[…] President Barack Obama promised Obamacare was going to immediately alleviate some of the pain of rising premiums for businesses. This week, we learned that 111 waivers had already been granted by the administration to those threatening to drop coverage for tens of thousands of employees they can no longer afford to cover. Others around the country, like AARP (sweet schadenfreude) and Boeing, were forced to raise their premiums, in part, because of Obamacare.
Sixteen of the waivers, you won’t be surprised to learn, were granted to union-based plans, which confirms that the sleaze-addled bill became a sleaze-addled law. Why, after all, should a few chosen companies be granted dispensation while others subsidize them?
The administration argues that these waivers are necessary only until reform takes effect in 2014, at which time workers will enjoy a wide range of approved options. Now, clearly anyone gullible enough to believe that a giant, invasive regulatory scheme is going to spur competition and choice is already working for the administration. But even if we were to suspend our disbelief, how does any of that comport with the president’s claim that we can all keep our insurance if we like it? (Answer: not well.)
Let’s add this news to other iffy rationales for passage. Once we remove illegal immigrants, those who can afford insurance but choose not to buy and those eligible for other government programs, that amazing 30 million to 50 million of “uninsured” becomes a more manageable 9 million.
Remember, despite the incessant complaints about our flawed system, once experts like Dr. Scott Atlas at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University removed inputs that had nothing to do with care, the U.S. led the world in life expectancy and in almost every survival rate.
So even before we touch on cost, the long-term affects, rationing, the way the bill was passed, or the constitutionality of reform, the very justifications for passage suffer from a serious “messaging” problem.
Then again, when your messaging problem is really just an honesty problem, it’s not going to get any easier.
Careful, Dave. You’re writing about a 2700-page federal monstrosity that very few lawmakers have read (and understood) all the way through.
Would it really be so terribly stunning to find that they’ve included provisions within the legislation that make any public criticism of the law that results in its increasing unpopularity a criminal offense?
Or am I just confusing this administration with a Kafka novel again. That happens sometimes with me, you know.
Apologies in advance if that’s the case.
I wonder if the law contains a provision forcing my insurance company to cover me if I wake up as a cockroach.
Sebelius has pretty much stated that insurance companies that state what is, in fact, an honest assessment of the results this monstrosity, resulting in jacked up premiums, she and her agency will act to keep them out of the pool in the marketplace. Fuck them.
It is not a message problem, at least in delivery. It is just a shitty message, no matter how they choose to lie about it, dress it up, or otherwise divert/deflect/distract from same.
Harry is down for the message struggle too.
Then again, I’m with Samsa Mutual so it probably won’t be an issue.
The “Obama is a black genius” narrative is what has caused all of this. Slaves to political correctness fear the whip, so they hold their tongues about Obama’s lack of any intelligence. As a free man, I choose to call Obama what he is: an idiot. It’s a great place to start. Prove me wrong Obama. Go on a trip with a plan. Don’t say things like “2010 will be different. You’ll have me.”
Why is “You’ll have me”, any different from “it will bend the cost curve down”? They’re both lies. They’re both spoken by an idiot who knows he’s just bullshitting to get to his next golf game.
Break the chains of PC people! Rise up and point at the idiot.
From a Walter Russell Mead piece titled “Pretty in Pink? Obama’s Dark Night of the Soul” [my emphasis] :
Why “cruelly”?
No, seriously. Why not “thankfully” or “finally” accurate? Is it cruel to force the mewling herd to look at the truth of the matter, rather than an obvious boon to them after all these years letting them go on pretending otherwise?
Goddamn it.
The message is: “The peasant’s haven’t gotten the message.”
The problem is, the peasants understand the subtext of that message perfectly well.
The solution is a new message: If your neighbor refuses to come into the Church of Liberalism, compel him to enter.
apostrophe abuse WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
to the penalty box with me
I think the answer is here in alppuccino’s comment:
I firmly believe, despite the fact that the man is such an obvious walking disaster, most people are still reticent to say what they mean about Obama without the (supposedly) requisite qualifying statements.
Hence, “cruelly”.
Why “cruelly”?
Because it’s not nice to show stupid people just how stupid they are. Laughing at them behind their backs is okay, but shoving their noses in it? That’s just not cricket.
the (supposedly) requisite qualifying statements.
The most popular being, “While I admire his intellect…………..”
In a room full of idiots, the one who is the least stupid is the genius.
You think you’re being funny, but that really is pretty much it.
message-wise they’ve red-lined their subservient media – there’s no more power in those engines, and still bumble sinks deeper into disapproval and fail. All they have left is crisis exploitation.
Cue the budget crisis.
It’s all for fear of being called racist.
Which would explain why people continue to give the man high marks in personal approval even while his job approval ratings continue to bottom out.
Hey alp, you misspelled “Jesus”
Criminal offense? Not yet, but intimidation by a cabinet official? See JD’s comment at #2.
Hey alp, you misspelled “Jesus”
There really is no spellcheck for poop.