the long-term health of the nation ahead of short-term profits and personal gain are patriots. That isn’t to say short-term profits are automatically evil. In many instances, they aren’t. It’s that building products that create profits now and long into the future has a stabilizing effect on a nation’s health.
That’s the definition of patriotism. That’s what Sen. Reid apparently doesn’t understand.
Dr. Patricia McLaughlin has a dispute with Sen. Harry Reid. Sen. Reid’s statement that the “horror stories” being shown nightly on TV are all untrue doesn’t fit with Dr. McLaughlin’s experience with the ACA:
Here’s a partial transcript of her interview with Greta van Susteren:
GRETA: You have patients that have insurance and that go to you but now you’ve been knocked off one of the networks. Is that correct?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I’ve not been dismissed but I have not been offered participation status in some of the subsections from one of the insurance companies and that would be insurance that would be covering individuals taking out insurance through the Affordable Care Act or through small business plans outside of the Affordable Care Act. It also included them.
GRETA: Does that mean that some patients of your’s can no longer go to you unless they pay for it out of their pocket?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: That’s correct.
GRETA: Have any of your patients said anything to you? Are they distressed or are they just happy to move onto another doctor?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know, most patients are attached to their doctor. We’ve had longstanding relationships. We don’t just take care of the illness. We take care of the human spirit as well. So we know things about their spouse, their children, their parents. We’ve been through their trials and tribulations. There’s a relationship. Of course, they’re distressed.
Let’s be succinct about this. The horror stories that Sen. Reid lightly dismisses are real. I think Sen. Reid knows that. Further, I think Sen. Reid won’t hesitate in lying about this to deflect attention away from the fact that the ACA is a failure that Sens. Pryor, Begich, Hagans, Udall, Landrieu, Franken and others voted for.
Sen. Reid knows that the AFP ads are devastating. Sen. Reid knows that AFP’s ads are hitting his vulnerable incumbents frequently and hitting them hard. If those ads weren’t working, Sen. Reid would lightly dismiss them or totally ignore them. It’s painfully obvious that Sen. Reid is worried that he’ll be Senate Minority Leader and his committee chairs will be ranking members within a year.
The bad news for the American people is that the Affordable Care Act is a trainwreck. The bad news for Democrats is that the American people might just take their frustration out of Senate Democrats this November.
Ronald Reagan once famously said that a recession is when your neighbor is unemployed, that a depression is when you’re unemployed and that the recover starts when Jimmy Carter was unemployed. This year, that should be translated into the recovery starts when Sens. Begich, Franken, Hagans, Landrieu, Pryor, Shaheen and Udall are unemployed.
Technorati: Harry Reid, Al Franken, Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Kay Hagans, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, Democrats, Insurance Cancellations, Insurance Networks, Doctor-Patient Relationship, Election 2014
This exchange between overmatched Ron Fournier and Charles Krauthammer is the stuff that President Obama’s nightmares are made of:
Here’s a partial transcript of the segment:
KRAUTHAMMER: But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
Fournier didn’t have a rejoinder when Charles said “It isn’t incompetence. It’s the willful breaking of the constitutional order. Where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter the law 27 times after it has been passed?” Fournier did write something approaching intellectual honesty when he wrote this article. Unfortunately, he’s still bitterly clinging to the thought that the ACA might still work. Here’s is the opening of the article:
It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naïve columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation.
For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers. Employers with 50 to 99 workers were given until 2016 to comply, two years longer than required by law. During a yearlong grace period, larger companies will be required to insure fewer employees than spelled out in the law.
Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.
The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—”If you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan.” And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.
Mr. Fournier and other journalists shouldn’t have been that intellectually incurious. They should’ve questioned the ACA while it was being written. Furthermore, he shouldn’t still cling to the notion that it’ll work. Unfortunately, that’s what he’s doing for all the wrong reasons:
Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.
Fournier’s anti-conservative blind spot still exists. Saying that “the GOP hasn’t offered a serious plan that can pass Congress” is giving Harry Reid a pass. The Patient CARE Act will do the things that the ACA was supposed to do without raising taxes. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is so intransigent that he’ll do anything to sabotage plans that might help families. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is willing to do anything to keep President Obama’s signature legislation from getting declared a total failure before he leaves office.
Why won’t Fournier take Sen. Reid to task for being intransigent? Why won’t he ask him tough questions about why he won’t consider legislation that’s a serious attempt to fix what’s broken in the ACA? When Mr. Fournier is willing to take off his ideological blinders, then I’ll pay attention to him.
At this point, he isn’t a serious man because he isn’t willing to take those blinders off.
Technorati: Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, President Obama, Ron Fournier, Agenda Media, Progressive Movement, Charles Krauthammer, Constitution, Patient CARE Act, Dr. Tom Coburn, Republicans, Election 2014
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.