Good-Bye, Employer Mandate?

An interesting article at Politico:

Robert Gibbs’ prediction that Obamacare’s employer mandate would — and perhaps should — be jettisoned shocked Democrats back in April.
By July, the former aide and longtime confidant of President Barack Obama had a lot more company. More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good. Among them are experts at the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund and prominent academics like legal scholar Tim Jost. . . .
Leading Democrats in Congress aren’t bolting from the employer mandate, at least not before the November election. But the White House has delayed it twice in the past year, dubbed it “not critical” and said it will be phased in more slowly when its begins next year.
The rule that businesses with more than 50 full-time workers offer them affordable health insurance has been a political headache from the start. . . .

You can read the whole thing. Describing the mandate as a “political headache” is a way to avoid calling it a policy disaster. And without the employer mandate, exactly what would remain of ObamaCare, except Medicare expansion and state “exchanges”?

Zombie ObamaCare: It’s Dead, but It Can Never Be Killed.

 

So What If The #VA Scandal Is Just #ObamaCare Meets #Benghazi?

by Smitty

Americans in general and veterans in particular are far too spun up about the VA scandal. This has led to at least one scurrilous photo-bumming incident already. And why? What difference, at this point, do these veterans make? The WSJ gets it all wrong:

The recent revelations about the Department of Veterans Affairs point to serious problems. But the root of the scandal is not what self-serving bureaucrats failed to do or tried to cover up; it is a federal budget that prevents us from meeting even the national needs on which our polarized political parties can agree.
Whatever the disagreements about the long wars of the past decades, Democrats and Republicans agree that we must fully honor the debt we have incurred to the tiny fraction of the population that does the fighting for the rest of us. Yes, the budget for the VA has risen sharply since 2002. But the number of returning veterans has risen even faster. Many live with grievous wounds from which they would have succumbed in previous conflicts. Many others struggle with the multiple effects of repeated deployments. Aging Vietnam-era patients require more care, and new responsibilities such as coping with Agent Orange add to the VA’s burden.

Aw, c’mon: these veterans, in the main, don’t even vote correctly! And now that ObamaCare is sucking the lifeblood right out of the American healthcare system, these veterans are just a doubly useless load on a Constitutional system that has been fundamentally transformed since the 2008 election.

If these veterans aren’t given the the Doherty & Woods Special, then their block of votes could become an embarrassment for Her Majesty’s 2016 Coronation event.

Besides: American voters gave #OccupyResoluteDesk a pass in 2012. We knew him for an incompetent boob all four years leading up to Benghazi. We knew that ObamaCare was going to make the Titanic seem a minor bathtub incident by comparison.

We have begged to have our warriors treated dishonorably by a completely honor-free rodeo clown, and he hasn’t shown a smidgen of hesitation in delivering.

So. Just. Screw. Us. To. The. Wall.

Because history is going to wonder if we aren’t kind of into this stuff.

Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Recycles ‘War on Women’ Theme

The DNC chairwoman issued a statement on Women’s Health Week in which she evidently presumes that (a) abortion is essential to “women’s health,” (b) opposition to abortion is an “extreme agenda,” and (c) all women think ObamaCare is awesome:

[A]t the state and national level, Republicans have repeatedly taken actions that restrict access to health care for women and families. Yes, they’ve voted more than 50 times to repeal or undermine Obamacare, but their disregard goes beyond even that. Just last week, the RNC passed a resolution that makes their restrictive and extreme women’s health agenda one of their focuses going into the midterm elections. . . .
When the RNC backs extreme policies like that, there are real-world consequences for women. In my home state, Florida Republicans including Gov. Rick Scott are taking constrictions on women’s health to a new level. The state legislature recently passed two new restrictions that will interfere with a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions with her doctor, and instead inserts the GOP’s extreme agenda into these very private discussions . . .
If Rick Scott signs these bills — and I’m sorry to say that I’m confident he will — my home state will be the next in a long line of states to roll back the clock on women’s rights. It is senseless and it is wrong. This National Women’s Health Week, I’m standing with Florida women.

(Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers.)

 

Fret Not: The Clinton/Warren 2016 Ticket Will Fix The VA Health Care Problem

by Smitty

Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has long touted the VA system as the epitome of government-run healthcare. “Exhibit A for the advantages of government provision [of healthcare] is the veterans administration, which runs its own hospitals and clinics, and provides some of the best-quality healthcare in America at far lower cost than the private sector,” Krugman claims.


It’s just kinda zany how all of these Socialized programs seem to effect the opposite of their stated intent, shifting from health care to the War on Poverty:

Between 1959 and 1966 — before the War on Poverty was implemented — the percentage of Americans living in poverty plunged by about one-third, from 22.4 to 14.7, slightly lower than in 2012. But, Eberstadt cautions, the poverty rate is “incorrigibly misleading” because government transfer payments have made income levels and consumption levels significantly different. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, heating assistance and other entitlements have, Eberstadt says, made income “a poor predictor of spending power for lower-income groups.” Stark material deprivation is now rare:

“By 2011 .?.?. average per capita housing space for people in poverty was higher than the U.S. average for 1980. .?.?. [Many] appliances were more common in officially impoverished homes in 2011 than in the typical American home of 1980. .?.?. DVD players, personal computers, and home Internet access are now typical in them — amenities not even the richest U.S. households could avail themselves of at the start of the War on Poverty.”

But the institutionalization of anti-poverty policy has been, Eberstadt says carefully, “attended” by the dramatic spread of a “tangle of pathologies.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined that phrase in his 1965 report calling attention to family disintegration among African Americans. The tangle, which now ensnares all races and ethnicities, includes welfare dependency and “flight from work.”

So, clearly we need MOAR Programs, until the remaining conservative deadweight falls off and the sun can stagger the Progressive Dawn fully over the horizon.

via Hot Air headlines

A Typical ObamaCare Nightmare

The damage caused by the ObamaCare catastrophe — arguably the worst federal public policy initiative of the past 40 years — are usually discussed in terms of politics and macroeconomic statistics: X-number of jobs lost, an X-percent decline in President Obama’s poll numbers. True enough, the harms of the paradoxically named “Affordable Care Act” have impacted our entire society, hindering economic growth, incentivizing job losses, and resulting in policy cancellations and higher premiums for millions of Americans.

The very worst has been suffered by small businesses (both owners and employees) and by self-employed independent contractors. Statistics cannot adequately express what at an unprecedented nightmare many people have gone through. One of these ObamaCare victms, blogger Rich Vail, describes his frightening ordeal:

Last fall we received a letter saying that because of the myriad of changes that HHS had ordered health insurance companies to make to individual policies that were purchased on the open insurance market, that our health insurance would be cancelled…and it was despite they lies presented by President Obama and Sen’s Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski. “If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.”
Because last year was a pretty good year for me, we don’t qualify for subsidies…so my insurance which had costs us $132 per month rose to $137 per week. We had the choice of paying that or the rent…
The problem now is that I have four fractured ribs…

Read the whole thing and please hit Rich’s tip jar. I did.

 

This Is Not The Time To Go Wobbly On #ObamaCare: Abort It With The Prejudice Of All Stone-Hearted Feminists Combined

by Smitty

In this one-time, symbolic sense, I’m willing to be seen encouraging an abortion. And, yes, a plan for something better, that supports liberty, the economy, mom and apple pie needs to be described.
And then, Just. Bludgeon. ObamaCare. Like. A. Baby. Seal.

In ways they’ve never discussed before, senior administration officials now admit they feared late last fall that the entire law might collapse under the weight of Democratic defections and aggressive Republican calls for repeal. The mathematics of veto-proof majorities always argued against repeal, but the nightmare of HealthCare.gov followed by the “political lie of the year” on individual insurance policies filled senior Obama advisers with Affordable Care Act existential dread.

Make a fundraise out of it. Print a full copy of the legislation and amendments, drill a center hole, drop in some rebar, and then sell $5 ticket to take a whack at a monument do diabolical falsehood.
ObamaCare is a river of lies, with headwaters in Hell. Let its legend as the antithesis of our Constitution grow and instruct future generations that Progress was a fool’s errand.

via HotAir QOTD

Scapegoated for ObamaCare Failures, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Resigns

Thursday’s resignation of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the biggest move yet in President Obama’s effort to rescue his signature government health-insurance plan, and to limit the political impact of the program’s failure.

The administration and its allies are trying to convince Americans that problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are just temporary technical glitches with a website — the “botched rollout” narrative — rather than fundamental flaws with the law itself.

Sebelius’s resignation fits that narrative, permitting Democrats and their media sympathizers to claim that problems with ObamaCare were caused by the former HHS secretary’s incompetence, and not by any basic problem in the president’s program. This is likely to become a key issue in the campaign for the fall mid-term elections, in which Republicans seeking to capture the Senate majority will argue that ObamaCare is a complete failure that should be repealed, while Democrats will say the policy is successful, but simply had a few early glitches that have now been fixed. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein offers the Democrat spin:

Obamacare has won. And that’s why Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius can resign.
Calls for Sebelius’s resignation were almost constant after Obamacare’s catastrophic launch. The problem wasn’t just that Sebelius had presided over the construction of a fantastically expensive web site that flatly didn’t work. It was that she didn’t know healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. And so the White House didn’t know that healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. The demands that Sebelius to step down — or be fired — were as deafening inside the building as outside of it.
But President Obama refused. As National Journal’s Major Garrett reported, Obama believes that “scaring people with a ceremonial firing deepens fear, turns allies against one another, makes them risk-averse, and saps productivity.” Moreover, there was too much to be done to fire one of the few people who knew how to finish the job. Sebelius would stay. The White House wouldn’t panic in ways that made it harder to save the law.
The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare’s first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers.

In Klein’s pro-Obama narrative, then, not only is ObamaCare a successful policy, but the president’s handling of problems with the website’s launch demonstrated his competence as an executive.

Ben Domenech offers the conservative interpretation:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, and Rachel Maddow is right to not be happy about it, not one little bit. For once, I completely agree with Maddow’s analysis. This surprise resignation presents Republicans with an unexpected opportunity to refocus the conversation on Obamacare’s negatives, offers a chance to force vulnerable Senate Democrats to take a hard vote on Obamacare six months before the midterms, and serves to disrupt what had been a positive few days of media spin for the health care law into another conversation about its many failings.

Domenech sees the upcoming confirmation vote for Sebelius’s appointed successor at HHS — Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell — as a “golden opportunity” for Senate Republicans “to reignite their crusade against Obamacare,” forcing Democrats to give an up-or-down vote on a nominee who will serve as a “proxy” symbol for the program’s failures.

Domenech should caution his GOP friends on Capitol Hill to tread carefully, as Democrats and their media allies may be luring Republicans into a “War on Women” trap, setting up a situation in which a bunch of old white guys are seen attacking a female nominee.

This trap could best be avoided simply by calling attention to how the administration is deliberately setting up Burwell.

Having made one woman (Sebelius) a scapegoat for ObamaCare’s failures to date, now the White House disingenuously shoves another top female administration official into the political meat-grinder, hoping to obtain a short-term political benefit from Burwell’s public humiliation in Senate hearings. Considering how Hillary Clinton was scapegoated for the Benghazi massacre, Republicans might well ask, “Why does Obama always blame women for his failures?”