This one deserves a read.
Progressives regularly pepper their columns about Obamacare with the assertion that in the current system, you lose your policy as soon as the insurer finds a chronic disease. That has always been slander. As Charen puts it:
The Dunham tale was meant to personify the hundreds of thousands – or millions – of Americans who were “dumped” by insurance companies when they became sick. This is an invented tale, and might have been rebutted by the insurance industry if they hadn’t gotten into bed with Obama in 2010 in return for millions of coerced new customers. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, academic studies have estimated that policies were dropped in only four-tenths of one percent of cases in the individual market.
In a 2010 radio address, Obama said one carrier was “systematically dropping the coverage of women diagnosed with breast cancer.” The CEO of WellPoint, which had reason to believe the president was referring to her company, responded that they had provided coverage in the previous year to 200,000 breast cancer patients and had canceled just four policies for fraud or misrepresentation.
Even now, the left still peddles this tale as if it is common, perhaps even legal.
And the lying is not something progressives are ashamed about when called on it. Charen:
It’s a form of “lying for justice.” If your goals are noble enough, truth is an acceptable casualty.
Obama’s propensity to lie is finally widely acknowledged, but it hasn’t gone far enough. It isn’t just that the pledge about keeping your plan was a noble lie – the whole law is based upon lies.
I would go further – the whole progressive philosophy is based upon lies.
This is an excellent article exposing the motivations and failures of grand philanthropy.
Many government programs suffer from exactly this same problem, with one big exception: it is not the philanthropist’s money and resources that are being spent well or not. Just because a government official legislates or administers a program that is intended to remedy a social ill doesn’t mean that official isn’t self-serving. In many cases, civil service is simply a path that allows people to garner more respect and satisfaction more than the private-sector path of producing goods and services that people value. When you can use government to force a whole society of people to change behavior or funnel resources in the direction you want, you find that you can have a greater impact than actually creating value yourself. That is true no matter if you are building highways or ameliorating poverty.
Lovely. This article is just lovely. I’d thought about sprinkling some of its highlights in this post, but then you may not read the article in whole. And you have to. You really have to.
Obama in his Chuck Todd interview yesterday:
I am deeply frustrated about how this website has not worked over the first couple of weeks. And, I take responsibility of that.
Now, having said that, given that I’ve been burned already with a website – well, more importantly, the American people have been burned by a website that has been dysfunctional.
Wait, I thought Obama said he was takes responsibility for the failure of the Obamacare web site. Here he is saying that he was burned by the web site (not the other way around). No. If you take responsibility for it, it is your web site. The American people have been burned by you.
Democrats think if they say “I take responsibility” for a failure, then people will forgive them or think they are upstanding or something. But they have no idea what they are saying. They do not mean it in the least.
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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 97 >>