-
Romney’s Best Defense: The Truth About Romneycare
March 6, 2012 | 42 comments
-
Mitt Romney’s Achilles’ Heel
January 6, 2012 | 204 comments
-
Jagged Little Pills
October 28, 2008 | 1 comment
-
Devilish Details
June 17, 2008 | 1 comment
Feature
Obama’s Strategy of Silence
The president is trying to hide from his “signature achievement.”
The White House is quietly implementing a shrewd new strategy of silence on Obamacare. Its goal: making sure the revolt against the unpopular health care overhaul that swept Republicans into power across the country in November 2010 isn’t repeated in 2012.
After two years of nonstop focus on health care, the president has stopped talking about the law’s far-reaching effects. Now he is concentrating on a few micro changes. Meanwhile the administration is working hard to dampen controversy by handing out buckets of waivers and attacking Republicans over Medicare.
Bringing Obama around to this new course wasn’t easy for his advisors. The day after last November’s elections, the president belligerently refused to acknowledge that the results were a referendum on his unpopular policies or that Obamacare had hurt Democratic candidates. His health policy agenda was correct and possibly only needed a bit of “tweaking,” he insisted.
But his advisers pored over the election results and reached an inescapable conclusion. “The economy, as important as it was, was not the decisive factor this election. Health care was,” Democratic pollster Pat Caddell said just after the election. “It is…health care [that] killed them,” Caddell said of the 63 defeated House Democrats. “The American people found this a crime against democracy…they want it repealed, and this issue is gonna go on and on.” Now the White House’s strategy has the president talking as little as possible about Obamacare.
We haven’t intercepted their memo to the Oval Office, but we can extrapolate from recent White House tactics what his advisers have recommended Obama must do:
1. Stop talking about it. Every time you talk about the sweeping overhaul of health care, your poll numbers go down. People know you can’t spend $1 trillion and pretend to reduce the deficit. Or take more than $575 billion out of Medicare and make it stronger. Anyway, it is now the law of the land and the wheels of bureaucracy are grinding to make sure it takes effect in 2014. Your only job right now is to get reelected to veto any reform bills passed by the next Congress.
2. Focus on the small stuff. People don’t know what is in this law, as Republicans so annoyingly continue to remind us with Nancy Pelosi’s unfortunate quote — “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” We can calm the opposition if the public is convinced that it’s only about putting 26-year-olds on their parents’ health insurance, free preventive care, risk pools for preexisting conditions, and some new insurance regulations. We should call attention to those who have already benefited from the law’s early provisions. If people believe it is only about small changes, they will wonder what all the fuss was about.
3. Attack Republicans. Health care is a Democratic issue and always will be. So go after Republicans for their ridiculous ideas about “private competition” and “putting consumers in charge of decisions.” Paul Ryan has given you a golden opportunity to target Republicans for trying to destroy Medicare and forcing seniors to pay thousands of dollars more for health care. Hammer away at him.
4. Calm the opposition. The most important thing is to keep opponents quiet. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is a key ally here since the health law gives her so much power over how it is implemented. Focus on the governors. Sebelius should find ways to give them temporary relief from Medicaid costs. She also should issue waivers to states, companies, and anyone else who complains the new law is hurting them.
THE NEW OBAMACARE strategy is working smoothly except for tactic number 4. The waiver tactic backfired, as it became clear that waivers from the law’s early provisions were needed and were being granted disproportionately to politically favored groups (restaurants and spas in San Francisco and hundreds of labor unions, for example). To calm the negative press, the administration now says waivers will be good through 2013, and it will stop granting new ones as of September 22, 2011.
But the rest of the strategy clearly is in place. Since the elections, the president has not given a single speech on the major changes coming from his health law. His main focus has been on tactic number 3—attacking Republicans at every opportunity and claiming that he is the protector of Medicare because he won’t “ask our seniors to pay more for health care.”
So far, it seems to be working. Obamacare has evaporated as a major issue. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to repeal the law in January and, according to a CBS News poll, about half of those asked think it has been repealed or aren’t sure. The confusion suits the White House just fine. Republicans are working to defund the law, delay its implementation, investigate the avalanche of regulations that have already been issued, and examine the impact the law is having on health costs and the ballooning deficit, but their efforts didn’t make the front page.
It is difficult to overestimate the sweeping impact that Obamacare will have on our health sector, our economy, and our freedom. (My co-authors and I have highlighted in our book Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America [Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011] the devastating impact it will have on seniors, families, young people, taxpayers, employers and employees, doctors and patients).
WILL THE SUPREMES rescue us? While many hope Congress will repeal the law, others believe there is a good chance its key provision—that all citizens purchase federally approved health insurance—will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That is a big gamble.
The Sixth Circuit was the first of several appeals courts to rule on the validity of Obamacare’s mandate; conservatives were disappointed about its decision in late June to uphold it. At least two other appeals courts will issue decisions over the next several months, with a likely U.S. Supreme Court hearing next year and a decision by June 2012.
About the Author
Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Grace-Marie Turner
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/12/obamas-strategy-of-silence
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 6:44AM
So, instead of fighting each other, Republican candidates should actually team up to keep the Obamacare issue front and center. They can fight each other regarding all the other issues, of which there are plenty.
This is the talking points strategy used daily by liberals office holders in league with the press. They continue to use it because it works.
As the article suggests, they should concentrate on all the waivers Dear Leader has passed out to cronies.
Imagine, during the next debate that they make a joint statement about the evils of Obamacare. That would be the take away. Fox news would be talking about it for two weeks. The enemedia would drop it after one day.
JP| 9.12.11 @ 7:23AM
The dirty little secret is that Mitt and Perry (and Huntsman) like ObamaCare. If elected, they will attempt to "improve it". They are both too statist to do anything sensible like repeal and replace it.
VBMax| 9.12.11 @ 8:00AM
Oh yeah....So how do you reconcile that with Romney's statement that he will authorize waivers to all 50 states by Executive Order on day one and work to repeal it as well.
JP| 9.12.11 @ 8:23AM
Waivers are not repeal. And if you were not paying attention, Mitt never vowed to repeal the law. In fact, only Bachmann has done that. Waivers are flimsy things. They last only so long -they have expiration dates. If he cannot push Congress to repeal ObamaCare, the waivers will do nothing other than put-off the invetiable.
ObamaCare is so deep, so expansive, and gives out so many freebies that it would take only the most determined and skillfull politician to drive its repeal. Nothing in either Perry or Romney's CV shows that they possess either the skill or the will. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.
ENOUGH ROPE| 9.12.11 @ 4:03PM
Boycott the liberal media, end public school K-12 in every state, and boycott liberal higher education. The left dominates those institutions. We in the center and right can end those institutions simply by not consuming their products.
The progressives/liberals hate God, religion, Judeo-Christian morality, America, freedom, capitalism, families, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, private property, American Exceptionalism, and America''s superpowerful military.
There are more of us centrists and conservatives than there are progressives/liberals. Boycott their organizations and repeal public schools. Then they will be far less powerful to destroy us, which is their goal. Do you have any doubts that if they gained fascist or Marxist type power that they would put us in concentration camps? Doubtful? Google the topic about the FBI undercover agent who infiltrated Bill Ayers' Weathermen group. The agent asked Ayers how many people would have to be killed to lessen dissent. The answer, then, was 25 million people.
megapotamus| 9.13.11 @ 1:00PM
Obamacare IS Romneycare. When Willard admits this and denounces both we can start to move forward but his stupid, cowardly book, No Apologies, makes it clear he is doubling down. No Romney, no how, no way.
Patricia Lontkowski | 9.13.11 @ 3:57PM
YES
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 10:42AM
"If elected, Perry will repeal Obamacare – a misguided, unconstitutional and unsustainable government takeover of our health care that will undermine patient quality, increase red tape and send costs skyrocketing for taxpayers, patients and healthcare providers."
http://www.rickperry.org/issues/healthcare/
Nice Try Paulbot
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 7:00AM
The Devil is in The Regulations & It's Open-Ended Regulation Dictatorship.
Obamacare is Un-American Authoritarianism.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 9:06AM
This is an excellent description of the actual power that lies just below the surface. Republican candidates need to expose this as much as possible. But, in their quest to remain blameless, they are part of the problem. As Clint says, the Tea Party is the best answer.
(Clint pisses some of us off, but when he's right, he's right.)
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 3:59PM
Gary B,
It isn't Clint's support for the Tea Party which is offensive.
You know, if we could take one-half of Ron Paul and one-half of John Bolton we would either have the best Presidential candidate possible, or the worst. It's the story about Heaven and Hell where in Hell the Police are German, the Chefs are British, the Mechanics are French, the Lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians.
Stormzeye| 9.12.11 @ 11:07AM
We are increasingly governed by regulation rather than legislation. Enabling Legislation is the "fig leaf" used to cover what soon becomes an Executive Branch power grab, enabled by an intellectually lazy and corrupt Legislative branch.
POST American| 9.12.11 @ 7:29AM
---Putting this current piece of Globalist
cardboard to one side---
"This is inconceivable. WHY is this being
allowed to go on (re FUKISHIMA world
nuclear disaster) ? WHY isn't the entire
world rushing to help that poor nation?
----The ONLY reason I can come up with
is that they want to cook us all (ie DEPOP).
That's the ONLY reason I can find WHY
this MASSIVE situation is being covered
up."
-Jay Weidener
( latest Veritas interview online )
-----NOW, back to your regularly scheduled
----------------------DENIAL--------------------------
And BTW, if you're not being let in on the
collation therapies through this ---you're NOT
an 'innie'.
REALLY
Dan Mathewson| 9.13.11 @ 4:52PM
Riight!
martin j smith| 9.12.11 @ 7:37AM
I blame the republic Lack of Leadershit for permitting Obama to get away with what he does.
The republican Leadershit has failed to PUBLICLY state that Obama Care is a JOBS KILLING BILL often enough to have it stick
and failed to make enough of an effort to block funding. I know the usual excuse: We only control bla bla bla. Its not the point the point is to use what power you do have to advertise this topic and to put Socialists on the defensive. That is the problem from my stand point.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 9:12AM
I second this. The Republicans are part of the problem. Their longtime role is to pretend to be the opposition. After all, they have their cronies, too.
Our job is to be Tea Party lobbyists. Maybe we should each pledge some monthly amount to our favorite Tea Party ad campaign. I would love to see a constant stream of nasty anti-establishment ads.
Stormzeye| 9.12.11 @ 11:11AM
This culture of corruption stems from each legislator's fear that he won't get his "fair share" from what he might know, or not even care, is ultimately a bad piece of legislation. Not wanting to end up at the lower end of the trough is what motivates a corrupt legislator to sacrifice the Republic to what might be a temporary gain for his district.
CitizenJane| 9.13.11 @ 1:21AM
So you want an "authentic leader," right? Someone that talks straight and acts according to convictions, who can have a civil, intelligent discussion on issues and has the skills to govern? Problem is, authentic leaders need the support of people (voters, donors) who appreciate their honesty, civility, etc. And to be honest, I mostly see the American people flocking to candidates who talk tough and carry a big schtick. Until it's too late (read, now a 2-person race, with the best candidates [in my view] out). We're the electorate -- we get what we ask for -- somebody "exciting" or "entertaining". What would it take to turn that around?
PattyMor| 9.12.11 @ 7:40AM
Well he can run, but he can't hide. I will work my fingers to the bone and donate heavily to the Senate Conservatives Fund in order to defeat each and every Democrat Senator that voted in Obamacare. So let the Tea Party Revolution continue.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 8:25AM
Republicans on the super committee should demand the repeal of Obamacare -- the savings $1 trillion.
Every GOP candidate should demand the immediate repeal of Obamacare -- the savings $1 trillion.
Using Democrat math we could claim multiple savings of $1 trillion dollars every time a Republican calls for the repeal of Obamacare.
Ultimately, the only way we can end this obamanation is to end the Obama regime and send his Senate flunkies home in disgrace with the huges retirements they voted for themselves.
I know one of the first acts of President Perry will be to sign the bill repealing Obamacare not merely signing waivers that allow the system to remain in place.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 9:14AM
As much as I like what he says, I'll believe that when I see it. In my humble opinion the test of a conservative president is if he or she abolishes the Dept of Education. At that point, I'll be a believer. Until then, I'm a hater.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 9:25AM
Since Reagan vowed to abolish and actually grew it I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Gipper.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 9:53AM
Michael,
I'm a huge fan of the Gipper. The problem was that the RNC forced him to accept Bush as his VP, else they would not give him any money. As a result, Reagan's administration was packed with Bush allies through and through. Every attempt to dial back the agencies met with stubborn resistance. And, with his foreign policy challenges, Reagan always had other fish to fry. For Reagan voters, this had to be frustrating in the extreme.
Mick Hawk| 9.12.11 @ 1:30PM
Only Congress has the authority to eliminate Depts and their budgets. Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress. He could not dissolve the Dept by fiat. BTW under baseline budgeting used by the COngress, the budget automaticcally INCREASES BY ABOUT 8% EVERY YEAR, more than inflation or wages. Until or unless Congress changes it, that budget will always go up. Current problem is that Obama's Porkulus spending is now part of that baseline.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 4:09PM
Gary B,
That would be an excellent start. There are ten more which could follow. Why, for example, does Veterans Affairs exist as a department along with State and Defense. I'm not arguing against our veterans, at all, but does it take a separate department?
Do we need anything more than State, Justice, Defense, Treasury and Interior? Can we not house ourselves, transport ourselves, engage in commerce ourselves, labor ourselves, engage in agriculture without Federal help. The department of Energy certainly hasn't achieved it raison d'etre of energy independence; it seems to be going in the opposite direction.
Susan| 9.12.11 @ 8:29AM
There is a part of this whole mess that I have been working to put front and center, but it seems no one wants to listen or talk about it. The cuts to Medicare rates will also mean cuts to TRICARE. For those of you who don't know what TRICARE is, it's the program that provides care for Military Dependents and Retirees. No, the vast majority do not recieve care a military hospitals. They recieve care from local docs and hospitals and TRICARE acts as their insurance. By law TRICARE payments to providers is the same as Medicare payments. This law is a slap in the face to our Military families and Retirees and I think it is about time for people to start talking about it.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 10:45AM
Amen Susan. I just took my prescription to Walgreens only to be warned that if Tricare and Walgreens can not come to agreement by Jan, I will have to get my meds somewhere else. When I asked what the issue was it was the amounts Tricare has stated they will pay. Want to bet they are looking at Medicare too?
kate| 9.13.11 @ 1:05AM
Susan
It depends on who you are talking about.
I have one relative who served in Iraq twice, and another who is a career "administrator" and an avowed "socialist "who has played the system to the max. Not exactly a fan of America,
He is about to retire on 100k and bragging about it.
davelnaf| 9.12.11 @ 8:34AM
Although it is imaginable that the Bamster will be POTUS for another disastrous four years after next year, it could happen; and, if it does, we will know about where the national IQ is at that particular moment in time. Seriously, though, a president that “belligerently” argues against the meaning behind the kind of smack down the dems received last November has a serious cognitive problem to deal with—we already know he has a serious problem with the truth. But the dems haven’t survived this long as a national party because they are poor manipulators of public opinion. We can all expect the Bamster’s minions in the MSM to throw choice and well thought out gotcha questions at his opponent in the debates next year. And the visuals of the Republican nominee looking stunned as the camera goes to a wide-angle shot of a confidently smiling Obama with his nose up in the air—as is his current public pose—will be worth millions of votes in certain quarters. One can only hope that Republicans avoid little scenes like this, what with the survival of the United States of America at stake next year.
megapotamus| 9.13.11 @ 1:03PM
National IQ is always 100 and the baseline is constantly moving up. But one staggering fact from the art is that HALF of the nation is unaware that Obamacare is still in force! This is media malpractice among other things but astounding, disgusting and demoralizing. Maybe when they are going to jail and going out of business our Fellow Americans will open up there accursed eyes. But maybe not.
Likely_Suspect| 9.12.11 @ 8:38AM
If allowed to stand under Commerce Clause authority, the individual mandate means an end to a Federal government of limited enumerated powers. There is simply no activity that you engage in or refrain from that can not be reached, regulated and coerced at the whim of the group in power. Since FDR started the Supreme Court down this path with his threat to pack the Supreme Court, our individual rights have been usurped by an ever increasing government. The Tea Party isn't going away, no matter how much vitriol is aimed at them. Get the government the hell out our lives & pockets. Time for a new revolution - at the ballot box like 2010; no RINOs, no tax & spend Dems.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 9:02AM
Governors with courage (Founding Father courage) are our next-to-last line of defense. Scott Walker needs to be cloned.
The last line of defense is torches and pitchforks, but that is a very big step. If the DC elite keep up their war against Americans (they're not Americans), they may just get to experience it. Only God knows...
Likely_Suspect| 9.12.11 @ 10:04AM
Actually, Clarence Thomas has become recognized (even by the Left) as being the Justice with the most judicial insight to original intent. Hence the calls for him to recuse himself (due to his wife's activities against Obamacare & other liberal policies). If truly motivated by appearances of impropriety, the calls should be louder for Kagan to recuse herself as well, due to her personal involvement in the defense of Obamacare as Solicitor General. Just another example of the hypocrisy of the Left - Code Pink is still protesting (except now they only get air time from O'Reilly); Fast & Furious - where's the press now, Iran Contra was every night; Cheney's ties to Halliburton, Obama's ties to Solyndra; etc.
RCV| 9.12.11 @ 1:56PM
There is no principled basis for either Kagan or Thomas to recuse themselves, nor will they.
John Navratil| 9.12.11 @ 3:51PM
RCV,
I'll argue that the issues of Thomas' wife has been brought up specifically to blunt an argument against Kagan. It's hard to argue that Kagan hasn't defended the act in her roll in the White House. A bit more strained to suggest the Thomas will do as his wife tells him to do.
I am not so sanguine about Kagan's ability to distance herself from her previous position - she was involved in the creation of this bill which she is now to adjudicate. Perhaps you can explain why a call for Kagan to recuse is without merit.
RCV| 9.12.11 @ 5:05PM
John - My understanding of the facts of Kagan's involvement is quite different. What is your source for her involvement in the creation of the Health Care Bill?
RCV| 9.12.11 @ 5:16PM
In particular, what specific evidence have you found that refutes her testimony before Congress that she had no such involvement? The stuff I've seen in the papers on that issue is pretty sketchy and plainly insufficient to rebut her quite emphatic testimony.
I also don't think it's accurate to characterize the Thomas calls as simply a reaction to the Kagan request. They are obviously made by people who are bothered by Ginny Thomas's political involvement in Tea Party causes, but those people simply have not read the body of law I have on judicial recusal. At the Supreme Court level, where justices are NOT replaced when they recuse themselves, they must refrain from recusal unless it is plainly required by a recognized conflict of interest. This is plainly not so in the case of Justice Thomas.
Redstateboy| 9.12.11 @ 8:39AM
Patty and Michael... great thoughts and suggestions worth taking - thanks!
JP| 9.12.11 @ 8:52AM
Even if President Obama loses and the GOP gets a super majority in the Senate, and increases its majority in the House, ObamaCare will be very difficult to repeal. By 2013, HHS will have created over 100 new bureaucracies. Each one will have written thousands of pages of new regulations, guidelines, and rules. Other agencies like the IRS and DOJ will also have cemented new rules and regulations. Each state, in turn will have to comply with these by law.
The temptation to leave the nucleas of ObamaCare in place and remove only the most politically toxic portions will be great. By 2013, enough private citizens, insurance companies, advocacy groups and rent-seekers will have skin in the game to begin using K-Street to undermine support for repeal. The greatest danger will lay in the Senate. Remember that Lugar, McCain, the Maine Twins, and Lindsay Graham will have seniority. They will steer repeal whether we like it or not. And they would like nothing more than to cut a deal with the Dems. Only a very forceful and determined President will be able to actually see repeal become reality. And I fear none of the GOP candidates have what it takes.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.12.11 @ 9:13AM
You obviously haven't been listening to Rick Perry. Any politician willing to tell the truth about Social Security isn't afraid of Obamacare or the boopsie twins from Maine or McCain.
JP| 9.12.11 @ 2:19PM
Perry, like Obama, talks a mean game. He never had to deal with the US Senate before. And, I fear he is no Reagan. The Gipper's first years were a political masterpiece in that he got Senator Bradley (D) NJ, to sign on at a very early date. I don't think Perry has that in him. Besides, I have sneaking suspiscion he quietly agrees with most facets of ObamaCare.
pj| 9.14.11 @ 6:20AM
You are correct to be suspicious regarding Perry et al and the repeal of Obamacare. The truth is that Perry and the rest of these guys in the political class are being manipulated by Big Insurance which is seeking a "new " business model in order to rake in even more billions. Indepent medical practice and your acccess to life saving treatments is about to be a thing of the past. (see Covert Rationing Blog-Dr. Rich)
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 9:01AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
Well, it just means a lot more bankruptcy, it means healthcare is going to be a lot worse. You know, take the whole idea that you can force somebody to give insurance to somebody, even until they’re 26. Why isn’t that an agreement between the customer and the insurance company? So this will be very costly, and where are they going to get the money? They’re going to either have to get a bonus from the government, or the insurance companies go bankrupt. So these kinds of mandates are all over the place. And, of course, the mandate that is really atrocious is the collection of about $400 billion worth of new taxes. That, of course, is why they are planning to hire 16,500 more IRS agents. "
Mick Hawk| 9.12.11 @ 1:32PM
What cabinet position did RUbe Paul offer you??? Don't count on getting it.
Clint | 9.12.11 @ 4:58PM
He offered to Free Me from Big Government Tax Slavery, Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader,Micky.
aidan2| 9.12.11 @ 9:38AM
A new twist on the addage, if you have nothing good to say....
INTJ| 9.12.11 @ 9:53AM
Hoping for a ruling by the Supreme Court to rid us of the meddlesome legislation is only a gamble if you believe that, should Congress repeal ACA, it will never appear again. Without a definitive ruling from SCOTUS telling them "no," we can only assume this will come up again some day, and that seems a pretty significant risk to me.
Steve| 9.12.11 @ 10:00AM
It's sad that the only people who believe that the healthcare law should be repealed are healthy. In comments to 50 blogs, I have yet to have one person respond to me who has cancer and who opposes the healthcare law.
The only people who "like their insurance" are healthy people. They quickly find out once they get sick that insurance is riddled with exceptions and limits. I lose hundreds of dollars to UnitedHealthcare each year because they make so many errors that do not conform to my plan. I do not have the time to sue them, so whether these errors are a result of fraud or simply stupidity, they get away with them.
Imagine how many people there are like me, whose dream is to start a business - but who cannot do so because our preexisting conditions make it impossible to obtain health insurance on the individual market. This law gives us a fighting chance, and I look forward to starting a company in 2014. There are thousands of world-changing ideas out there being shelved right now because of the sorry state of healthcare - these are ideas that could produce products that make life better for everyone.
There are 40,000 people dying every year because they go to emergency rooms for uncompensated care, are treated with minimal treatment, and then go home to die because they cannot afford the long-term treatment for their diagnoses. We are not talking about providing free flat-panel TVs to everyone; just basic human dignity for people who God chose to give the short straw. If I have to pay more for the new healthcare system, then so be it, because providing health care for everyone is simply the right thing to do.
VBMax| 9.12.11 @ 10:35AM
Steve,
I've wrestled with a pre-existing condition for years so I do emphasize with you. But Obamacare was rammed through by dishonest people and will never deliver what they say it will.
"We've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it".
What we know about it so far is that it will bancrupt the country, destroy jobs and put our lives under the control of unelected bereaucrats who will ration your care based on the rules they have set up.
There are honest solutions to the healthcare problem but Obamacare doesn't encompass any of them. It was designed to control our lives, not to provide good quality, affordable healthcare.
Steve| 9.12.11 @ 11:02AM
Whether it was wrestled through by dishonest people or not, it is still far better than the current shambles of a system that we have. Joe Lieberman did a big wrong to everyone by killing the public option and placing more power into the hands of insurance companies - but the bill is still an incremental improvement.
What I don't understand is how anyone can say that America has the "best medical system in the world." People who say that are limiting their view to the small percentage of people who can afford to pay for the top-notch care that is, indeed, the best in the world. But for everyone else, the system is one of the worst in the world. We cannot call ourselves a "civilized" country when thousands of people line up overnight outside gyms for free basic physical examinations. The law, for all its flaws, will mostly eliminate the need for such events.
Unlike martin j smith, I have little sympathy for doctors who complain about their plight. Of course doctors are going to complain - they stand to lose money as a result of the changes. One of the objectives of the law is to force doctors into the employ of large healthcare organizations, which require fewer administrative assistants and which can manage medical records more efficiently than private practices. Every other field in the modern world has seen a transformation from mom-and-pop shops into big box stores, and the result has been a dramatic fall in prices and improvement in quality of life for the average consumer.
The law has many problems. What's good about it, counterintuitively, is that it will achieve the fairer public option because it disincentivizes employers from offering health insurance as they do now. As that occurs, then we will end up with a system where the insurance executives have less leverage and both entrepreneurs and huge corporations have the same chance to succeed.
One final thought: it's easy to complain about the government and how big government is bad. I don't want someone else controlling my healthcare either. But given a choice between a profit-over-everything health insurance CEO and someone in the government making coverage decisions for me, I would rather the government make that decision any day.
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.12.11 @ 11:37AM
:...I would rather the government make that decision any day."
And they will, along with ANY other decision they'd like to make for you if the precedent is set by this bill not being repealed.
Nancy in NC| 9.12.11 @ 11:01AM
If you think Obamacare will solve your problem, take a look at Canada and England. My son-in-law's brother came down with kidney cancer in England at the ripe old age of 57. He basically received only pallative care until he died a year later.
George S| 9.12.11 @ 11:39AM
When the government controls the medical purse strings, give me one good reason why Washington would pay for your cancer treatment rather sending that money to the SEIU pension fund.
That is the whole point of ObamaCare -- the government gets the health care money that presently changes hands between you, the insurer and the providers. When you are no longer spending money on private insurance, health care is "free". And since it's "free", you cannot complain about what Washington spends on you. Their attitude is anything you get you should be grateful for. Just like in England; just like in Canada -- the bureaucracy gets fed first and then you get what is left over after Best Practices (the Death Panels) deems "cost efficient".
Nothing is free. Nothing free is of better quality than what you pay for. Nothing free is more plentiful than what you pay for. Free things are the quickest to disappear from the shelves -- because even the poorest can afford 'free'.
Steve| 9.12.11 @ 12:00PM
I agree with everything you said here, especially that nothing that's free is of better quality than what you pay for.
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at who we are talking to. Everyone commenting on this thread has the ability to pay for access to the Internet and is educated enough to participate in this discussion. The millions of poor and homeless people who cannot access the Internet are not represented here.
People here only care about the quality of their care. In other words, I deserve better care than you do because I have money, and you do not. In order to provide the same level of care to everyone, we need to not only raise the level of care for lower-income people, but also lower the level of care for the richest people. That means that many people here, including myself, will see a reduction in the quality of care so that people who have no care can receive it.
Yes, the 57-year-old cancer patient may have died because he didn't receive all the care that he could have paid for. That's the point. Money should have no bearing on how much healthcare one receives. There is likely another 57-year-old cancer patient who would have died in agony on the street who did not because of Canada's and Britain's regulations.
It is morally wrong to argue against this law from the point of view that you could receive better care if you paid for it. Healthcare is a right, not something that people who make enough should be able to circumvent because they are richer than others. Being able to pay to skirt around the system while others receive lower-quality care is unethical.
idalily| 9.12.11 @ 2:14PM
Please tell me where in the Constitution you have the right to health care using my money to pay for it. Please tell me how, morally speaking, you are entitled to that money. And please tell me how your human dignity is derived from my bank account. Sorry to sound like a hard ass here, but my moral argument is that you do not have the right to my money unless I freely donate it to you. That is why I give to charity. Government should not be a charity organization.
Steve| 9.12.11 @ 12:00PM
I agree with everything you said here, especially that nothing that's free is of better quality than what you pay for.
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at who we are talking to. Everyone commenting on this thread has the ability to pay for access to the Internet and is educated enough to participate in this discussion. The millions of poor and homeless people who cannot access the Internet are not represented here.
People here only care about the quality of their care. In other words, I deserve better care than you do because I have money, and you do not. In order to provide the same level of care to everyone, we need to not only raise the level of care for lower-income people, but also lower the level of care for the richest people. That means that many people here, including myself, will see a reduction in the quality of care so that people who have no care can receive it.
Yes, the 57-year-old cancer patient may have died because he didn't receive all the care that he could have paid for. That's the point. Money should have no bearing on how much healthcare one receives. There is likely another 57-year-old cancer patient who would have died in agony on the street who did not because of Canada's and Britain's regulations.
It is morally wrong to argue against this law from the point of view that you could receive better care if you paid for it. Healthcare is a right, not something that people who make enough should be able to circumvent because they are richer than others. Being able to pay to skirt around the system while others receive lower-quality care is unethical.
George S| 9.12.11 @ 12:46PM
The best way to illustrate my point is that prior to the early 1970's, people did not spend anything for CAT scans and MRI's. They were free. How was that possible... what has changed since then? Simple. The early 70's was when they were invented and operational. So what good is a diagnostic tool that is a life saver not being available? Is that how we save money... by making the technology lag or depreciate? Is it morally correct to deny everyone rather than let a few "rich" consume a technology only they can afford?
The advances in health care start from a risk. The risk takers are rewarded by the very few who can afford the new technology. The new technology then undergoes the economies of scale, making it more affordable for more people. The affordable technology then becomes standard issue. That's why our quality of life exceeds that of anywhere else on earth -- capitalism married to health care.
What ObamaCare does is prevent the new technologies from emerging, and devolving the present technologies. Everyone, then receives lower quality care. But the siren song of not having to worry about medical expenditures is too great to resist and everyone thinks that what is available now can be free. The purpose is to divorce medical care from capitalism so that government has total control over your life. Or more accurately, the time of your death.
As a final note: look at public education. Free for everyone. Yet it costs the government three times as much per student than private schools. And to top it off, teachers and administrators make three times the national salary average when you consider retirement and medical benefits. This is what is killing taxpayers with property taxes. What makes you think that the medical workers of tomorrow are not going to be the new entitled public sector class?
John from Missouri| 9.12.11 @ 1:34PM
Steve, I have to disagree with you in the most strongest of terms. It is beyond amazing to claim that healthcare is a "right"; it's not and it never has been. How can it be a right when so many people abuse their health voluntarily and then expect someone else to pick up the tab for their poor choices to smoke, over eat, or engage in risky behaviors for any number of things under the sun? Doesn't the part of humanity that takes care of themselves, lives properly, makes good healthy choices of where to live, what to eat, and what to put into our bodies deserve to not have to finance those who don't? Is it right for the government to "force" the people pulling the wagon to let everyone ride for free? Are we to force well educated doctors to "treat" the masses with out being compensated for what it costs for this new human "right"? And how much will your so called "right" be worth when there aren't enough doctors around to even treat people; not all doctors are willing to work for free. I know I'm not.
Now, I'll agree with you, it's a nice moral thing to wish for everyone....to be healthy and to have access to healthcare. But we should not expect all of us to have the same outcomes in "life". Some people have bad genitics requiring more care, and some don't. That's just the luck of the draw; but to be treated based on that is certainly no "right". You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that's it. Not the right to healthcare or the right to equal outcomes in life on any front. And history is deep in the failure of governments that gave it's citizenry rights, and then later took them away. Better to not have had the "rights" to begin with.
Steve| 9.13.11 @ 10:46AM
I agree with you that people do have some control over their health. I disapprove of people who allow themselves to get fat as much as you do.
But the problem with denying healthcare on the basis of personal responsibility is that it's not clear where the line is between controllable issues and medical problems. For example, the studies on the effects of saturated fat are changing - before, saturated fat was bad no matter what, but now some studies indicate that only trans fat is bad. In order to argue that healthcare should be apportioned on the basis of personal responsibility, somebody needs to determine what is "good" behavior for health and where "bad behavior" starts.
Also, I never said that doctors should be uncompensated for their care. I acknowledged that everyone will have to pay more so that doctors will be compensated for the increased care they will provide. I don't want doctors to go uncompensated any more than you do. We disagree on how many patients should be treated, not on whether doctors should be paid.
Finally, I agree that all these arguments sound good in an abstract sense, but when it comes to real life, it is impossible to enforce them. It is simply not human to turn someone away and tell that person to die because (s)he doesn't have enough money to pay for treatment. Do you really want to be one of the people who said "let him die" last night when Ron Paul was asked about a 30-year-old man who chose not to pay for health insurance? There's a difference between letting someone lose his house because of poor financial decisions, which I agree with, and letting someone die for any reason. What kind of civil society has an audience cheering to let people die because they can't afford treatment?
martin j smith| 9.12.11 @ 10:14AM
Steve people who are sick do not treat treatment by a LAW they get treatment by good quality doctors--not some "know nothing health aid" You push Obama care and those people who have cancer will find that they will not only not have a doctor, they will not have medication and will be told to take a pill and shut up. I have experienced first hand the anger that doctors now feel concerning the current payment situation with medicare and probably medicaid. I suggest that many now in the professional and others considering it will think twice or more before sacrificing tens of thousand of dollars on medical school because there is no pay off. So my advice to all of you like Steve is simple; DO NOT GET SICK AND DO NOT GET OLD. THEN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR LAW.
Jack Davis| 9.12.11 @ 10:29AM
Obamacare? Yes, please DO kill it. My reasons? Here is what Obama’s health-care reform law has done to me. Not FOR me; TO me.
BEFORE Obamacare, that is up until December 31, 2010, the family deductible for my company-paid medical coverage was $300…and it had been $300 for years.
AFTER Obamacare, that is on January 1, 2011, the family deductible for my company-paid medical coverage went up to $2,800. You can do the math. And because my company is self-insured, it was a take it or leave it situation.
Obama LIED when he said that if I liked the plan I currently had, I’d be able to keep it. He was WRONG. Instead, my company canceled the plan I liked and in its place substituted the aforementioned high-deductible plan.
Obama LIED when he said his plan would “bend the cost curve downward.” What he really meant was: “Bend over and face downward.”
Thanks, Obama!
Redstateboy| 9.12.11 @ 11:01AM
Jack... the question keeps coming to mind.. How does Hussein have at least a 40% approval rating??!
Have Liber-uls accomplished their mission? to infiltrate the Amer. Edu. system and produce a Nation of ignorant, docile, dependent morons?
martin j smith| 9.12.11 @ 10:31AM
Let me add one other matter on Republican Silence on Obama Care and that is Romney versus Perry. I have read that Pawlenty is endorsing Romney. And I have seen that Romney is taking the LEFT LINE that Perry wants to 'KILL' SOCIAL SECURITY.
This where the problem is right there. BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THE WASHINGTON SET. Party affiliation is not the issue.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 11:08AM
Hey, Martin... Remember the Harlem Globetrotters? They would tour all over the place, along with a "team" that was supposed to be their opposition. It was all for show and very entertaining. But, my point is the Republicans are the fake opposition to the Democrat team.
At I stated above, they all have their cronies - their private clients, as I like to call them.
We're audience that's supposed to love one team and hate the other. The joke's been on us. The Tea Party represents the end of that joke.
Many of the elites, as well as many of us in the audience are still in denial. But, reality is the oncoming freight train.
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.12.11 @ 11:41AM
The Globetrotter's are still doing their thing. Saw them this year, in fact. Funny thing, their "opposition" team is aptly named, the Washington Generals.
Gary B| 9.12.11 @ 2:55PM
How appropriate it that?
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 10:51AM
Well, Obama can alway run on his other signature success, his Budget plan
Oh wait, never mind, even his fellow Dems didn't vote for it.
Buck Ofama| 9.12.11 @ 11:18AM
>should be able to skewer Das Messiah in a debate!
And when they do skewer the fool, the only sound will be escaping methane.
Redstateboy| 9.12.11 @ 11:04AM
This election should be a slam dunk for Perry or Bachmann, Cain.. sheezzzz! any one of them, reasonably prepared; should be able to skewer Das Messiah in a debate!
cheryl jessup| 9.13.11 @ 2:34PM
I'll bet Obama will not debate. He has no record to stand on and he can't use his telepromter. Any Republican canidate will blow him out of the water and he knows it.
Johnson| 9.12.11 @ 12:48PM
The writer is a retarded republican stooge.
Drunken Sailor| 9.12.11 @ 12:52PM
Well with all those facts you presented you should have no trouble converting us. (Sarcasm)
Troll
Winterhawk| 9.12.11 @ 2:51PM
Drunken libtick, go back to messnbc where you can nest with your ilk.
datameister| 9.12.11 @ 2:23PM
The Tea Party Movement (TPM) will be vilified by republicans as well as democrats. And since the MSM has a vested interest in Obama, count on continuing slanted portrayal of the TPM.
Which means the TPM is on the Right Track.
Use any politician's negative statements regarding the TPM as a litmus test of where they REALLY stand - political cronyism, vs. We The People they are elected to represent.
Replace them all with true citizen representatives.
THE TEA PARTY THRIVES. The "Silent Majority" of this country has finally found it's voice, and it's arms. And whether spoken in a whisper or a roar, the ACTIONS facilitated through the TPM will speak even louder.
For every one like me, who has taken a stand in public - in voice and action, there are 10 more who believe and follow.
It
datameister| 9.12.11 @ 2:29PM
...and there are millions across America just like me.
I AM THE TEA PARTY
Winterhawk| 9.12.11 @ 2:50PM
There has never been a loser like obama is in this country's history. He has taken that term to the limit.
Pecos Pete| 9.12.11 @ 4:21PM
Like most of the commentators here, I haven't forgotten, nor forgiven the Democrat Party, that ObamaCare passed Congress without a single Republican yes vote ... oh, wait I seem to remember that one Republican Senator voted for it, can't remember now who it was.
Regardless of the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the piece of junk should be repealed by Congress.
megapotamus| 9.13.11 @ 1:09PM
So if they could have paid off ten House Reps everything would have been cool? This is reverse partisanship which, like all partisanship, ignores the actual virtue, legality or practicality of the proposition. Lame, Pete. Not like you.
Martin Owens| 9.12.11 @ 6:08PM
Some time ago, some misguided person or other photoshopped Obama as a chimpanzee.
This was inaccurate as well as unkind. Obama is no chimp; he's a harangue -utan.
Here is no orator, despite what the sycophants say. Our Whatever-in-Chief is a merely a bad copy of the preachers that stand juggling buzzwords and threadbare metaphors in every clapboard tabernacle and sanctified storefront in the nation. But to say so is to risk ostracism or worse.
Like them, he has a Calling. He MUST preach. And he must preach in the approved style: soul butter and hogwash. Cloudy aspirations rub elbows with golden promises, ritual denunciations of straw men, and cheap shots at opponents from a venue where no one can talk back.
And herein lies our hope! He won't be able to hold himself in much longer, strategy or not.
For no consideration can he shut up. The urge to finger-wag and bask in his own limelight will prove too strong. He will come forth again, and yet again, until not even his own staff can stomach him anymore.
Republican victory in 2012? Simple. Just keep him talking. Won't take much...
monte| 9.12.11 @ 6:26PM
MAKE SURE THE DEMOCRATS OWN UP TO THE $50 BILLION IN MEDICARE CUTS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS
silin | 9.12.11 @ 10:39PM
WILL THE SUPREMES rescue us?
Osamas Pajamas| 9.12.11 @ 11:22PM
Observe that the OhBummerCare enforcers are ARMED --- and that is reason enough to advocate a shooting war against OhBummer's thugs, gangsters, and enforcers. My fellow Americans, please SMASH the parliamentary despotism and the executive branch dictatorship of Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew.
POST American| 9.13.11 @ 12:54AM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
With the details of the serilizing and cancer
causing features of Monsanto's GMO food
spread like wildfire, and as the Fukishima
WORLD nuclear disaster is now delivering the
highest radiation levels EVER recorded on
earth ---and fallout sweeping the northern
hemisphere ---------UH---------as far as SILENCE
goes, we'd say Obama's just a 'trendy'.
And AGAIN, for the hopelessly deluded,
UNLESS you are being given access to the
latest in advanced collation therapies
----you AIN'T any kind of 'innie'.
-------------HAVE FUN KIDDIES!
megapotamus| 9.13.11 @ 1:11PM
You sir, are a mere spammer. A pox.
Dan Mathewson| 9.13.11 @ 4:54PM
Right! (pronounced the way Noah does in the Cosby skit.)
Brian Mc| 9.13.11 @ 9:10AM
We may win back the Oval Office. We might get back the Senate. We may even make further advances in the House. But, it is all for nought. The Socialists will never, ever give up and will continue to nibble away at the bedrock holding this Republic above the fray. Our only hope is repeal of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and it can't come quick enough to stop this mob rule that fosters and relies on ignorance. If in doubt of this consider what is considered tolerable on TV today vs. the 60's. The libs will never give in until we remove their power garnered through the ignorance they create.
cheryl jessup| 9.13.11 @ 2:30PM
I'll soon be 65 and there is no way I will forget about this disaster Obamacare. I don't give a dam what he says, he's a pathological liar. After all this time no intelligent person will believe anything he says.
Patricia Lontkowski | 9.13.11 @ 3:55PM
The new website is great.
How can the Obamadeathcare be reversed?
barryjo| 9.15.11 @ 6:21PM
Obama's only "signature achievement" was to get elected.
The rest of his tenure has been going downhill rapidly.
John Koenig| 9.22.11 @ 11:02AM
Thank you Miss Turner for putting the complicated issue in such a simplistic article. The mark of a "communicator". After hearing Rush, Hannity & Lavin rail against it, your article put some "flesh" on the bones of what they have been promoting in last umpteen months. Well done.