Obamacare is undermining the 'foundational premise' of American liberalism

Professor Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago calls our attention to what he calls "a useful, clear, and brief article on the data" of Obamacare sign-ups in Health Policy and Marketplace Review. Robert Laszewski writes:

Based upon my survey of a large number of health plans accounting for substantial market share in the 36 states the federal insurance exchange is operating in, not more than about 5,000 individuals and families signed-up for health insurance in the 36 states run by the Obama administration through Monday [last week]. (snip)

Reports today [last Friday] say the enrollments continue to trickle in at about the same rate.

Prof. Lipson comments on his Facebook page:

WHY IS THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF OBAMACARE SO IMPORTANT?  Not exactly for the reasons you hear on the news.  The deeper reason is this: the foundational premise of American liberalism-from FDR to LBJ to Obama--is that a bigger, more centralized, and better-funded national government can solve America's most serious social problems. The lack of good health coverage for roughly 30 million Americans is exactly such a problem.  The question is whether Obamacare, as it is actually implemented, will solve it--or fail miserably. (snip)

If Obamacare's problems are not resolved quickly and effectively, who will have confidence that "we are from Washington and we're here to help you"? Put differently, will Pres. Obama's signing ceremony for the ACA mark the high-water point of American liberalism?

It may be even worse, whatever the number who actually managed to sign up. . Richard Baehr emails me that:

The bigger story will be the 15-20 million who now have individual polices, and will almost all get reamed by the new prices for policies in the exchanges after they are dumped by current carrier. So the uninsured have trouble getting onto the system, and the millions now insured will have the same problems just to continue to be insured.

I think it is quite possible that a year from now, we may find that the number of uninsured has actually increased over the first year of Obamacare, considering the large number of people who will face price increases for health insurance that they cannot afford, not to mention deductibles much higher than they previously faced.

Moreover, Obamacare's promise that you can sign up for health insurance after a serious medical catastrophe, since pre-existing conditions may not be considered by insurers, makes simply paying  the penalty an attractive proposition.

If Obamacare ends growing the number of uninsured, the case will have been made that liberalism is actually worse than doing nothing, and everyone in the House and Senate who voted for it and supported it after its passage (all of them Democrats) will be sitting ducks in 2014 and 2016.

Professor Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago calls our attention to what he calls "a useful, clear, and brief article on the data" of Obamacare sign-ups in Health Policy and Marketplace Review. Robert Laszewski writes:

Based upon my survey of a large number of health plans accounting for substantial market share in the 36 states the federal insurance exchange is operating in, not more than about 5,000 individuals and families signed-up for health insurance in the 36 states run by the Obama administration through Monday [last week]. (snip)

Reports today [last Friday] say the enrollments continue to trickle in at about the same rate.

Prof. Lipson comments on his Facebook page:

WHY IS THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF OBAMACARE SO IMPORTANT?  Not exactly for the reasons you hear on the news.  The deeper reason is this: the foundational premise of American liberalism-from FDR to LBJ to Obama--is that a bigger, more centralized, and better-funded national government can solve America's most serious social problems. The lack of good health coverage for roughly 30 million Americans is exactly such a problem.  The question is whether Obamacare, as it is actually implemented, will solve it--or fail miserably. (snip)

If Obamacare's problems are not resolved quickly and effectively, who will have confidence that "we are from Washington and we're here to help you"? Put differently, will Pres. Obama's signing ceremony for the ACA mark the high-water point of American liberalism?

It may be even worse, whatever the number who actually managed to sign up. . Richard Baehr emails me that:

The bigger story will be the 15-20 million who now have individual polices, and will almost all get reamed by the new prices for policies in the exchanges after they are dumped by current carrier. So the uninsured have trouble getting onto the system, and the millions now insured will have the same problems just to continue to be insured.

I think it is quite possible that a year from now, we may find that the number of uninsured has actually increased over the first year of Obamacare, considering the large number of people who will face price increases for health insurance that they cannot afford, not to mention deductibles much higher than they previously faced.

Moreover, Obamacare's promise that you can sign up for health insurance after a serious medical catastrophe, since pre-existing conditions may not be considered by insurers, makes simply paying  the penalty an attractive proposition.

If Obamacare ends growing the number of uninsured, the case will have been made that liberalism is actually worse than doing nothing, and everyone in the House and Senate who voted for it and supported it after its passage (all of them Democrats) will be sitting ducks in 2014 and 2016.

RECENT VIDEOS