About these ads

How Bad Is the Obamacare Rollout?

So bad that the New York Times has to issue one of its patented awful editorial board op-eds in order to try to defend the law–and the administration that has botched its implementation. The whole thing is a laugh riot from soup to nuts.

The very title of the piece–”Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping”–signals to the reader that the Times is fully prepared to cover up, paper over, and outright ignore the fact that President Obama and his political allies repeatedly and deliberately misled the nation by promising Americans that if they liked their health care plans, they could keep them. We are told that the president “clearly misspoke” when he told Americans that they could keep their plans in all instances; for the Times, “clearly misspoke” is a euphemism for “repeatedly consistently and deliberately told the exact opposite of the truth,” given that the prevaricators in this instance were political actors the Times approves of when it comes time to hand out endorsements (and when it comes time for Times employees to go to the polls and vote). This talk about “clearly [misspeaking]” is about as blatant a signal that the Times is ready to engage in journalistic fraud and malpractice as is the opening paragraph, which tells us that the reason news reports are focusing on the cancellation of insurance policies–and the revelation that the Obama administration and its political allies lied to the American people–is that congressional Republicans “have stoked fear and confusion.” As though the stories of cancellations and sticker shock themselves–told straight and without any congressional Republican lobbying for the stories to be told–were not enough to make Americans fearful, and as though the unbelievably malfunctions that have been suffered by the website are not enough in order to make Americans confused and outraged.

We are told that insurers “are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones,” a sentence that hardly inspires confidence, especially when one considers the context of the Obamacare rollout. We are also told that “in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.” Never mind that we have seen cancellations of insurance policies with deductibles much lower, and customers forced to purchase replacement policies with higher deductibles, and with premium increases of 100%, if not higher.

We also get this:

This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.

The cancellation of millions of insurance plans–a phenomenon the president and his allies assured us would never occur–is an “overblown controversy” now. And what good is health care “reform” when it increases deductibles and premiums in many, many cases, causing financial “crises” for individuals and families all across the country?

More:

Starting next year, all plans sold in this country will be required to provide 10 essential benefits, including some, like mental health and substance abuse treatment and maternity and newborn care, that are not now part of many policies. And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.

Why do people who are not expecting to have children–single males, elderly couples, infertile couples–obliged to get health insurance plans that cover maternity and newborn care? Why can’t people opt out of mental health coverage if there is not a reasonable chance that they will need that coverage? Why can’t they get mental health coverage when it is needed? After all, pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied, so in the event that mental health coverage is needed down the line, it can be obtained and the insurance companies cannot deny people who already have pre-existing mental health conditions. The Times assures us that over-coverage–and the high premiums that come with it–is “one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits.” They don’t explain why having unnecessary coverage is a step towards social justice, but as we saw from the beginning of this intelligence-insulting, repulsively dishonest op-ed, the New York Times is less about explaining, and more about covering up a disastrous rollout with disastrous policy consequences for the country. The Times editorial should be ashamed of its partisan shilling, and of the the fact that it cannot competently shill worth a damn.

I am sure that Times editorials in the future will refrain from pointing out the security risks of using the HealthCare.gov website. I am also sure that Times editorials in the future will refrain from excoriating the Obama administration for awful management and rollout procedures for the HealthCare.gov website. The Washington Post story claims that a lot of the truly terrible decisions made by the Obama administration were made because of the fear that competent management decisions would somehow invite Republican political opposition. Apparently, the White House believed that it would be politically safe by making incompetent management decisions, a determination that historians will struggle to comprehend and explain so long as intelligent life continues to exist in the universe and so long as that intelligent life has access to the chronology of the Obamacare rollout story.

The Times editorial board won’t talk about this either:

Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.

In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

“The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality. Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it. But common sense is eventually going to prevail in this town and common sense is going to have to prevail on this piece of legislation as well,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.

“The administration’s own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House’s own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,” the Iowa Republican said.

On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.

Ya think?

And finally, I’m sure that the New York Times editorial board simply won’t tell Americans the truth the way that, say, Jon Stewart will. But then, Jon Stewart isn’t a hack.

About these ads

16 responses

  1. New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, Walter Duranty, tells the teeming masses what’s really important: “We’re the State, and we’re here to help you” (so get the f*** over yourselves, damn ungrateful peons).

  2. Jon Stewart is, absolutely and without any shadow of any doubt whatsoever, a hack. That quibble aside, it’s good to see you attacking Democrats again.

    • I will take on Democrats when I think it appropriate, and I will call shenanigans on my own side when I think that is appropriate. We’ll have to agree to disagree about Stewart; I have no doubt that he and I are on different political sides, but I respect him for calling shenanigans on his side in this case.

      • I find Stewart completely dull but looked at the video anyway. His argument seems to be that Obama is just too naive and unknowing, as encapsulated in the ‘joke’ that Obama is so innocent that he still thinks he can work with Republicans.

        Is anything further from reality than the idea that Obama has ever tried to work with the GOP rather than demonize them at every opportunity?

        Someone is certainly naive, and it’s Stewart.

  3. The real interesting thing is to read the comments below the op-ed, normally they are an amen chorus of agreement…..not so now, while not a majority… many disagree with the ACA…..wow…when you start losing the obama voting high information voter of the NYT…something is going on. As time goes on more and more people will start seeing the ACA for what it is… a massive lie and betrayal. The struggling middle class is getting hosed here and will punish the authors of this come election time.

  4. I would love to comment if I could read the typeface. Please, please, make it a little darker. Pale gray on white is very difficult to read!

  5. So once again, Obama, the Democrat Party, and the New York Times editorial board are assuring me that I’m too stupid to run my own life and look after the best interests of my family, but they can correct that from 5000 miles away (I live in Alaska). Scratch any Leftist, and you’ll see a fascist bleed. I guess I’ll go online and see how much it would cost me to live in Obama’s Kingdom. Not that I’m going to pay, but it will be enlightening to know the monthly cost of serfdom for the Obamabots.

  6. ….”a determination that historians will struggle to comprehend and explain so long as intelligent life continues to exist in the universe and so long as that intelligent life has access to the chronology of the Obamacare rollout story.”

    Dammit, man, if you have an opinion on the rollout, tell us what it is! Enough of this mamby-pamby tap-dancing around the issue. ;-)

  7. What I find fascinating in the arguments supportive of Obamacare is 1) the idea that so-called comprehensive care is superior to the alternative; and 2) that heretofore, 50 states allowed the issuance of substandard insurance. Comprehensive care amounts to pre-paid healthcare spending–not insurance (risk pooling of known but unforeseen occurrences). I prefer to buy insurance, not prepay my spending–spending which would go unused. The substandard argument is propaganda–a non-starter, without foundation.

  8. Pingback: A White House Officially in Crisis « Pejman Yousefzadeh

  9. Pingback: Obamacare, a Disastrous Press Conference, and an Unconstitutional “Fix” « Pejman Yousefzadeh

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,737 other followers

%d bloggers like this: