Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

October 24, 2013 - 9:42 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Obamacare’s failures: Far more than a mere glitch.

As technical failures bedevil the rollout of President Obama’s health care law, evidence is emerging that one of the program’s loftiest goals — to encourage competition among insurers in an effort to keep costs low — is falling short for many rural Americans.

While competition is intense in many populous regions, rural areas and small towns have far fewer carriers offering plans in the law’s online exchanges. Those places, many of them poor, are being asked to choose from some of the highest-priced plans in the 34 states where the federal government is running the health insurance marketplaces, a review by The New York Times has found.

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

One sensible way government could have brought insurance prices down was to allow competition across state lines. Obamacare does the opposite of that, and isn’t even really allowing competition across county lines in some areas. That’s how economically stupid Obamacare is.

But the New York Times still doesn’t get it.

The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly…

Obamacare wasn’t intended to increase competition. Never. It was intended to force millions of Americans and all insurance companies to behave according to Barack Obama and the far left’s notion of “fairness.” Obamacare was built to limit the number of plans available and force insurance companies to act against their own economic interests, in the name of “fairness.” It was built to force millions of healthy young Americans at the dawn of their careers to subsidize older, less healthy Americans.

Barack Obama has promoted his vision of “fairness” during his entire political life. It’s not a secret or anything cooked up by his critics. His vision of “fairness” is to force some Americans to subsidize the lives and lifestyles of other Americans. In a “fair” world by Obama’s lights, there’s a point at which you have made too much money, and should be forced by the government to give your excess away to someone else. Obama and/or his appointees will determine what that tipping point is, and to whom your money will be distributed. He has been very consistent about that. He even explained it during the 2008 presidential debates. How could the Times have missed it?

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (15)
All Comments   (15)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
We have an elected (fairly or fraudulently) "president" who is actively using the power of the state (NSA-IRS-DHS-etc...) to intimidate, silence, and ultimately punish his political enemies. He is actively removing God and anything Christian from the armed forces and every civic group he can find (Boy Scouts-Catholic/Christian Churches and Charities), and he is an active SUPPORTER/ENABLER of WORLDWIDE TERRORISM via the MOOSLIM BRUTHAHOOD. Bob Woodward called the Obama regime a "Pack of lies and Rat's Nest of deceit" - DO NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK - OBAMACARE EXPOSED THEM TO THE WORLD AND THE RATS ARE TRYING TO RUN FOR COVER. NO!! THEY CRAWLED INTO BED WITH THIS VILE, REPUGNANT, REPROBATE - LET THEM LIE IN THE BED THEY MADE - THE MEDIA ARE JUST AS MUCH TRAITORS AS THE NEO-COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS! (Sorry for all the SHOUTING....just really pissed about all this today..)

Remember BENGHAZI!
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obamacare is not only the most complex legislation in the history of the US (if not the world), it is also the most aggressive redistribution scheme ever passed by Congress:
redistribution from healthy to not healthy without regard to income or wealth, plus
redistribution from higher-income earners to lower-income earners
plus
redistribution from men to women.

Granting government this much power, and unbridled discretion, to redistribute is more than a little dangerous. Forget about the socialism; it is the totalitarianism that is terrifying.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I never thought I would see *not* having health insurance as my patriotic duty. We live the in Age Of Crazy.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obamacare wasn’t intended to increase competition. Never. It was intended to force millions of Americans and all insurance companies to behave according to Barack Obama and the far left’s notion of “fairness.” Obamacare was built to limit the number of plans available and force insurance companies to act against their own economic interests, in the name of “fairness.” It was built to force millions of healthy young Americans at the dawn of their careers to subsidize older, less healthy Americans.

Obamacare in a nutshell.

The subsidies are taxpayer-funded, so while they may “lower” some people’s premiums, that comes at the price of hiking other Americans’ taxes. This is redistribution of real money from some Americans to others. In the name of “fairness.” How it’s fair to the people who pay the tax, is never addressed.

It's never addressed because they don't care.

The New York Times is one of the very few newspapers that Barack Obama admits to reading. Maybe even he’ll see the story. It won’t change his mind about “fairness,” but it might worry him that he’s even losing the New York Times as his signature policy burns up hotter than the Hindenburg.

Why? Obama is not up for re-election. His goal is to blame everything on his political and ideological opponents. Either the Republicans that came before him or the tea party now. The media will help him in this goal. The worse the failure Obamacare proves to be, the more people that are hurt by his policies, the better this furthers his goal. Obama is a destroyer, not a President, and he always has been.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
God must have a sense of humor: These are the very same people who voted for the Big 0.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's curious that male premiums are apparently twice those of females, I presume to offset the higher female utilization rate and that females live longer than males and so use more health care in the long run. Well, since we don't have to be equally sexually situated to qualify for the right to a marriage, when are the girls going to have to register for Selective Service along with the boys?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
In 2008 candidate Obama called $75k rich. That is maximum that Obama want to allow a person not part of the kelptocracy to earn. However, the structure of O-care is such is that no married couple would want to earn more than 62K before and after children arrive and depart. When you figure in taxes and insurance costs you would need more than 75K to make it worth your while to accept higher pay. The figure is about 45K for an individual.

20% on welfare
75% working poor and lower middle class
all controled by a Kleptocracy of 5%.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I must agree with the previous commentators before me below. There's no arguing with Progressive statists. They aren't interested in logic and won't be swayed by it. You know this when you say something to them, and they say, "Yes, but...."

So, from one standpoint they're capable of understanding the concept logically, however they will then ignore the reality and logic in favor of their feeling on the matter. Their feeling is paramount. That you would cling to logic in the face of their feeling only reinforces their belief that you don't possess feelings and are thus less human(e) than they.

You can't argue basic or "core" truths with people who don't believe in such a thing as "basic truth". "Truth" to them is mutable, therefore reality doesn't matter. Only their idea(l) of reality matters.

Obamacare, and the rest of the Progressive statist monstrosity that has become our federal government isn't going to change with a vote or an election. It's not about who's President, or who's on the Supreme Court. Those arguments are losers from the start.

This can and will only end in bloodshed. That's why it's taken this long to get to this point. Most Constitutionalists abhor violence as a means to an end, but the other side insists on pushing us toward it.

There's a part of my mind that keeps reminding me that "it's been this bad before". Woodrow Wilson and FDR were just as bad, if not worse, than Obama. They actually rounded up American citizens and threw them into camps. Both threatened and cajoled the media to be their lapdogs. Both hired heavily from the media to fill administration positions.

And yet, our country still survived both presidencies, and in fact the country turned away and had periods of booming success after each one, but each time, we never quite went back to the point where we were before. We didn't repeal income taxes. We didn't shut down Socialist Security.

Even if Obama is defeated in the next election (yeah, I know....I know), Obamacare won't be dismantled. The economy will lurch forward again as many oppressive regulations are rolled back, but we'll still be saddled with yet another statist albatross around our necks.

The only way an election could fix this is if the next President begins his term in office by walking in flanked by the several commanders removed by the Obama Administration. Each of those commanders to be reinstated the day of inauguration, and then a sweep of all Congressmen who publicly declare themselves to be Progressives.

This event to be followed by trials for treason, followed by executions.

Anything short of this leaves us right where we are in terms of our losing battle for our own basic freedoms.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
The electoral fix you're describing is PRECISELY how the Roman Republic failed.

The left, for all their evil, understands the long game in a way that normal people do not. They understand demographic warfare. Normal people look at the world and see a mostly good situation. Leftists look at the world and are filled with the desire to "fundamentally transform" it into a Marxist dystopia. Only the Mormons do demographic warfare better than the left does, in no small part because they have a theological agenda for the world. This is why the left reserves a special hatred for Mormons, above and beyond their hatred of other Christian groups.

The left works to create the people who are going to vote for them and their policies. They work to create and expand a wretched underclass dependent on handouts from the state. They work at the same time to discourage the creation of normal families. They are practically salivating at the prospect of legitimizing tens of millions of illegal aliens and affording them the right to vote. Vote fraud is part and parcel of their political strategy.

They've been doing this for a very long time.

Defeating them will not come from winning elections, but from attacking and defeating them at the cultural and demographic level, which is precisely where conservatives seem to be tongue tied and hamstrung.

24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I too used to believe the leftists were better at the long game, but after watching the rollout of Obamacare I'm not so sure anymore.

Was their past success the result of looking at the long game - or simply perseverance based upon an almost religious ideology?

In other words, was it a conscious strategy all this time - or do they simply look at everything through the same philosophical lens so that the underlying ideology they hold so dear morphs, twists, and modifies their perceptions to fit their ideology?

Are their reasoning abilities so locked into a certain mode of thinking, with no flexibility to step outside of those boundaries, that observed reality MUST be made to fit their preconceived notions in order to maintain some coherence and mental stability in viewing how the world actually works, no matter the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the most politically acceptable outcome?

Not suggesting those who see themselves as leaders on the left DON'T take the long view, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the mindless drones academia turns out are not so far sighted.

I believe Lenin called them "useful idiots"?

The left may have tipped it's hand prematurely as all of these "useful idiots" find out just how worthless they really are to the government machine when they have fulfilled their purpose and are getting hit with these huge premiums and complex regulations that begin to exert control over every aspect of their personal lives.

If THAT happens, my hope is that the now enlightened former leftists are as antagonistic towards their former ideology as a former smoker is towards people who continue to smoke, as former smokers are the most unmerciful and intolerant people I have ever seen on the subject of tobacco after they have quit the habit.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
TeaPartyLee, you nailed it.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is this a repeat of the shutting down of (mostly-Republican) car dealerships in the name of cost-cutting? I move I never began to understand as any kind of reasonable theory. Does something in the fevered brains of liberals make them think that having fewer people selling something makes a system more efficient and cheaper? Or does it just boil down to having fewer sellers makes the remaining ones easier to control?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
"think that having fewer people selling something makes a system more efficient and cheaper"
As regards the liberals in power:
They are not interested in making anything more efficient or cheaper.
As Professor Reynolds says, they want to turn us all into (unarmed) beggars because they're easier to please. It's about their money and their power as always.
As for their supporters:
They don't think, they feel. One of the things they feel is that capitalism and Republicans are evil and it is a good thing when either is squelched by any means.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
The left will never ever retreat from their dream of socialized medicine. Like multiculturalism and redistribution, it is in their DNA and can not be questioned even if they wanted to.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All