Even though there hasn’t been much Obamacare news this week, more happens with the Affordable Care Act during a slow week these days than occurred during long stretches of time after it was passed in 2010. Why?
Congressional Obamacare supporters could have spent the months and years between the bill’s signing in 2010 and its rollout in 2013 starting bill implementation, including instituting and enforcing the individual mandate. Instead, Democrats postponed most of the bill’s provisions until after the 2012 Presidential election, because they knew that the bill was unpopular and that voters wouldn’t reelect President Obama if they suffered its damaging effects right before the election. It was an artificial, three-and-a-half-year, Democrat-induced calm before the storm that started on October 1, when millions of cancellation notices gusted into subscribers’ mailboxes, federal and state websites crashed against shoppers’ screens, and voters with few affordable options in sight became lost at sea.
Those months and years were squandered; the administration can’t get them back. But why is Obama continuing to postpone enforcement of the individual and employer mandates, when he claimed back in 2009 that it was so urgent for us to fix our hopelessly broken healthcare system? It’s as though every single essential component of Obamacare turned out to be not so essential after all. Someone should ask Obama: Do we all need insurance that covers pediatric dental care and marital counseling right now, or don’t we? Will we need it over the next three years, or won’t we? Obama presented his bill as necessary to avert millions of unnecessary illnesses and thousands of avoidable deaths, not to mention millions of dollars squandered on treating conditions that could have been prevented. So how is putting off the bill’s most important provisions for years at a time helpful for the country’s health?
Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid think his claim that all health care horror stories are false is remotely believable, when the administration’s endless delays of Obamacare provisions are clearly designed to prevent more horror stories from circulating? Does anyone believe that all these postponements aren’t taking place for political reasons—first the ones postponed until after the 2010 midterm elections; then those postponed until after the 2012 Presidential election; and now endless delays past the 2014 midterms, the 2016 Presidential election, and probably beyond?
A great campaign strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton, or whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee in 2016, would be to ask the candidate whether she supports all these Obamacare delays. If she says no, then she is sharply at odds with Obama, which is politically risky. But if she says yes, then she must be asked: How can all of these delays be good for the country, if there are tens of millions of people desperately in need of health insurance right now? And how can a delay strategy be helpful if there are so many people with inferior insurance who are one illness away from going bankrupt? Does Clinton want her constituents to die or go bankrupt?
Well actually, yes—many Democratic politicians wouldn’t mind, or at least would benefit politically, from more economic hardship among the electorate. That would enable them to step in as saviors of the ever-growing downtrodden class and snare us into spending even more money on programs to support the general welfare. Americans going bankrupt from expensive medical care would be all the more justification for Democrats to heavily regulate health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and medical device manufacturers. Democrats are experts at frightening voters with nightmare scenarios about how bad things will get if Republicans deregulate the free market, and health insurance is an especially sensitive area of that market.
Speaking of scare tactics, Salon.com recently published an astonishing essay arguing that the wealthiest 1% of Americans are “sociopathic,” in that they don’t care about other human beings and enjoy attaining positions of power at companies so they can lay off workers. This is yet another example of the left exaggerating the extent to which Republicans prefer people to fend for themselves: liberals imply that conservatives want everyone to live on an island, carry out every municipal function on his own, and refuse to work together in a community or divvy up responsibilities. This argument, in addition to being ridiculous, is belied by the fact that conservatives voluntarily give more to charity than liberals.
Which party is really made up of sociopaths? I say it’s the one that tells us that millions of Americans are going to die over the next few years if they don’t have adequate health insurance—and then promotes that outcome anyway for purely political reasons.
- Regime Lies About Obamacare Target (rushlimbaugh.com)
- Delaying Their Lie Doesn’t Mean Dem Pols Aren’t Still Liars (independentsentinel.com)
- Obame Delays Obamacare Again…. To Help Democrats in Their Possible Reelection! (blogsforvictory.com)
- Awkward: Dem Congressman Can’t Handle Obamacare Question, Starts Singing Instead (ijreview.com)
- The Unlikely Group That’s Saying Obamacare Poses a Problem for the Middle Class (theblaze.com)