Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

You Can’t Handle the Truth

November 13th, 2013 - 9:48 am

Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal has a few questions about ObamaCare. Since I doubt he’ll get the answers he seeks from the White House, I have agreed to play the part of Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom to the best of my ability.

Got it? Then here we go:

Why implement the mandate in a way that forces many people to buy insurance at inflated prices (a bad deal) in order to subsidize others? Isn’t a universal principle of good governance that subsidies should be funded openly and honestly with tax dollars rather than disguised taxes on disfavored individuals?

No. Had we been honest about the subsidies, we never would have been able to pass this historic legislation. Also, this way there are many more opportunities to punish our enemies, which is in my administration the very definition of good governance.

At your 2010 health-care summit, you dismissed what you called “house insurance”—cheap, high-deductible policies that protect people from serious illness or injury but otherwise leave them to fund routine medical care out of pocket. How do you reconcile this with your oft-stated promise that people can keep their existing insurance?

I don’t reconcile it. I lied in order to get the legislation passed. I had thought that was clear by now.

More important, how do you reconcile it with the fact that virtually all progress on cost control in the past 20 years has come from cost-sharing to make users more sensitive to the price and value of the care they consume? Are we just going to throw this progress away?

“Progress” is defined as subsidizing my supporters and punishing my enemies, which this landmark legislation allows me to do in ways you haven’t even noticed yet.

Your ObamaCare program is supposed to be financed with the mandate-cum-tax on the young plus Medicare cuts, but the mandate is weak and Congress won’t deliver the Medicare cuts. Haven’t you created another unfunded government program destined to be starved for money in the future as the reality of our fiscal situation begins to bite?

Absolutely I have, yes.

You tout the Affordable Care Act as a triumph over special interests, but the stock prices of the insurance industry have enjoyed a huge run-up. Isn’t this because your program, boiled down, just throws more tax dollars at an unreformed health-care system that every analyst, including you, says spends resources inefficiently?

By giving the insurance industry a captive audience paying higher prices for fewer services, we were able to bring insurers on board to help pass this historical legislation.

You cite RomneyCare as a model, but RomneyCare was enacted by a GOP governor and Democratic legislature with overwhelming public support. Wouldn’t there be greater buy-in now from the public if your plan actually had been bipartisan, not to mention greater buy-in from the opposition party, aka Republicans, who are certain to become a governing party at some point in the future and responsible for carrying ObamaCare forward?

I won. And the ACA is the settled law of the land.

Your Affordable Care Act is a nice break with precedent in one way—it reserves its visible subsidies for the poor. Shouldn’t we apply this excellent principle to Medicare and the giant tax benefit for employer-provided insurance? Isn’t our problem that too many middle-class Americans are programmed to treat health care as a free lunch?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
One good thing may yet come from Obamacare. That is, liberals are starting to pay attention and I dare say, “get a clue” about what Obama and the Left means to their pocketbook. My 50-year-old, Massachusetts, liberal, union worker brother is suddenly complaining bitterly about what Obamacare is doing, and will do, to his healthcare. I remind him that Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with Obamacare and fought its passage mightily. Also, my 29-year-old PhD student son, who has been immersed in years of academian leftist, and has never paid for health insurance, and hasn’t been to the doctor in 3 years (since he left daddy’s plan), now must buy a plan. He feels he is getting “ripped off.” I, of course, remind him of his unyielding support for everything Obama and liberal, including Obamacare. He and so many in the young, student know-nothing world are stunned that Obamacare isn’t actually free. And, of course, we are just scratching the surface of the costs of Obamacare—a perfect microcosm of all liberal/leftist governance. Just perhaps, my brother and son will “connect the dots” from their votes to Obamacare.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Also not enough personal pronouns.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have to say that you did a horrible job of playing the part of Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom.

Your answers were too concise, you didn't blame Republicans, you didn't assume the mantle of victimhood and the worst error, you were honest.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (43)
All Comments   (43)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my neighbor's sister-in-law makes $60/hr on the computer. She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $16262 just working on the computer for a few hours. see here now>>>>>>>>> www.jobs35.com
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
my buddy's mother makes $63 every hour on the internet. She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $14547 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at these guys...... WWW.Rush64.COM
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
At your 2010 health-care summit, you dismissed what you called “house insurance”—cheap, high-deductible policies that protect people from serious illness or injury but otherwise leave them to fund routine medical care out of pocket.

More than that, the Obamacare policies apparently ARE just such high-deductible policies, so all that is now available is what he said was being eliminated.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
By giving the insurance industry a captive audience paying higher prices for fewer services, we were able to bring insurers on board to help pass this historical legislation.

And that's spot on. The name behind it is Karen Ignagni. The Obama WH wanted her and the industry completely on board this go around compared to 1993-4 when the industry wasn't on board, and funded the "Harry & Louise" media buys that helped kill it.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
There will be killing fields for Democrats. They (not just he) lied to win and everyone knows it. Who you gonna blame?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The stupid voters.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Settled" Law of the Land?

Screw you and your weeping sycophants.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Let me be clear, it's like money laundering, when I do it, it's legal and guarantees me four more years in the White House, not the Big House. For example, campaign contributors give me money in return for hundred folds of taxpayers' money laundered thru our Stimulus and Bailouts. Ask Kaiser and Buffett, how high their returns of investment are by investing in me.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
{sigh} Some people have no historical sense of irony...
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The real explosion will occur when Soccer Moms actually have to Pay for their kids cold and flu treatments at an Urgent Care Clinic.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
How quickly will the Internet abound with alternative and old time cold and flu remedies again?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
We have 5 decades of progressive creep to reverse. not the time to comprimize. This article is great and revealing ata time when some rino's are starting to call for helping fix this mess. There is no fix PERIOD let the progressives own the disaster --stand firm., It was only 6 weeks ago that Obama tried to destroy us permanently. Now it is time for payback.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
5 decades? Back it up to Teddy R and Dewey of decimal system fame. This long march through the institutions makes Chairman Mao look like a little old lady with a walker. Barring a preference cascade it'll likely take at least that long to walk it back. Frankly, I don't think the GOP is up to it.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dunno if you have noticed, but progressive creep is never reversed. The best the 'Pubbies ever do is apply the brakes.
But they you get a Clinton or an Obama. Or, hell, a Bush.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All