NPR & Harvard: Boy, Obamacare is a Disaster

PowerLine notes an NPR report that can't sugarcoat the medicine.

You can list me in the group whose benefits have stayed about the same -- it's a grandfathered plan -- but whose co-pays have increased and whose premiums have skyrocketed. I'm paying I think twice now what I was paying before this lovely adventure began, for exactly the same plan (since I am now forbidden by law to change it without losing it forever).

5 comments:

Ymar Sakar said...

Perhaps it was always designed to be one, in order for the bridge to be destroyed so that the state can demand the money and power to build a newer, better bridge.

Where they would control everything ever more.

Grim said...

I think that "designed" is too strong, because absolutely none of them actually read the monstrosity they put together before they voted on it. It was too long to have been read, were it as light and easy to understand as a novel rather than dense legalisms with intense cross-references and technical jargon.

But they were clearly happy to run the hazard that it would destroy everything, as the worst thing that could come out of that was the chance to institute Single Payer instead. As they may well yet try to do, depending on what happens.

Eric Blair said...

There were definitely somethings designed into it, *somebody* was writing the words, even if it wasn't congress.

But single-payer is a dead issue really, because nobody knows how you'd go about actually implementing it.

Grim said...

Didn't stop them from trying Obamacare.

Ymar Sakar said...

I think that "designed" is too strong, because absolutely none of them actually read the monstrosity they put together before they voted on it.

The person that put the line in knew what the design of it was for, though.

And Hussein hired one of his connections from Harvard, I believe, to get the website up. Although both could be attributed to mere DC crony corruption. The thing about Hussein is that many people thought his antics were incompetence or stupidity at large. I always took the "intentional" line, and it has paid quite high dividends in accuracy of model analysis.

People have always suspected lobbyists and what not were writing the laws that became bills. The question people should have asked was, "what would the Leftist alliance write into law and why".