Bitterly clinging to Obamacare
Campaigning during his first presidential run over five years ago, then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was overheard at a private fund raiser among the extremely wealthy in San Francisco infamously stating:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
So how is the now President Obama (still D) helping these bitter clingers? He's not. As a matter of fact he is making their lives worse with Obamacare and his other laws and policies. As the New York Times discovered about the (Un)Affordable Care Act
evidence is emerging that one of the program's loftiest goals -- to encourage competition among insurers in an effort to keep costs low -- is falling short for many rural Americans.
While competition is intense in many populous regions, rural areas and small towns have far fewer carriers offering plans in the law's online exchanges. Those places, many of them poor, are being asked to choose from some of the highest-priced plans in the 34 states where the federal government is running the health insurance marketplaces, a review by The New York Times has found.
In these non technical glitches--er, excuse me--kinks
The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.
"There's nothing in the structure of the Affordable Care Act which really deals with that problem," said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute, who noted that many factors determine costs in a given market. "I think that all else being equal, premiums will clearly be higher when there's not that competition."
Well, at least now, thanks to Obama, the small town folks have reasons to be bitter clingers.
Why can't we just buy health insurance the way we buy auto or home owners insurance--across state lines, individually without depending on our employer and only for major problems, not routine maintenance? And all without major government interference?
Oh. That last question explains it; what would liberals do if people depended on themselves, were responsible for themselves? And that is why "there's nothing in the structure of the Affordable (sic) Care Act which really deals with that problem." Because there are really no glitches or kinks in this we'll-know-what's-in-it-once-we-pass-it horror; what's in it, now that it has passed, is deliberate government control creating dependency.
And the only way to repair the glitchy kinks is to unpass the law. Defeat it. Or soon, we'll all be bitter clingers on Obamacare.