The American Spectator : Obama's Shell Game

Text Size

Obama's Shell Game

By Ross Kaminsky on 1.19.11 @ 6:08AM

Pretending to deregulate while siccing the EPA and wildlly inflating the number of Americans with "pre-existing conditions."

The attempted rebranding of Barack Obama following his November "shellacking" has begun in earnest with President Obama going to those evil capitalists at the Wall Street Journal -- instead of his New York Times erstwhile fellow travelers -- with an op-ed entitled "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System" in which he professes his appreciation for "America's free market" and "vibrant entrepreneurialism" while explaining Wednesday's Executive Order designed to "improve regulation and regulatory review."

While the president uses the left's weasel-word "balance" four times in his op-ed, his tone is remarkable for its focus on economic growth ("growth" used four times) and the detrimental impact to that growth caused by government regulation.

Obama says he and his administration are "making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb," giving an example of the EPA's regulation of saccharin as a dangerous chemical: "Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month."

Obama also puts on his newly acquired pro-capitalism mask when talking about the sheer burden of regulation:

We're also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We're looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for -- and reduce -- the burdens regulations may place on small businesses. Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.

Unfortunately, despite the laudable sentiment contained in the president's words, it's difficult to take Obama 2.0 seriously. In particular, is the American public, especially our entrepreneurs, supposed to sing the praises of Obama's claimed conversion from class warfare redistributionist to proto-capitalist while his signature "accomplishment," commonly known as Obamacare, is the single biggest small-business-killing piece of legislation in generations?

Should we believe that the president actually wants to rein in the same EPA that is trying to implement economy-destroying carbon taxes despite the inability of the Democrats, even when they had massive majorities in both chambers of Congress, to get the left's beloved cap-and-tax bill to the president's desk?

Can we rely on an administration which, though the Department of the Interior, is doing everything possible to hinder domestic offshore oil drilling while Americans' fuel prices have been steadily, painfully climbing?

Obama's says that his move to "modernize our regulations" will "make our economy stronger and more competitive." But while Obamacare and the administration's energy price-increasing policy choices persist, tinkering with our rule-making procedures is like putting higher octane fuel into a car which you've just chained to the ground. Sure, the better fuel could help -- once the true impediments to movement are removed.

Perhaps it's no surprise that on the same day Obama announced his Executive Order -- and the day before the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a repeal of Obamacare -- the Department of Health and Human Services released a study subtitled "129 million people could be denied affordable coverage" without Obamacare because of pre-existing conditions.

It's a transparently political report, not least due to its use of "could" in both its title, "At Risk: Pre-Existing Conditions Could Affect 1 in 2 Americans" and subtitle, as even their own data show a range of people who may have pre-existing conditions between 50 and 129 million, with -- of course -- the high end of the range quoted by the breathless parrots in the media. In any other circumstance (except perhaps with claims of man-made global warming), the media would be rightly skeptical of a government agency giving a range so wide as to demonstrate the "data" to be what those of us who actually rely on data for living call SWAG -- a stupid (or scientific) wild-ass guess.

As the Obama Administration is chaining the engine of the economy ever more securely to the concrete by signaling its refusal to allow any important modification to Obamacare, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans says that the report "exaggerates the number of people who are impacted," adding that most Americans (a) already have insurance, (b) would only be at risk if they changed coverage, (c) even then only if they went into the individual market because people getting insurance through company plans are generally guaranteed coverage even with pre-existing conditions, and (d) "Nine out of ten people who apply for coverage in the individual market are offered a policy."

Even the HHS study says that "as many as 82 million Americans with employer-based coverage have a pre-existing condition." In other words, two-thirds of the people they claim "could" be victims of the insurance market actually have coverage already. HHS correctly notes that "the need for individual market coverage has increased as job-based insurance has decreased" but somehow misses two key points: First, that job-based insurance has decreased because of government action (both because of Obamacare and because of unemployment made worse by most of Obama's major "achievements"), and second that individual market coverage could be substantially improved by allowing interstate competition for customers and equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance between companies and the self-employed. In other words, most of the problems with health insurance are due to a failure of government, not a failure of a supposedly free market, something health insurance has essentially never seen.

The issue of "pre-existing conditions" is worthy of its own analysis, not just economic but also moral. In short, covering pre-existing conditions for someone who has not, or at least not recently, been insured, is not insurance; it's welfare. There's a reason it is illegal for someone to apply for car insurance just after wrecking his Porsche and trying to make a claim for a new Carrera 4S: it is simply forcing others to pay for his carelessness or misfortune -- and whichever it is, pre-existing conditions are not "society's" responsibility despite cries from the left that "it's different with health."

President Obama's op-ed and corresponding Executive Order as fine as far as they go, but they don't go nearly far enough. Yes, avoiding "excessive, inconsistent, and redundant" regulation add octane to the economy's fuel tank. But as long as Obamacare and this administration's energy policies keep the economy chained to the ground, we're not going anywhere fast.

In the meantime, it is difficult to see Obama 2.0's new business-friendly façade and hiring of a "pro-business" Chief of Staff as anything other than trying to avoid Shellacking 2.0 just under two years from now.

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He blogs at Rossputin.com and is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver's NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.19.11 @ 6:28AM

The editorial in the Wall Street Journal was interesting, but not one regulation will be changed that will have any significant impact.

If Obama really believed what he wrote, he would be the first to call for an end to Obamacare. If Obamacare goes through the private health insurance industry in this country is through and most likely forever.

I predict by December 2011 you won't see much from the crowd inside the beltway. It's not hopeless mind you but he Republicans are whining about cutting 100 billion.

If there was anyone inside the beltway serious about cutting anything I don't think they would have much trouble cutting a 100 billion.

The can't even defund public broadcasting which costs close to half a billion.

It isn't just Obama. Many inside the beltway have the disease called Big Gov. It's almost like AIDS without medical consequence.

Obama reminds me of a quote from Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut: "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."

PaulD| 1.19.11 @ 7:07AM

Obama says things that are in direct opposition to his actions. The intent is to confuse. We are being gas-lighted.

TennesseeVolunteer| 1.19.11 @ 8:13AM

While the media talks about hate speech by Sarah and
and the fact that health care, the EPA and the Dept. of Education is about to strangle business in America through higher prices and more regulations.
This Idiot in Chief is saying lesser regulations while all of us small businessman are paddling as fast as we can.( My companies contributions for Unemployment is now at 10.6% of every dollar paid on each employee up to the first $9,000 of income!).
Do you think I am adding any employees on a part time basis if I can help it!
And while the media ignores the true cost to small business, the Idiot is closing off coal mines and capping wells or stopping new permits. Our energy costs are going to skyrocket someday and the media will be the last to report it.

Redstateboy| 1.19.11 @ 5:26PM

Obama must have such disregard for his fellow citizens - he Must think we're idiots!! HIS own EPA just Vetoed a WV Mtn.Top Mining Op's. H2o Permit - halting a 200+ million $ program and costing over 200 jobs... (probably good paying Union jobs!) Does this Moron Not Know what's going on in his Own Administration?!!?

WRTolkas| 1.19.11 @ 8:13AM

They were taken in all the time. The music would play and the barkers would start their speeches to draw the crowds. The small town yokels would congregate around the colorful wagons of the patent medicine-show dealers promising a cure for everything from pimples to cancer for just the measly sum of one-dollar per bottle. And as a side show, there was the old tried and true shell game. It was easy in the beginning to remove the money from the yokels. Eventually the word of the deception was spread by poster, letter, and the spoken word, and the country yokels became educated. The medicine show faded into history.

Barry the magnificent hasn't received the word. We will not buy the snake oil he is peddling. The yokels are now better informed and not by his barker the MSM; we have instant communication through the internet and excellent sources of news like The American Spectator. And we have become better educated.

Be safe,
WRTolkas

Lawrence Boccardi| 1.19.11 @ 8:13AM

And, the Party of Stupid is being rope-a-doped once again. I called the offices of my new Congressman (R), and my new Senator (R), yesterday, to encourage them to ignore the idea of alternate seating for the State of the Union. This is a ploy by Schumer, Krugman, etal, to make The One look more presidential. I also told them to reject the raising of the debt ceiling, without significant (10%) spending cuts. These are the people that locked the R's out of the room, as they assembled Obamacare, Cap & Tax, etc., and when pressed, told them "I won!". If our Commander-in-Chief can abandon his principles, as he would have us believe, based on the results of an election, perhaps he shouldn't be CIC?

owyheewine| 1.19.11 @ 8:50AM

Obama had his best lawyer face on with his op-ed. That means like all lawyers, he gives away his lies. You know , he moves his lips.

Pecos Pete| 1.19.11 @ 9:02AM

Smoke and mirrors. Say one thing then do the opposite.

ObamaCare requires 1099 forms for every vendor from whom I purchase at least $600 in goods or services. The O says he wants to reduce paperwork, that's simply BS for the multitudes who don't think. And, that's just one example.

Pete| 1.19.11 @ 9:46AM

We've seen this strategy before. No lie is too bold. Insist upon the absurd. It is disgusting that the media gives him a free pass on this kind of thing day after day. Don't believe him? You must be racist.

solidground| 1.19.11 @ 10:10AM

This hilarious Obama comment was called out in bold in the published piece:

... "making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb," giving an example of the EPA's regulation of saccharin as a dangerous chemical: "Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month."

So, would it not follow, then, that the EPA's branding of carbon dioxide, which humans have breathed without harm since first walking upright, as a noxious gas that must be regulated and controlled, is indeed one of those "dumb" regulations?

Oh, wait: I totally forgot. Logic is only appropriate when it serves a particular political end, such as the Obama op-ed piece.

Dein| 1.19.11 @ 10:21AM

Anyone who believes anything this man says is a fool.Cancel a regulation about saccharin,add thousands of them for healthcare,shutdown coal mines,oil production,cutoff access to waterways , federal land grabs,more epa regs for cars ,trucks, and refineries.While the right hand is moving,you better keep an eye on the left.[no pun intended]

Anthony| 1.19.11 @ 10:30AM

Apparently, Obozo has a few shell games going on. What a great street con he would have made. Seems the Gov. of Hawaii, a family friend of Obozo, can't find The One's birth certificate.
Oops, never mind, besides, the Constitution is such an old document that nobody can understand, written by dead white guys, so let's just move on, ok?
P.S. Sarah Palin, please return it to Obozo, stealing is not nice!!!

Stan Redmond| 1.19.11 @ 10:47AM

Nothing like a government program to investigate government programs' problems and recommend another government program to fix the broken government programs.
NOTHING will change. A few token regulations will be throw out, like vacuum tube safety standards, for his adoring fans in the media to report. We will still be immersed in a sea of stupid. In the unlikely event "plain dumb" regulations are thrown out big deal. it is not the redundant and plain stupid regulations holding back the American economy. The stupid leviathan regulations will still be there. Will the plain dumb lightbulb ban be thrown out? I doubt it.
I would LOVE to hire 2 employees for my growing business. But I won't. And I probably never will. I, as a sole proprietor, am regulated enough. Imagine if hiring legitimate employees was as easy as hiring an illegal alien?

Claypoole| 1.19.11 @ 5:57PM

Every week, when I do my regular supermarket shopping, I buy 2 or 3 incandescent light bulbs. So far, I have a nice stash, including 3-ways, the higher wattages, and specialty bulbs for the chandeliers and bathrooms. I recommend everyone do the same; can we really trust the government to eliminate one of its diktats?

Mike Gabel| 1.19.11 @ 10:59AM

As always with Obama, the proof is in his deeds, not in his words.

vann taylor| 1.19.11 @ 11:54AM

he is going to review and eliminate regulations that hold back job creators the same way he went through the budget line by line to see what expenditures could be eliminated. ha, what a joke!

Yosemeti Sam| 1.19.11 @ 11:58AM

Better title: Obamas' Con Game!

karen| 1.19.11 @ 12:12PM

Obama the marxist is not for america but always uses misleading words and pretends he does-but in reality he puts the knife in our backs.

Oldefarte| 1.19.11 @ 12:58PM

This current attempt [after El Chosen One's shellacking from the November elections] is just the left's political attempt to rebrand their previously successful trojun-horsed candidate in the the Oval Office. If the taxpayer-voters of this country are so stupid as to now believe a word of this horse excrement concerning his masqueraded main stream credentials and to re-elect him again in 2012, then they'll deserve the liberalistic excrement that he and his Democrats will effectively drop from their collective backsides onto them!!!!!!!!!!!!

PattyMor| 1.19.11 @ 2:29PM

Words are cheap. And never more cheap as those uttered by a politician. Another head fake. All the while he is shutting down farming, mining, drilling, and fishing. For kicks he is hitting the rest of the economy with EPA regulations and extorting money from Comcast,

Wayne | 1.19.11 @ 2:52PM

We know Obama i a compulsive liar with no credibility. What I have problem with are the conservatives who do the best they can giving him credibility. We saw it with all the lame duck legislation and we saw it with the lame reaction to his Tucson speech.

Of course he is not going to tell the EPA to ease off. He is not going to start drilling in ANWR. He does not care about the jobs lost in the gulf. He will continue to enforce junk science. He will also reward his cronies and support the businesses that help keep him in power.

George S| 1.19.11 @ 3:29PM

Liberal are so predictable:

["This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."]

["Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs."]

["I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for—and reduce—the burdens regulations may place on small businesses"]

Placed together, the remarks by appointing the Algore to the Initiative to Streamline Government and [Obama's] executive order, read almost seamless, don't they?

George S| 1.19.11 @ 3:35PM

How embarrassing... didn't know that brackets delete in HTML...

Liberal are so predictable:

(Today I am taking what I hope and believe will be a historic step in reforming the Federal Government by announcing the formation of a national performance review.)

["Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs."]

(Our goal is to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more efficient...)

["I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for—and reduce—the burdens regulations may place on small businesses"]

(We will turn first to Federal employees for help. They know better than anyone else how to do their jobs..)

Placed together, the remarks by (Clinton) appointing the Algore to the Initiative to Streamline Government and [Obama's] executive order, read almost seamless, don't they?

Jack London| 1.19.11 @ 4:27PM

I think we can safely give this article a Golden Garbage award both for the immorality of comparing a person's life with a crashed Porsche and for not recognising that, millions of people with pre-existing conditions are trapped in their employer - so much for the American dream of moving on and starting on your own.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.19.11 @ 4:54PM

"Jack",

I love your comment because it opens the door oh-so-wide.

First, explain to me how it is OK for a person to get for health insurance after getting sick, thus dumping his health care costs on the rest of us?

I repeat: it's economically and morally analogous to letting someone get auto insurance after a car crash and trying to get a new car that way -- which is illegal, as it should be.

What is the moral foundation of your implicit argument that paying for someone else's health care is my responsibility?

I feel bad for people with pre-existing conditions. For about a decade I was one...due to an incorrect diagnosis! During that time, I was self-employed and could not get insurance.

However, I don't look to government for a solution to that other than to eliminate the government rules which prevent the competition which would cause market forces to offer me insurance, even if it were somewhat expensive (which it should have been had I actually had the ailment that I was incorrectly diagnosed with, which was a fairly brutal and degenerative form of arthritis.)

Even in the current situation, people with pre-existing conditions are not "trapped in their employer", though they are effectively prevented from becoming self-employed if insurance is important to them. They could switch to another employer-provided plan.

There is NO reason that terms of an insurance contract can't and shouldn't be negotiated like any other contract, including the way most provisions of auto or property insurance can be negotiated. The reason that it doesn't work that way now is because government prevents interstate competition and gives a tax advantage to employers over the self-employed for insurance deductibility.

At the end of the day, however, my main point -- one which I know liberals are unable to grasp -- is that your implicit claim that it is my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical bills is tantamount to saying that I am, at least for some part of my work day or work year, the sick person's slave.

After all, what am I if you say that I must work for some amount of time with the fruits of my labor given to someone else? It's either slavery or Marxism, and in either case it's immoral.

Jack London| 1.19.11 @ 6:04PM

Who's talking about people getting sick and then insurance? That's not the way Obamacare with its mandate works. We are not taking about your plan funding unmandated people.

The only other way to cover people who are uninsurable in private plans (who may well be folk who've lost their jobs through being sick) is to throw them into government run high risk pools. But then you have to fund them properly and that's more government intervention.

I would have thought that you'd prefer expanding the private market to expanding government programs.

Or I guess you can throw them to the wolves, which seems to be your way.

And on an economic note, do you think the economy is being held back because people can't become entrepreneurs as they're locked into employer plans? And don't forget that it was Clinton that enacted creditable coverage for people changing jobs. Or don't you like that either?

Fundamentally, you really don't grasp insurance very well, do you? All that nonsense about Marxism and paying others' bills – I've got news for you - your insurance premiums are already paying for other sick people who aren't you. It's enough to make you sick.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.19.11 @ 8:26PM

Requiring that insurance cover pre-existing conditions will guarantee that people wait until they're sick to apply for insurance.

High-risk programs need not be government-run. Just as there are companies that offer auto insurance for drivers with bad records, if there were competition, the private market would offer some plans for people with pre-existing conditions.

I do think the economy is at the margin held back by the current situation, but only barely, and Obamacare only makes the problem worse.

"guaranteed issue" is Marxism. Period.

Insurance is indeed "mutual insurance", but is only really "insurance" when it's used to pay for unforeseen problems. Getting insurance when you already have a problem is, at best, welfare and at worst Marxism or slavery.

DRed| 1.19.11 @ 9:16PM

Slavery? Can you explain that?

George True| 1.19.11 @ 9:51PM

Is it really that hard to understand? When someone is forced, against their will, to pay for someone else's health care by means of an inflated premium on their own policy, then in a way they have been made a slave to the person being subsidized. Because after all, the time that they worked to earn the money that they are being made to pay for the sick person's care was a form of indentured service that they worked for no pay.

DRed| 1.19.11 @ 11:31PM

Actually, no. It's wild hyperbole, that's what it is.

George True| 1.20.11 @ 1:56AM

Actually, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

DRed| 1.20.11 @ 11:43AM

Very true, George. Factually, paying taxes is not equivalent to being a slave.

Jack London| 1.20.11 @ 4:09PM

I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse as I clearly reminded you that a mandate that widens the insurance pool underpins Obamcare.

I know you don't care about decent coverage for all (and by extension, about a decent society). I know you're deaf to the fact that the act is actually very modest - about 4% of healthcare spend but with offset costs so you don't suffer, you poor thing.

But for goodness sake get your facts straight. Seriously, do you want to look back when you're old and see a lifetime of drivel?

George True| 1.19.11 @ 9:45PM

Jack: Exactly how does Obamacare "expand" the private insurance market? It does the opposite, and by design.

What does the creditable coverage section of HIPAA have to do with this topic? In any case, Clinton had nothing to do with its passage, other than signing it. It had bi-partisan sponsorship, and passed in the senate by unanimous consent. Now THAT was a truly bi-partisan bill, unlike Obamacare, which was rammed through in a most uncivil and partisan way over the objection of a two to one majority of the American people.

"Fundamentally you don't really grasp insurance very well, do you?"

Arrogant, are we? I have 22 years in the field as an agent and broker of group and individual health plans. And Mr Kaminsky is 100% accurate in what he says here. What are your credentials, Mr London? You act as if you are some kind of expert.

Jack London| 1.20.11 @ 4:17PM

'And Mr Kaminsky is 100% accurate in what he says here.'

No George, not unless your idea of accuracy is a missile drone that takes out a village of farmers and their kids in Afghanistan.

jstwndring| 1.19.11 @ 10:16PM

Time for the EPA to go. Get rid of it all-together Republicans. If congress wants something done about the environment, or, whatever else, they should have the political cajones take care of it themselves. If it's not politically possible, then, good, it shouldn't be done--will of the people and all that.

matthew s harrison| 1.19.11 @ 10:50PM

1) Barry didn't write it-too eloquent-and not enough obvious lies to be his.
2) Saying they are going to stop regulation at such a granular level, (watch this hand) is disingenuous, and as so many respondents above said is the opposite of what they are really doing.
3) The public are dumb enough to buy that horse sh*t-and they do, with a little sweetener sprinkled on top by couric, williams, and sawyer.
4) The latest truths to come out about where ours and the rest of the world's economy really are....and the depth of the lies coming from regimes like Soetoro's (so eloquently reported by guest poster "George Washington over at Zero Hedge this week ( http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....l-develops ) should cause everyone, even the dolts who only watch reality television, have medical marijuana scripts for their "migraines", and sit around their parents' basements playing dungeons and dragons!
The way I see it is simple-only a total moron would buy anything that Soetoro or any of his minions say, as there hasn't been a time the man or his employees have spoken any truth in 2 years. Moreover, with reports of him "high-fiving" his wife after his pep rally speech in Tucson, and Cohen calling Republicans "Nazis" on the floor of the US House of Representatives today, and the Secretary of State telling the world that POPULATION CONTROL is the spine of the White House's international relations push going forward, it is pretty obvious that anything that is said in public by Barry or anyone associated with Progressives whatsoever is to be taken for what it is, disingenuous hot air from America hating communists who's goal is to dismantle our position on earth, ushering in a new era of prostration to the Russians and Chinese, and of course the third world.
Look for the unemployment rate to crest 11% round about July 4. Shortly after that, look for Barry's real birth certificate to surface-as the Progressives will know then that it is time to try to start sewing up the gaping wound to the DNC that Barry cut in it by way of ruining America....I hope I am wrong-I hope we hit that unemployment rate sooner, so the change can happen faster-but it won't, and the slow burn up to 4 or 5 dollar gas, 11 or 12% unemployment, and food shortages will hurt, and hurt a lot-and will be the death throe of Progressivism in the US-hopefully the Chinese and/or Russians haven't amassed troops to walk in and invade us, a la, "Red Dawn" by then.
For those of you who think I am overreacting-save it. I was told I was overreacting when barry announced his presidential run and I said-on Facebook that it would be the demise of America if he won. I said he would end off-shore drilling, dismantle the military, first by defunding our most important technology, and second by ending DADT. I said he would destroy Israel, and that Lebanon would fall to Hezbollah because of his leaving Israel to twist in the wind. I said it all. And I will say this now-July 4-the USD is finished by then, we are at 11 % (minimum) unemployment, and gas is at 4.50 or more.