Here’s a headline that describes the conundrum of big government: “How Obama Overlooked 10 Million Americans Who Could Lose Health Insurance” this comes from Rick Newman from The Exchange (Yahoo Financial Blog).
Could it be that the oversight has something to do with government given the task of running our health care delivery system to begin with? Just because academics and experts in government are in charge, it’s all supposed to work out fine but it doesn’t. Is it any wonder how Obama “overlooked” 10 million people?
So a 2500 plus page law was written along with regulations that exceed that amount. Are we supposed to think Obama should know what’s in the law with all its permutations ? He certainly pretended he did in 2010 when he said this:
The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making.
And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
Might have? Well did it or didn’t it? The answer didn’t seem to matter because the administration kept repeating that if you like your insurance you can keep it. Congress, on the other hand did not seem to care whether it did or didn’t because the most important task was to pass the law without even reading it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that “we have to pass the law to see what’s in it”. If she didn’t know all that was in it, what’s to expect us to think the president did when he didn’t even write it?
But it was written by “experts”. Oh, good. That’s reassuring. Experts in what? What does it take to be an expert in running a market? I would think it would take the best and brightest socialists the world has ever seen or at least someone who is really good at playing Sim City.
The Exchange article assumes the infallibility of experts:
The firestorm over cancellations represents much more than a PR problem for supporters of the ACA, because millions of Americans could find themselves without insurance as the federal program that was supposed to represent a better alternative malfunctions, leaving no practical alternatives. In retrospect, it seems obvious the experts implementing the ACA should have seen this coming.
The only people who saw this coming were not “experts” but those who believe (me, me) that free-markets are impossible to command. Command economic systems are the reason people are starving in North Korea.
Yet the problem with the article is not pointing out this central fallacy. Instead the root of Obama’s troubles is public relations and the lack of full disclosure:
If enough people choose to forgo coverage, it seems inevitable that, before long, we’ll hear about somebody with a medical emergency who ended up without insurance because it got canceled under the ACA, and who must now drain their savings or tap relatives to pay for catastrophic care that would be covered if not for the ACA. Obama might want to think ahead and start preparing an explanation for how that could have happened under a law meant to expand, not restrict, health-care coverage.
It might also be a good idea to stop making any promises at all about a law that keeps catching its own progenitors by surprise.
And so that ought to make it okay then? The law does the opposite of what it was intended to do. Okay Obama, start thinking of excuses and stop making promises. Or lay blame. The new line is the insurance people had that they were happy with was “junk”. They ought to know, they’re the experts.