Charles Krauthammer writes the column of the year on Obamacare

Note: I am on Christmas blogging hours now, so we are only going to have posts at 10 AM and 4 PM till January 6th! Sorry for the interruption in service.

This Washington Post editorial might be the editorial of the year, so please read the whole thing.

Excerpt:

Obamacare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, mirabile dictu, not costing the government a dime.

In fact, Obamacare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.

That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)

It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. Six million Americans with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ own estimates, about 75 million Americans would have plans that their employers would have the right to cancel. And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles and co-pays go up.

[…]Look what happened just last week. Health and Human Services unilaterally and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on Jan. 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And is “strongly encouraging” them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicines not covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).

On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Where in Obamacare’s 2,500 pages are such high-handed dictates authorized? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket warrant for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system.

Remember the uproar over forcing religious institutions to provide contraception coverage? The president’s “fix” was a new regulation ordering insurers to provide these services for free. Apart from the fact that this transparent ruse does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of conscience — God sees — by what right does the government order private companies to provide free services for anyone?

Previously, I blogged about a Duke University health care policy expert’s estimate that it was going to be 129 million. I blogged about these problems from 2010 to now, study after study, maybe one post a month. No one listened. But these things were known. We knew that government was going to destroy a private health care system that was number one in the world for patient outcomes. Now everyone knows what conservatives were warning about in 2010.

The last column by Charles Krauthammer was also really good. It’s about how Obama had never realized how bad government is at doing things when compared to the private sector.

3 thoughts on “Charles Krauthammer writes the column of the year on Obamacare”

  1. The president keeps making changes to established law (ACA). Is he saying that this is constitutional because they are policy changes, not legal ones? I’m just wondering why he isn’t in jail right now?

    Based on this sort of strategy, could Bush have used the Defense of Marriage Act to outlaw abortions, since abortions are certainly a threat to marriage? Not constitutionally, of course, but dictatorially, like Obama is doing? Could he have skirted the Constitution by saying that DOMA is established law and the outlaw of abortion is just policy?

    Like

Leave a comment