Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Some Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, have argued that if ObamaCare goes through, an entire group of people will want and like the services offered, thus creating a new dependent culture of people hooked on the supposedly universal and free medical care being offered. Hence, any chances of repealing or reversing it in the future will be doomed.

The events of the previous week have shown that this is an unfounded fear. More likely is that the inherent flaws in ObamCare, now more apparent than ever, will create a groundswell of public opinion demanding either its delay or a movement to scratch it completely and come up with a program that actually works to reform and improve health care in a meaningful way.

We now know, as Stuart Stevens reports in The Daily Beast, that even left-leaning Vermont, the state with the only openly socialist senator, has seen that the roll-out of the health exchanges has been “an unmitigated disaster.” And in the reliably blue state of Maryland, only 1,000 people were able to enroll on the state’s own website, which had as many glitches and software problems as the federal website.

While liberals and leftists argue that the program is solid, and that it is only the software that is bad, Stevens writes that the current problems serve to illustrate ObamaCare’s fatal flaw:

One of the president’s key selling points of the ACA was the promise that if you liked your plan, you could keep it. We’re learning that’s often not the case as Obamacare is implemented across the country. And in Vermont, there has been no pretense of such assurance.

As of January 1, 2014, in Vermont, the ability for individuals or employers with 50 or fewer employees to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies ceases to exist. As for policies already covering those businesses and individuals? Those cease to exist, as well. In other words, in Vermont, a good percentage of its population will have no choice but to buy health insurance through the state exchange.

Now Vermont, like the federal government, is using PR to try to get people to register, as well as trying other methods, such as urging applicants to try to phone in their applications or do it via snail mail. Why not go back to early 20th century methods while we’re living in the 21st century? Perhaps they should also try to revive the Pony Express.

Vermont, Stevens points out, has the highest insurance premiums in the nation. As good liberals, their government has stringent regulations on the insurance industry, thus preventing competition.  ObamaCare will not help Vermont residents, since there are only two companies offering plans on the exchange. And rates are the same for everyone, whatever their age or condition of their health. What this reveals is the essence of socialist engineering to produce equality. To their eyes, it sounds good and moral since everyone pays the same and everyone gets equal treatment. The result: People in their 50s and early 60s — before they are eligible for Medicare — pay the same rates as a young person in his 20s! As Cynthia Cox, a healthcare expert at Kaiser,  explains,  “Younger people will have higher premiums in Vermont than they might if they lived elsewhere, whereas older people might have lower premiums than if they lived elsewhere.”

So if you are such a young person, who earns a starting salary of perhaps $25,000 a year, and you find out that to purchase a health insurance policy on the new exchange will cost you a small fortune, you will, instead, opt to pay the $95 penalty (or 1% of your income, whichever is greater) at tax time. If you become seriously ill before that, you will then enroll and get the medical care you need, assuming that the federal and state enrollment sites are working by then.  This means, however, that when your decision is put together with all the other young people who do the same and do not enroll, the ObamaCare system will not have enough young people registered to pay for the elderly people with serious health conditions who have enrolled. At that point, the system crashes and is not fiscally sustainable. As Stevens puts it, “without a pool of younger, healthier participants, it’s difficult for any insurance plan to survive.

The truth is, as Michael Gerson writes, that ObamaCare “could become an intellectual crisis for modern liberalism.”  The software “glitches” could be fixed — although perhaps not in time for the January enrollment deadline. But even if they are, without enough young people enrolling, the program on its own terms is not likely to work. Its likely failure will show the follies of liberalism and the belief of all those who think socialist type planning can work. Those who really need the coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or those with new, serious medical conditions, will do everything to enroll. Those without these fears will sit back and opt for the small penalty fee. Oh yes, the government could change that to an enormous fee, but imagine the outcry of the young Obama supporters if it tries to do that.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
If you have a headache and intend to cure it by drinking Clorox I can say "hey, that's a terrible idea" even if I don't know how to cure you. It's insane to think that doing something is always better than doing nothing.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Disster? Meltdown? A temporary problem.

The ACA is STILL THERE. NOT, never?, to be REPEALED in its entirety. Played with for whatever photo- or other - opportunity for any member of government who needs attention. To be implemented wherever, whenever any of the members of the Royal Court of Washingon decide.

AND in the meantime the massive bureaucracy, with all tlhat entails grows exponentially. As pattern, template for the Obama Administration way of creating jobs?

That it is STILL on the Book of Law of the USA IS THE POINT. Why else were the enablers in such a rush to enact? "We have to pass it to know what' in it".

Lawyers all KNOW that once a law is on the books it is virtually impossible to get it off. As the members of Congress understand from their own virtual life-time tenure. Once in never out.

AND there is history to enable the enablers of the ACA to relax. They know, they've been doing it for the past half century at least, that patience and perseverance wins the day. Aided and abetted by insinuating their soldiers into policy echelons in influencing civic institutions and government.

Look back at the various tweaks - changes, while the People were doing their own thing, of the Constituiton and social ethos to see just how they've "fundamentally transform the nation". Such that the ACA is now the reference.

The "liberals" have worked this Bill for a very long time. During the Clinton Administration it was Hillary's baby. And there is plenty of evidence available to even the most uninterested people that neither Clinton measures high for principle, honesty and their "feel your pain compassion". But up there with the best of them on the scales ANYTHING Goes, whatever works, to get the power over "The Lives of Others" - even the power of life and death? - they so clearly crave.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is all probably going according to plan....that is, make the "reform" so bad and costly that the only option government is left with is a single payer system - what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all said they really wanted....
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (172)
All Comments   (172)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my buddy's half-sister makes $68/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $14888 just working on the computer for a few hours. visite site.....WWW.Rush64.Com
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
As for Ted Cruz, he didn't want this but the man supports a lot of Tech Vistas that will bring in more Asians that support this Obama care than the native population does particularly whites. Whites oppoed Obama Care more compared to Blacks, Asians and Hispanics. Cruz wants 320,000 H1b tech vistas which bring in a lot of new people that corporations don't have to provide the same health care coverage for.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, a lot of young people are covered thru mom and dad on Obama Care through age 26. They actually get a better deal than a middle age person.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Personality, I agree with you Mr Radoish Republicans should do it at the state level. In fact if Vermont works it more toward single payer they can do that and southern states more market or buy across state lines. States can eliminated or changed the Federal exchange for the lower income not covered by medicaid and who don't get company insurance. The biggest reform is the emergency room which loses billionaires of dollars. I didn't like the old Republican idea of just getting rid of the tax breaks for companies and having people buy there own insurance plan because the costs would still run as high as 500 to 2,500 per hr for health insurance. The tax credit for individual would not bring it down. I've always use companies HMO or PPOs but the cost is why we got into the Obama Care messed in the first place since Medical cost keep rising. Get rid of the penalty for not doing it and get rid of forcing some business who have are religious from being forced to cover abortion-Catholics or Evangelicals.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
O-care is a horrible idea but when you're down two scores, the other team has the ball, and there are 30 seconds left, calling timeout is not going to help. The public had its chance last November to say no to this; it chose to do otherwise. This legislation is going to be a disaster but these repeated calls for fighting are whistling in the wind. The question has been called. We lost.

I am sorry some people are not going to like the consequences but they are getting what they, or the majority of those who went to the polls, voted for. Our health care system is gummed up because of too much govt intrusion as it is. "Repeal and replace" does not alter that; it simply rearranges the deck chairs.

The GOP had six years of the Bush era to enact market-based reforms; it chose not to, preferring instead to grow the surveillance state that people are mad about now because a Dem is running it. Along with shaking your ahead at Obama and the Dems, cast a critical eye at the establishment Repubs who had the floor and did nothing.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Richard Nixon proposed a Helath Care & Insurance system overhaul but Teddy The Swimmer raised a raucous and stopped the GOP from doing it. If they let this pig live the Republicans will own it for years to come. You better kill this dog now while you still can: defund, repeal, forbid its return.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree. Let them voters get what they voted for, good and hard. Hopefully they will learn and they'll start using their heads before pulling the lever at election time.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
The reason people are mad about the surveillance state is because Obama expanded it signficantly, and has been using it for purposes that don't have much to do with real security.

Further, there is no way Bush could have pushed through market based reforms for healthcare.

And further, we have not yet lost against Obamacare. At this point Obamacare apppears set to implode. Worst case would have been Obamacare working in the manner of medicare and social security, and cementing itself in place before causing the disaster.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
The idea is good, it is only the implementation that is bad. Hmmm... where did I heard this before? Very hard to recall, but I'll try. Here are a few:
"king is kind but his counts are bad"
"czar is good, but his ministers are bad"
"Lenin was good Stalin was bad"
"socialism and/or communism is good, soviet implementation was bad".
How many more times idiots will fall for this nonsense?
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
What will cause the meltdown? The American people twice in recent times came out and voted in droves to destroy lock stock and barrel coercive Medical plans. And once political blow back was as effective an force.

The first when Hilary was First Lady and unveiled a forced plan that fined you up to $10,000 dollars and jail for up to 2 years if while a member of an HMO you go outside of the HMO to get a procedure done the HMO refused to allow.

This was the aspect of the plan that was in the news. In the midterms Clinton lost the House and Senate.

Here is another one that involved political blow back. When said Hilary was in the Senate people were really complaining that their HMO's were denying requests their doctors ordered for them.

And fresh in Hilary's mind was the above loss of the House and Senate so she led a successful effort to change the Federal HMO enabling legislation to allow people to sue their HMO. She failed to mention in this initiative that it was her party that wrote the HMO enabling legislation that didn't permit lawsuits in said cases.

The second electoral consequence was in November of 2010 when the previous March Obamacare was passed. In the news were not the law's fiascoes but the coercive parts of the laws - death panels, and the government deciding who gets what protocol.

And while this election was more focused, we picked up 65 seats in the House and Senate, 6 or 7 governorships, more than a dozen State legislatures and many specific offices like State Attorney Generals, Judges etc.

Yet so far we have not repealed or altered Obamacare. So the meltdown will occur - if it does - when the government offers stuffy five page memorandum why you didn't get what the doctored ordered.

And because Obamacare is more concentrated on rationing, and because Obamacare will restrained medical services and medical developments more, the blow back will be bigger.

SO just as the 2012 election was Romney's to lose, this will be the pundits to lose. We need the Tea Party of 2010 - as opposed to the Tea Party if today it is different from what it was then.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
In the meantime, for those left without health insurance, get plenty of medical coverage on your car or other accident insurance, hope you don't become seiously ill outside the Obamacare open enrollment period, and have any medical care you can speed up before the end of 2013.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
So Ron are you soft-pedaling Obama care because you are part of the DC Elite or because you never really left behind your Marxist roots or both?

Nothing but outright replacement of the ACA will be acceptable to constitutionalists. Freedom is not negotiable.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
replacement with what? A govt-driven plan that comes from the right is no more Constitutional than one that comes from the left.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
Exactly.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
The central premise of Obamacare has always been that in a country as rich as the U.S., there is no reason that everyone shouldn't be able to have high quality medical care at an affordable price.

But really, what is the factual basis for that statement? Does anybody really know what it would cost to provide everyone high quality medical care? What is high quality medical care anyway? What is affordable? Who knows?

You can slice and dice and cost shift until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, somebody has to pay the bill. Either that, or its musical chairs and somebody doesn't get a seat.
44 weeks ago
44 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All