And it’s scary to them. And I am sorry that they — you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me. We’ve got to work hard to make sure that — they know — we hear ’em and that we’re going to do everything we can — to deal with folks who find themselves — in a tough position as a consequence of this.
The “situation” that people find themselves in “based on assurances they got from” Obama is that he got re-elected. There is only one way to rectify that: resign.
The situation of people losing their health plans, on the other hand, is not due to any assurances, but due to the junk law that Obama and Democrats passed.
“Doing everything we can” means rescinding the law. Hooray! Oh, wait. It’s another Obama figure of speech that he doesn’t really mean. Period.
But in this transition, you know, there are going to be folks who get a cancellation letter, especially when a website’s not working. They’re looking and saying, ‘What am I going to do now?’ And — you know, we have to make sure that they — are not feeling as if they’ve been betrayed by an effort that — is designed to help them.
People don’t get a cancellation letter “especially when a website’s not working.”
On that last sentence, I could say: actually the effort is designed to help the uninsured, not the already insured. But that is way too charitable.
My public choice studies rather lead me to say: actually the effort is designed to make Democratic lawmakers feel good about themselves, at the expense of real people. They may try to say it’s about helping others, but all efforts like this are inherently selfish. That’s why Obama keeps using numbers:
I mean, we’re talking about 5 percent of the population.
You see, it’s not about helping people. It’s about saying, “I created a system where no one goes without health insurance. I am such a great soul.”
And then let the 15 million American souls who lose their insurance pick up the pieces. Not to mention the millions of other Americans who have to pay for your stupid law in higher taxes or government fines. Not to mention the millions of other Americans who now will be subsidizing actions contrary to their religion.
It’s a shame that the main point made in this article needs to be articulated at all. Yet so many (the majority of?) people don’t get it.
I remember way back in the late 1990s I saw John McCain on TV saying something to the effect of, “I don’t think we should discriminate for any reason at all.” Right then and there I decided John McCain was a freaking idiot.
In this article, I agree with 90% of it, but in the end he punts:
Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to look at the issue through the discrimination lens, though. The idea behind the law may simply be that, because women did not choose to be women, they shouldn’t have to pay extra for it – even if it costs more. These rules could be designed to rectify a cosmic injustice, using insurance premiums as the leveling force, rather than to stamp out unjust behavior on the part of insurance companies themselves.
What? But men pay more for food (if only because their larger bodies burn more calories on average). And men pay more in taxes (look it up). If we are to start equalizing “cosmic injustice", then let’s do so, not just stop at health care. That would be unfair.
Like this nugget:
But the 800 number was more than bad form. It was bad substance. Turns out you can give all the information you want to the person at the other end of the line — or to your friendly community “navigator” — but that person must enter your data into the very same nonfunctioning Web site.
Sounds like Obama promoting make-work. Oh, wait. He probably doesn’t know that.
Last Wednesday, he simply denied reality and said he really hasn’t changed his message from when he promised in June 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”
Instead of simply admitting he was wrong, he went Clintonian, explaining that the pledge only applied to certain specified plans — which he now says he meant all along. Alas, this is one case of death by punctuation. “Period” means without caveats, modifications, loopholes or escape hatches.
That’s right. PERIOD. Live by stupid mind-numbing clichés, die by them.
Who will tell Obama that lies so transparent render rhetoric not just useless but ridiculous?
In all honesty, hopefully no one. Maybe then we can get back to honest, limited government.
There are many things that we can learn from the failure of the Obamacare website (and its impending failure as a national health care insurance guarantee). But one should surely be that the inability to fire federal government workers, and the culture that produced this inability, is one big contributing factor to why the Obamacare web site has so many problems.
There are many demands (from both Republicans and Democrats) that someone should lose their job over the massive failure of the Obamacare rollout. Some Democrats (e.g., Rep. Eliot Engel) dismiss such calls, saying, “Let’s focus on getting the site fixed.” Both kind of miss the point. Firing workers, and the ability to fire them for poor performance, are part of what keeps employees from making such monumental mistakes. Firing someone is not only for getting someone better to do the job, or for vindictive retribution. It is also to let the workforce know that they are accountable for their work. In other words, it has meaning beyond the immediate needs of a particular office or position.
So the failure of Obamacare is in part due to the failure of past government failures to hold people accountable. And not firing someone (let alone hundreds of people) for Obamacare not only means trouble for that policy, but for innumerable government policies in the future.
Just one more reason why government sucks at everything.
Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 97 >>