Yes, the arguments against this rush to mind:
1. Romney is a member of the opposition party... but that's also a plus: We could have a real show of bipartisanship and of genuinely wanting to make this legislation work for the benefit of the American people, not just to make it look good at the right times and in the right ways to bolster the power of the Democratic Party.
2. When he was running for President, Romney said he wanted to repeal Obamacare... but he was working with the preferences of the GOP base and needed to win the nomination. He distanced himself from his history of making Romneycare work by saying he'd been Governor of Massachusetts, working with the preferences of the people of Massachusetts. This suggests that he's a practical, able man who understands the task he's been assigned and sincerely applies his expertise.
3. Romney wouldn't want to help Obama, who defeated him in the election... but Romney's image is of a public servant who wants to do good works for the benefit of all. He isn't — or at least shouldn't — want to seem like a guy with a grudge.
4. Romney should stand clear of the spectacular collapse of Obamacare. Really? Isn't this like his signature achievement, saving the Olympics? The magnitude of the disaster and the importance of avoiding it are exactly what should attract Romney. "He saved the Olympics and he saved Obamacare" — wouldn't he want that legacy?
5. Obama wouldn't want Romney showing up on the scene now as the savior. Obama is too narcissistic, too peevish to call out to the older man for help. Maybe. But Obama would be the President, and he could look very magnanimous and wise. He could finally seem to be doing what a lot of us thought he was about when we voted for him in 2008 — bringing us together.
6. Everyone, right and left, would cry out in horror or at least puzzlement. And what a distraction that would be.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४७ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe Obama Should First Run This Idea by Bill Ayers: Sometimes You DO Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows.
"Sometimes You DO Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows."
Here comes the story of the Romneycane.
The idea that obama should "do" anything is a moot point since it assumes that the president is actually engaged in policy and governing. Mind you, also, that leading up to the passage of ACA, 17% of Americans not able to get insurance was a crisis; today it's a glitch.
Should Just Hand the Whole Mess Over to Amazon: They Seem to Have No Problems Making Things Work on a Large Scale, without Sticker Shock. You Could Buy Toilet Paper, Penicillin and Schedule a Doctor's Appointment, All Through the Althouse Amazon Portal.
but Romney's image is of a public servant who wants to do good works for the benefit of all.
I object! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Here, I'll fix it for you: Romney's image is of a megalomaniac who thinks he is destined by God to be president.
Isn't this like his signature achievement, saving the Olympics?
Saving a good idea from bad actors is not the same as saving a bad idea on behalf of bad actors.
Jokercare dance to the Incompetence tune
Costs fly high by the light of the moon
Ohh Jokercare
Why would anyone want to be the next person Obama throws under the bus?
The Dems own Obamacare, making Romney the face of fixing unworkable legislation (not talking websites, but the long-term implementation) is simply a tactic to shift the blame.
Amazon Suggestions:
Other Consumers Who Have Purchased Your Selected Health Products Have Also Looked at The Following...
Gauze
Swabs (1000 Count)
Anti-Fungal Cream
The Best of "Air Supply"
Almost every thoughtful person following this disaster has had the same idea. Your arguments are good.
Romney, however, is generally sincere. (Go ahead, Freder.) So as for #2 (Romney wants to repeal Obamacare) and #4 ("Romney should stand clear"), the simple answer is that Romney really doesn't think Obamacare can work in anything like its current form. That is a reasonable conclusion. You don't reform and fix a lead balloon; you cancel the project and get started on airplanes. Romney is smart enough to know that.
For starters, tort reform.
Just repeal obamacare.
Didn't Ted Cruz have a good idea about this?
Hmmmm.
Bring in Valerie Jarrett to fix ObamaCare.
Or have Obama do his own coding, as Jennifer Granholm suggested. After all, he's so good at everything else - I assume that he is the world's best coder as well.
The Dems had the opportunity in 2009 to implement some Republican ideas and, in turn, get 45 GOP votes in the house and 5 in the Senate. Didn't listen.
What's in it for Romney? The honor of being the President's next fall guy?
Obama is delusional and uninformed enough to actually believe his signature legislation can still work, and that he'll get the credit for fixing it. A man of his ego doesn't want to share that glory with a hated rival, a guy who already humiliated him during the campaign. A guy he knows, deep down, is smarter than he is.
It's debatable whether fixing the turd sandwich known as Obamacare is performing a public service. Frankly, were I Mitt, I'd find an unfortunate prior commitment that prevented me from being associated with this disaster. The Democrats broke it. Let them fix it.
Thanks for the heads-up, BDNYC, pointing out that I had 2004 as the date of Obama's first election, when it should be 2008.
Fixed. And your comment is also deleted (as a distraction, now), but I did appreciate it.
Here, I'll fix it for you: Obama's image is of a megalomaniac who thinks he is destined by Marx to be president.
FIFY
Hmm, yeah. Romney is an Eagle Scout and no kind of a megalomaniac.
Obama now, he does have some of it, at least reltive to his abilities. You divide any number, however small, by 0 and you get infinity.
Given Obama's penchant for playing in front of Greek columns, I wouldn't be suprised if he is hoping for some such deus ex machina to turn his tragedy into a farce.
Romney would do it because he is service and civic minded. And I think he would work with both houses to make adjustments.
Obama won't do anything. In fact, he found out there was a problem when he read it in the newspaper. Isn't that what he always says?
Freder Frederson said...
I object! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Here, I'll fix it for you: Romney's image is of a megalomaniac who thinks he is destined by God to be president.
Technically speaking this last statement is not a fact not in evidence, since it discusses the left's beliefs rather than whether those beliefs have any factual basis. But it's close enough to be amusing, plus it's clear evidence the left is insane. It'd be great if some lefty were to back it up by claiing to be the reality based community again.
Why would Romney be able to fix ObamaCare? RomneyCare is Obamacare on steroids, otherwise there are only minor differences.
I made the argument a while back that the best bet for Obamacare to survive is Mitt Romney. He's been making the best of crappy situations for years. The issue is 1) this would be an admission by Obama that the wrong guy won. I don't think he'd do that. 2) the graft-train would derail. 3) Unless Romney can fire anyone, including Candy Crowley, he won't be effective. 4) Obamacare may be too broken to fix with the current law and the House GOP ain't giving Obama any legal escape hatches. "Now you want the red pill but you already signed into law the blue pill - so take your damn medicine. By the way, turns out it's a suppository!"
I suspect tasking the best and the brightest aerospace engineers at Cal-Tech to get a million ton brick to fly has a better chance of success than getting ObamaCare "fixed".
Romney would be certifiably insane to even consider trying to get the Son Of HillaryCare to "work".
I vote #5.
Also, how would the media spin it.
We already know that the Democrats had a Democrat only meeting about Obamacare, and came out of it demanding that Republicans fix Obamacare.
On reflection why Romney? Let's get Hillary to fix this misbegotten Son Of HillaryCare instead.
Tom said...
Obamacare may be too broken to fix with the current law and the House GOP ain't giving Obama any legal escape hatches.
Obama would only offer the job as a method to blame Republicans. It's obvious the left understands Obamacare is failing, that's why they're calling it a Republican plan.
Uh. Number 5 for the win, Ann.
correction, I vote the first two sentences of #5.
So that's why Romney has a secret room. That's where he hides the fixes to the president's problems.
Before we begin to "fix" Obama care we need to determine exactly what is wrong with it. We don't really know everything about it yet.
Until the majority of people are able to enroll, the computer problems seem serious, but will be quickly forgotten if he product is actually good.
Probably the computer malfunctions are the least of the problems in that law. In theory the law could be as workable as Romneycare, but the way it was passed hurriedly, without proper vetting by the opposition, and without a broad consensus of the public means that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of pitfalls baked into the law.
The question is why the Democrats were so determined to make a national law rather than letting the states handle it like the provinces do in Canada. States like Hawaii and Massachusetts already had their own healthcare plans which were working without disrupting healthcare for millions of people who wanted no part of it.
One reason is that the Democrats knew that many people in conservative states were not interested in their ideas. By making it a national law the Democrats managed to force their will on entire states against their will.
Another reason is probably because that according to the present trajectory Medicare a national program will soon be insolvent. Democrats know they have cut reimbursement to physicians so much that many doctors have stopped accepting new Medicare patients. Perhaps the only way to stop physicians rejecting Medicare is to nationalize healthcare so reimbursement can be cut across the board and physicians will have less incentive to decrease their Medicare caseload. Cutting reimbursement will only go so far. The next step will be to ration care for the elderly. Without nationalized healthcare this would be very difficult politically but with a nationalized system the needs of the young can be arrayed against the needs of the elderly. By enlisting the young as a political block who benefit by depriving the elderly, the Democrats can set up their rationing boards(Death Panels)and benefit politically from the cuts by appealing to the self interest of the young.
Not going to happen. The very obvious Republican policy is to let the Democrats own Obamacare completely. The House will try to propose legislation to mitigate the catastrophe awaiting the millions who have and will lose their current insurance plans. But that's more about doing the right thing than rescuing Obamacare and I think the public will see that.
I thought we were gonna put Mittens to work saving Detroit?
Why would Romney be able to fix ObamaCare? RomneyCare is Obamacare on steroids, otherwise there are only minor differences.
One of those minor differences is a near-useless enrollment website - you may have heard about that. It's apparently a bit of a problem for Obamacare, but I haven't seen any reporting suggesting that a similar problem exists for Romneycare.
Obama care stands on a foundation of lies.
it will be propped up with more lies.
The things I want to do for you will improve your life so much that I can't risk failure by allowing you to know the truth about how I'm going to make it happen.
Ya just gotta believe....
Why put so much on Romney's head. He does not owe you anything and most of all nothing to Obama.
Illuninati said...
The question is why the Democrats were so determined to make a national law rather than letting the states handle it like the provinces do in Canada.
Democrats want national laws to ensure their pet projects cannot be measured. If we had 50 states choosing and paying for their own programs we'd be able to see and judge the resulting economic and fiscal effects. If all states use the same program no alternatives exist to provide undeniable real world data. In the absence of that data the Democrtats control over media and academia give them the ability to spin any negative outcomes as the result of other factors.
The reason Romney will not do this is because he doesn't have Secret Service protection.
When he was running for President, Romney said he wanted to repeal Obamacare... but he was working with the preferences of the GOP base and needed to win the nomination. He distanced himself from his history of making Romneycare work by saying he'd been Governor of Massachusetts, working with the preferences of the people of Massachusetts.
Aren't the preferences of Americans - in general, not the Progressives who haven't been mugged by it yet - now fairly clearly against the ACA?
(Certainly in my anecdotal experience, people who work for a living are royally pissed off by being forced to buy expensive "insurance" they didn't want that covers things they don't care about, For The Greater Good.
Normally when someone forces you to buy expensive insurance you don't want, the phrase that comes to mind is "be a shame if something was to happen to it"...)
I figure that we are lucky that Romney wasn't elected. He'd probably have gotten the damn thing working.
Oh, and by the way.
Those so incredibly ignorant to state that Romneycare exceeds Obamacare in any dimension should really find a new source of talking points.
The huge difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts health care insurance reform law is that Mass did not and does not impose restrictions or mandates on your current insurance coverage that allow your plan be scrapped. The only major initiatives the two have in common is the mandate to have insurance or pay a tax penalty and an insurance exchange. Neither one has a penalty that approaches what it actually costs to purchase coverage. Since most uninsured are the young capable of being insured but who simply want to save money, they will continue to do so as any intelligent person would expect. That biggest perc of Romneycare being touted in the lead up was that it would force the uninsured into exchanges and reduce the losses hospital incur treating the uninsured and reduce the over charges the insured pay to mitigate them. That has not happened. If you're young, healthy, inclined to take risk on yourself to save money by not having health insurance, and can do basic math, the penalty tax still leaves you ahead.
While the aforementioned ignorant people like to reference polls saying that the high majority of Mass residents are satisfied with their health care options under Romneycare, that same high majority was equally satisfied with their health care options before Romneycare. The inconvenient fact the is willfully ignored by those just parroting talking points, or more likely indicating being simply too stupid to understand it, is that the people satisfied with their health options before and after are those who always had health plans and have seen NO change to their health plan or health care.
Until now.
Let's see what Mass residents feel in a few months as the Massachusetts health care insurance reform law is superceded by the ACA.
Mitt Romney understands all this far better than Obama ever will and would not touch the job of getting Obamacare properly launched as long as it has that upfront third rail of destroying current plans for people satisfied with what they already have.
Forget all the concerns about what comes later with the government controlling health care. That critical difference between the two laws is what makes Obamacare a dead business model and why Romney won't touch it.
Romney is a fine and fundamentally decent man, who has the best interests of his country at heart. A far better man than Zero, by several orders of magnitude. Also, probably 60 or 70 IQ points smarter than Obama. I have no doubt that he could fix it if asked. But Zero's ego would ever low him to humble himself and ask my advice to Mitt would be " tell him to go f@$k himself.
Romney is a fine and fundamentally decent man, who has the best interests of his country at heart. A far better man than Zero, by several orders of magnitude. Also, probably 60 or 70 IQ points smarter than Obama. I have no doubt that he could fix it if asked. But Zero's ego would ever low him to humble himself and ask my advice to Mitt would be " tell him to go f@$k himself.
Nobody should save anything at this point.
Obama has demonstrated, CLEARLY, he doesn't care about anything.
Every single problem --- well, he didn't know about them. True, this is an excuse we wouldn't tolerate about anybody (Ken Lay didn't know about the accounting problems at Enron (he didn't try to know, either) but he sure wasn't acquitted).
Until Obama shows even a tiny modicum of interest in anything, nobody else should expend the effort on his behalf.
This is why Obama will never ask Romney to come in and fix Obamacare.
President Obama, "Thank you ladies and gentleman, I've called this press conference today to introduce Mitt Romney, who has agreed to help us fix Obamacare. Mr. Romney...."
Mitt Romney, "Thank you President Obama. Questions?"
Reporter, "Mr. Romney, what will be your first step in fixing Obamacare?"
Mitt Romney, "Thank you for that very excellent question. Step 1 of fixing Obamacare is to toss out Obamacare. Next question?"
And of course, that cannot be the answer, can it? At least, not for Obama and the Democrats.
But that would be Mitt Romneys answer.
Sigivald said...
Certainly in my anecdotal experience, people who work for a living are royally pissed off by being forced to buy expensive "insurance" they didn't want that covers things they don't care about
Keep in mind a large number of people don't know yet how Obamacare will effect them. The price of employer policies is increasing and a portion will be passed on to the vast majority of employees. But employees don't find out about this until open enrollment starts. At this point only select people in HR / Finance and interested executives know the likely scope of increases.
So as companies have open enrollment (often 11-1 or 12-1) we're going to see significant increases in the number of complaints - from people who have thus far been quiet because the exchange specifics didn't effect them.
Come, this is much to modest a goal. This is the President of fundamental transformation, after all. He doesn't think small.
Why bring in Romney merely to fix Obamacare? If he can do that, he can surely fix the underlying problem, which is this stupid tendency of people to get sick all the time as they age and eventually die.
To heck with fixing Obamacare, the President should commit himself to fixing death. It's at least as achievable.
eric said...Mitt Romney, "Thank you for that very excellent question. Step 1 of fixing Obamacare is to toss out Obamacare. Next question?"
It would be, "Thank you for that very excellent question. Step 1 of fixing Obamacare is to toss out any federally mandated coverage in existing or future insurance plans not directly administered by the ACA. Next question?"
That would in one action make Obamacare palatable to the majority but also drive the vocal Democrat Sandra Fluke type foot soldier minority batshit. The fix would be enjoyed by Obama, the loony toon backlash laid at Mitt's feet.
All a moot point if interesting intellectual exercise as Romney was never in the business of propping up or subsidizing failed businesses or business models and I doubt Romney is taking any calls from Obama anyway.
So as companies have open enrollment (often 11-1 or 12-1) we're going to see significant increases in the number of complaints - from people who have thus far been quiet because the exchange specifics didn't effect them.
I'm a consultant who is covered through my wife's plan. She had her OE in April and her insurance plan announced it would be anticipating the ACA coverage changes as best it could so the rates already went up quite a bit. The family rate increase was about $65 a paycheck or $130 or so a month. A couple of weeks back she got an email saying that the coverage was adequate by law at this time but there would be more changes next April.
So I guess my family is the one subsidizing Inga's new fantasy Obamacare plan.
You can ask her yourself when she flies over on Thursday.
B wrote: Forget all the concerns about what comes later with the government controlling health care. That critical difference between the two laws is what makes Obamacare a dead business model and why Romney won't touch it.
The much more immediate failure is a misunderstanding of scale. The mandarins take as a premise that anything can be scaled. They especially love the idea that everything can be scaled and you automatically get economies of scale. It's the best free lunch ever. Like this but 100,000 times bigger.
Romneycare purported to extend health insurance coverage to an additional 500,000 people in a state that already had an extensive regulatory regime in place. Obamacare purports to extend coverage by 30,000,000. Obamacare's penalties and taxes are an order of magnitude larger than
Romneycare and it requires changes to employment and health insurance law across 50 states.
Anytime someone pronounces that Obamacare is more or less the same as Romneycare -- like Mr. PhD here -- you realize you're being lectured by an idiot. Scalability. That's the issue.
I see that cutting and pasting made my last post unclear. The tale told my wife in April was that our rate could increase once the ACA coverage was clear. The last email to her was about more changes in April along with the amount of our increase of about $130 a month as of the first of the year. So we have that going for us.
Her company did offer financial counseling in the email to anyone finding their health insurance increase financially burdensome. First I heard of an company doing that but I suspect quite a few companies will find it necessary or at least an advantageous policy move to do the same.
Obamacare's penalties and taxes are an order of magnitude larger than
Romneycare
I am not sure that an order of magnitude is correct. Either way, whether young people find that the equation favors having insurance now, you will see even the 85% of Masschusetts' already/always insured satisfaction with the low/no Romneycare impact disappear very quickly for just the increase cost of insurance.
The key failure in the ACA is that it is screwing people already paying for coverage they considered adequate and fair and transferring their wealth to the Inga's of the country.
Here, I'll fix it for you: Romney's image is of a megalomaniac who thinks he is destined by God to be president.
No, it's more like:
Freder's image of Romney is of a megalomaniac who thinks he is destined by God to be president.
Now it's really fixed.
Freder, your use of the word megalomania is more aptly applied to George Soros or Al Gore.
Here comes the story of the Romneycane.
.. the man the Democrats came to blame, for somethin' that he never done..
Massachusetts Health Care Reform
The tortuous history of conservatives and the individual mandate, Forbes.
That's actually brilliant on several levels- both politically (getting the former GOP Candidate in to fix the problem) and practically (if you needed a Czar to come in to make Obamacare work, the man who fixed the Olympics and created the Massachusetts version of the ACA is ideal). Two thoughts:
1- Assuming Romney isn't running again, this would be a great cap to his own Legacy. If he improved the ACA, he'd be known as the Modern-Day equivalent of George Marshall.
2- If Obama didn't try this, and the ACA was still stumbling around in 2016, a GOP Presidential candidate could appeal to moderate voters by using this idea- getting Romney to 'fix' the ACA.
Just because Heritage came up with it doesn't mean it was gonna fly.
It's laughable, 40 years of Chappaquiddick Ted pounding on his high chair & 20 years after HillaryCare and it's not the dems fault.
BTW, didn't Romney say tho was completely ignored that there are things he wanted to tweak but the DEM legislature said "NO" and there are things he didn't want and the DEM legislature overrode him?
History of the individual health insurance mandate. 1989-2010
"Also, probably 60 or 70 IQ points smarter than Obama…."
Why, oh why, did he fail to think on his feet when challenged on the facts in Debate #2?
He blew it then. Was it too much modesty or a lack of nerve? I don't know, but it was his job to win it and he choked.
B wrote: I am not sure that an order of magnitude is correct.
The analysis is of marginal rates.
See here: Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact.
That's really a sidebar to the scalability argument, but one worth noting.
Marshall wrote:
"Keep in mind a large number of people don't know yet how Obamacare will effect them. The price of employer policies is increasing and a portion will be passed on to the vast majority of employees. But employees don't find out about this until open enrollment starts. At this point only select people in HR / Finance and interested executives know the likely scope of increases.
So as companies have open enrollment (often 11-1 or 12-1) we're going to see significant increases in the number of complaints - from people who have thus far been quiet because the exchange specifics didn't effect them."
I was worried about this, Marshall, so I went to Blue Cross and they guided me to their 2014 rates and I compared them to the 2013 rates and there isn't much change, for me.
However, I work for the Federal Government. It's possible the Federal Government is paying the lions share of the increase on my behalf? I won't have the answer to that until I start getting paid in 2014 and start paying the ever so slightly higher rates (Works about to about $10.00 more a month in premiums a little more in co pays).
So, my fears of Obamacare, for my family, have subsided.
But that doesn't mean I now support the law. I don't. But I do wonder if my experience will be the norm for those who are employed.
Sorry, Inga - Teddy Kennedy has you beat by a couple of decades.
"
Blogger Inga said...
History of the individual health insurance mandate. 1989-2010"
Inga, by any slight chance did you happen to notice the term "Catastrophic" in the insurance proposals that the GOP introduced ?
Of course not.
Oh well, we can't all be as brilliant as you are.
In 1974 President Richard Nixon and Senator Edward Kennedy nearly succeeded in legislating universal medical insurance for all Americans.
I remember Teddy whining that his rich mother should be covered by the taxpayers.
Romney couldn't do much now -- executive capabilities would have been useful 2 or 3 years ago, but at this point, Obama is in a legislative straitjacket of his own making, and there's not much even the most talented manager could do to fix things. There is basically no flexibility to restructure Obamacare in order to make it workable. All they can do is stay the course, come hell or high water, and pray it doesn't come crashing down too spectacularly.
Even if Obama were willing to work with the legislature to fix the mess, it's also not clear to me what can be done to help the people who have already been hurt by Obamacare. The people who have been fired or whose hours were cut aren't getting those jobs back even if Obamacare is repealed root and branch -- not anytime soon, at least. The hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of people who are losing their health insurance coverage because of Obamacare wouldn't get that coverage back even if Obamacare were repealed today. We can't just reverse course and expect that these harms will be corrected, because they won't be. And delaying the mandate won't do much other than buy time for the Administration to try to get their mess of a website in order -- it won't fix the structural problems that are causing the actual injuries that flow from Obamacare.
But fixing those structural problems seems to me like it would be extremely hard. I don't work with insurance companies, but I assume that setting up insurance policies and pricing them isn't a simple process. Even if Obamacare were repealed today, insurers would need time to set up the policies, and people would need time to apply for coverage. That's time we effectively don't have anymore, unless the insurance companies have secretly been preparing a Plan B just in case their new gravy train runs off the rails.
The solution ought to provide some kind of bridge coverage to those people who had coverage, whether through their employer or on the individual market, but have now lost it thanks to Obamacare. And ideally, it shouldn't be coverage through an Obamacare policy with an exorbitant premium and a deductible so high that the net benefit for the average policy holder = 0. But that will have to come from the legislature and the President, and I don't see any signs anyone in either party has been thinking about this.
Inga, do you ever read the links you post ?
Stuart says that Heritage’s version of the individual mandate contained “three critical features” that distinguish it from Obamacare’s mandate: (1) it required people to buy catastrophic coverage, rather than more expensive comprehensive coverage; (2) it was primarily financed “through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher…rather than by a stick”; (3) Heritage’s mandate “was actually the loss of certain tax breaks…not a legal requirement.”
God, you are capable of sucking the intelligence right out of this blog.!
eric said...
However, I work for the Federal Government. It's possible the Federal Government is paying the lions share of the increase on my behalf?
If you went to BC rather than your employer weren't you looking at the total premium? Or do they manage your benefits also and so were able to show you the employee contribution?
It's likely the Fed plan already included the mandated coverages.
Why not ask Hillary Clinton? Apparently, she wants to be the president, let's give her another chance to shine and show her administrative talents.
Michael K,
I made absolutely no assertions about the linked articles I posted. Perhaps you should check yourself.
It also doesn't take 2700 pages to decree an individual mandate.
Then why post it, Inga?
The Republicans could help with this disaster by allowing everyone who isn't subsidized under the ACA be able to take a full income tax credit for buying a compliant policy. Why should the Inga's be the only ones subsidized?
Hyphenated American said...
Why not ask Hillary Clinton? Apparently, she wants to be the president, let's give her another chance to shine and show her administrative talents.
10/28/13, 2:58 PM
The bumper sticker writes itself:
Obamacare, Son Of HillaryCare. Hillary 2016.
If a portion of the increase in insurance is passed on to the employee, how will it be done? If the company decides to give their employees cash, won't that be subject to taxes?
"Then why post it, Inga?"
10/28/13, 3:05 PM
To illustrate the connection of the individual mandate to Republicans as well as Democrats. I also thought the timeline very interesting. Make of it what you will, but don't put words in my mouth.
Cubanbob, this is the THIRD time now I have told you I will recieve no subsidy.
If Romney were approached, which I highly doubt because of the enormous ego of the Chicago Messiah, I hope and pray that he would tell the administration to go pound sand.
Balfegor said...
Even if Obama were willing to work with the legislature to fix the mess, it's also not clear to me what can be done to help the people who have already been hurt by Obamacare. The people who have been fired or whose hours were cut aren't getting those jobs back even if Obamacare is repealed root and branch -- not anytime soon, at least. The hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of people who are losing their health insurance coverage because of Obamacare wouldn't get that coverage back even if Obamacare were repealed today.
This is why those desperate to defend Obama are wrong with the comparison to Medicare D. Med D was far less problematic than this rollout just considering the IT issues. But the important fact is that Med D was not a replacement platform, it was purely augmentative.
The Obamacare rollout had to be vastly better because the law eliminated people's alternatives including their existing coverage. This reasoning shows how indifferent the administration and their dupes are that their legislation and incompetence have cost people their coverage.
Also Cubanbob, the commenter ALP stated a few days ago that she would be getting Medicaid now. She is a conservative against Obamacare. Perhaps you should tell her to mow your lawn, like you told me to the other day.
Seeing Red said...
If a portion of the increase in insurance is passed on to the employee, how will it be done? If the company decides to give their employees cash, won't that be subject to taxes?
The increase in cost is passed to the employees with greater payroll deductions. According to a 2013 Kaiser study the average employee portion is 28% of their medical benefits.
So the cash would be going the other way.
Inga said...
Cubanbob, this is the THIRD time now I have told you I will recieve no subsidy.
10/28/13, 3:12 PM"
Inga you mentioned in another thread you received a $100 per month discount by applying for coverage under the new ACA compliant policies-there is your subsidy. Since you didn't drop 25 years overnight or get magically healthier overnight a discount can only come from a cross subsidy. In case you missed it there is a study out by a WI institute that has calculated for the average 27 year WI resident who isn't eligible for a subsidy their plans will increase by an average of 90% statewide. So tells us how you can expect to pay less than before without a subsidy.
Ann Althouse said, "Why, oh why, did he fail to think on his feet when challenged on the facts in Debate #2?"
Dunno. Is that what we're looking for? A great debater or litigator? Ted Cruz is said to be both. Alan Dershowitz could probably win any debate.
We need a leader who establishes goals and takes responsibility. Obama does not do these things. I'd take Elmer Fudd over Obama if Fudd could kill a wabbit.
No I did not Cubanbob. I said that my new PREMIUM would be slightly more than $100 less per month under an exchange plan. NO subsidy, which I stated that day, which you have ignored or chosen to lie about THREE times now.
The study is wrong, no doubt propaganda from people like you Cubanbob.
Althouse asks...
Why, oh why, did [Romney] fail to think on his feet when challenged on the facts in Debate #2?
He blew it then. Was it too much modesty or a lack of nerve? I don't know, but it was his job to win it and he choked.
I think it was because he was just plain flabbergasted when Candy Crowley launched into her collusion with Obama over the Rose Garden speech.
What would you do if someone waved a paper in front of your face that purportedly proved you’d just lied about something your opponent said?
Inga said...
Also Cubanbob, the commenter ALP stated a few days ago that she would be getting Medicaid now. She is a conservative against Obamacare. Perhaps you should tell her to mow your lawn, like you told me to the other day.
10/28/13, 3:18 PM
To tell ya the truth, I don't follow every thread that closely. Did she say Medicaid or Medicare?
Big difference between an earned benefit that was sold to the public as a health-care care annuity that one pays for over a forty year time period and a 'needs' based entitlement. But as a general rule I do believe that every abled-bodied and healthy enough to work adult who is collecting welfare ought to provide an offset to the taxpayers in return. Taxes are for services, not charity.
Blue Cross has informed me that my insurance, which I've had for several years, will go dead on 12/31/13. That's, um, about nine weeks away. Blue Cross is pretty good about trying to sign me up anew, but they're totally swamped online and on the phone. I now have a general idea as to what to apply for and how much it will cost, and it will be a little (maybe 10%) more expensive than the plan I've enjoyed until now.
Thanks, Obama! If I like my insurance, it will be cancelled by the only supplier, in violation of my contract, and then I can apply for a new, more expensive plan that I don't want!
Cubanbob,
She said MEDICAID. I can find the comment if you want or she can weigh in here if she sees this.
And Cubanbob, she says her SO won't let her anywhere near a lawn mower, so you're out of luck.
"The reason Romney will not do this is because he doesn't have Secret Service protection. "
That's an easy fix: just appoint Palin as Romney's second-in-command, with no official duties or powers other than to assume command if Romney becomes unable.
crimsonjoe,
More like the Modern-Day equivalent of Philippe Pétain.
Inga said...
No I did not Cubanbob. I said that my new PREMIUM would be slightly more than $100 less per month under an exchange plan. NO subsidy, which I stated that day, which you have ignored or chosen to lie about THREE times now.
10/28/13, 3:31 PM
Blogger Inga said...
The study is wrong, no doubt propaganda from people like you Cubanbob.
10/28/13, 3:32 PM
Very amusing indeed. Enlighten us on how an exchange can magically calculate you a savings under the new ACA mandates without a subsidy if your underlying actuarially based risk factors haven't changed. You say the study is wrong but don't offer an explanation of why it's wrong yet you believe the demonstrable lies of this Administration? I get that you got your subsidy, I get that you like your subsidy, I get that you don't want to loose your subsidy but I don't get is the obvious and transparent dissembling. If you aren't ashamed of getting a subsidy from others who have been coerced under law to provide it then why the obfuscation?
here is the thread Cubanbob
ALP said.....
"Google the term: "New face of Medicaid"
I will be on Medicaid in WA state come Jan 1. This is after decades of being gainfully employed until my layoff, and purchasing my own individual plan for the last few years. Having heard terrible things about it over the years - it does not sit well with me; I never dreamed in a million years I'd be on what I consider to be "welfare".
Curious, I Googled the term above. Apparently, I am not the only one curious about how the influx of newer Medicaid patients is going change the system. Several studies have been done in an attempt to answer this question. What I found surprised me, and made me even more curious.
To summarize quickly: the newer Medicaid members will be younger and a little healthier - less obesity and chronic issues such as diabetes. My quick read seems to find it will improve the system...I can't be the only "formerly gainfully employed; tossed aside by the economy; reasonably healthy person" joining the Medicaid system. Since folks like me have HAVE little choice but to accept Medicaid (the alternative being to continue to buy individual with a 35% increase, thus forcing one to stretch diminishing resources until the next job...)it would seem that this system may be the one getting the healthier, new members."
10/25/13, 6:06 PM
Cubanbob, now you are being an asshole. I have nothing more to say to liars such as yourself.
Inga said...
Cubanbob,
She said MEDICAID. I can find the comment if you want or she can weigh in here if she sees this.
10/28/13, 3:36 PM
Blogger Inga said...
And Cubanbob, she says her SO won't let her anywhere near a lawn mower, so you're out of luck.
10/28/13, 3:37 PM
I'll take you word for it. Let her SO pay for her health insurance. I have my SO to support along with my kids and have better uses for my money than subsidizing strangers in principal.
Ann Althouse,
What Obama and Crowley said simply wasn't true. Yes, the word terrorism was used in Obama's statement, but it was at best unclear that it was being applied to Benghazi. Rather most normal readers would see it applying to the other events referenced more than Benghazi.
Now I would expect my opponent to stretch the truth as far as he could. You can prepare for that. But when the moderator herself chimes in to back him up, anyone would have a flash of doubt cross their mind. And in a debate that visible moment was a killer. Someone above likened Crowley to the proverbial WWF manager jumping in the ring to hit Romney with a folding chair. I think the comparison is right on target.
Smart had nothing to do with it.
Marshall wrote:
"Keep in mind a large number of people don't know yet how Obamacare will effect them. The price of employer policies is increasing and a portion will be passed on to the vast majority of employees. But employees don't find out about this until open enrollment starts. At this point only select people in HR / Finance and interested executives know the likely scope of increases.
So as companies have open enrollment (often 11-1 or 12-1) we're going to see significant increases in the number of complaints - from people who have thus far been quiet because the exchange specifics didn't effect them."
-----------------------
"I was worried about this, Marshall, so I went to Blue Cross and they guided me to their 2014 rates and I compared them to the 2013 rates and there isn't much change, for me.
However, I work for the Federal Government. It's possible the Federal Government is paying the lions share of the increase on my behalf? I won't have the answer to that until I start getting paid in 2014 and start paying the ever so slightly higher rates (Works about to about $10.00 more a month in premiums a little more in co pays).
So, my fears of Obamacare, for my family, have subsided.
But that doesn't mean I now support the law. I don't. But I do wonder if my experience will be the norm for those who are employed."
10/28/13, 2:41 PM
So explain this.
"Blogger Inga said...
Michael K,
I made absolutely no assertions about the linked articles I posted. Perhaps you should check yourself."
So, Obama doesn't know what his administration is doing and you don't read the articles you post links to.
Is this some kind of rule on the left ?
Since folks like me have HAVE little choice but to accept Medicaid (the alternative being to continue to buy individual with a 35% increase, thus forcing one to stretch diminishing resources until the next job...)it would seem that this system may be the one getting the healthier, new members.
This misses the point. Obamacare needs "younger, healthier members" who are paying premiums in order to balance the risk pool. Medicaid members pay no premiums, so there are no members contributing more than they cost.
The idea that we'll avoid the death spiral in Obamacare if the young-healthies join any plan rather than specifically Obamacare is wrong.
Plausible deniability?
Patti Davis wants to know why she and others are losing their health plans.
Wants the President to explain it because it wasn't supposed to happen.
-- the newer Medicaid members will be younger and a little healthier - less obesity and chronic issues such as diabetes. My quick read seems to find it will improve the system......
Give it 20 years.
"
However, I work for the Federal Government."
Much is explained. I've noticed that Inga is getting testy. I assumed it was because her SO, Obama, was imploding.
Or, President Obama could bring in Olympia Snowe to fix Obamacare. He'd have to give her whatever Harry Reid refused to give her when he locked her out of the Senate negotiations in December 2009.
But that would be a lot less than he would have to give Mitt Romney, and a lot less humiliating to the President.
I suspect tasking the best and the brightest aerospace engineers at Cal-Tech to get a million ton brick to fly has a better chance of success than getting ObamaCare "fixed".
Didn't we do that already with Project Apollo?
Marshall wrote: Inga it isn't rocket science that the federal government is picking up the tab. After all it's not like the government has to make a profit and pay taxes.
So Cubanbob, why don't you go tell Eric to mow your lawn too.
Blogger Big Mike said...
I suspect tasking the best and the brightest aerospace engineers at Cal-Tech to get a million ton brick to fly has a better chance of success than getting ObamaCare "fixed".
Didn't we do that already with Project Apollo?
10/28/13, 4:07 PM
Yes indeed and with less computing power than exist today on an IPhone and a fraction of a fraction of the rounding error in terms of lines of code compared to the ACA. And it worked as well. A sobering thought, this country after adjusting for inflation spent less money fighting WW2 than it has on all of the welfare spending in the last five years.
The study is wrong, no doubt propaganda from people like you Cubanbob.
Cubanbob, you should know by now that Inga's MO is that no factual statement made by anyone, regardless of the qualifications of the person issuing it or solid evidence backing it, is actually true unless she agrees with it.
So Cubanbob, why don't you go tell Eric to mow your lawn too.
10/28/13, 4:11 PM
Send me his contact info so I can.
Now tell me again what service or benefit I am deriving from paying other people's child support and health insurance benefits? At least with my employees the premiums I pay for them is in exchange for the service they provide me. On the other hand the FICA taxes I pay as an employer (and employee) for the Medicaid portion of FICA is just an expense with no offsetting benefit to me.
Ask him yourself Cubanbob, that's your schtick, not mine. Maybe he can send one of his children or his wife if he's busy.
Marshall wrote:
"If you went to BC rather than your employer weren't you looking at the total premium? Or do they manage your benefits also and so were able to show you the employee contribution?"
No, I wasn't looking at the total premium. Just the portion that I have to pay. There are two categories that I was directed to by a phone operator. One was federal employees and one was postal workers.
http://www.fepblue.org/
You can check the changes out at the link.
I know how much the Federal Government pays of my health insurance by looking at my pay stub, but I don't yet know how much they'll be paying for 2014.
Ok Cubanbob, I'll ask Eric for you.
Hey Eric, Cubanbob resents the hell out of the fact that you work for the Federal government and that your health insurance premiums for 2014 only went up by $10.00 for your entire family. He wants you to mow his lawn in way of repayment, because he thinks he is the only one who has a wife and kids to support.
* a month*
heyboom said...
The study is wrong, no doubt propaganda from people like you Cubanbob.
Cubanbob, you should know by now that Inga's MO is that no factual statement made by anyone, regardless of the qualifications of the person issuing it or solid evidence backing it, is actually true unless she agrees with it.
10/28/13, 4:23 PM
Yes I know. But it's enjoyable going a couple of rounds with her.
As a long time commenter here other than this recent spate of transparent nonsense she is actually is an intelligent and seemingly nice individual. I suspect she is rather glad about her $1,200 savings thanks to the ACA. I don't blame her, I never found $1,200 laying on the street either. Still it would be nice if instead of the silly attacks and dissembling she and others like her would at least have the decency to admit they are getting subsidized by others and stop with the smugness.
Inga,
Why should we take your word for it?
I saw this proposal on another website I frequent.
"Post a copy of your old health care bill/ policy information with any information you regard as private to protect your identity redacted next to a copy or screen cap of the ACA healthcare plan you have purchased or opted out from.
Show the world how much you have saved. Show the world that you have indeed signed up and completed the process."
Let's see your old insurance, Inga, and let's see your new insurance.
I oppose Obamacare, but I have also stated that my insurance isn't going up (no more than usual). It would be better if I were to lie and complain that my plan was going up, therefore, Obamacare is bad.
Your statement is in support of your belief. You already liked Obamacare from years ago, and you claim now it's good for you.
Let's see the evidence.
Arrrrggg. I won't lie to satisfy some need you have to prove I get a subsidy, Cubanbob, sorry, I DO NOT. Don't you think you are being an arrogant elitist?
Inga said...
Ok Cubanbob, I'll ask Eric for you.
Hey Eric, Cubanbob resents the hell out of the fact that you work for the Federal government and that your health insurance premiums for 2014 only went up by $10.00 for your entire family. He wants you to mow his lawn in way of repayment, because he thinks he is the only one who has a wife and kids to support.
10/28/13, 4:33 PM
Hey Eric, send me a thank you card for subsidizing you if you are just a rank and file non-essential government drone. It's only good manners. Hey Inga, how's that? And a simple thanks from you would also be appreciated.
You first Eric. And if you recall, I stated many times here that I DO NOT like Obamacare. And much prefer Single Payor.
Inga wrote:
"Hey Eric, Cubanbob resents the hell out of the fact that you work for the Federal government and that your health insurance premiums for 2014 only went up by $10.00 for your entire family. He wants you to mow his lawn in way of repayment, because he thinks he is the only one who has a wife and kids to support. "
I doubt he resents the hell out of me, but he would be right to think that we federal employees have it a bit good compared to everyone else.
I have no education to speak of, I get automatic raises, I get a retirement unlike most in the private sector, I get some seriously subsidized health insurance, and I get really good pay.
Sadly, I don't think it will last. The Federal government can't print money forever. Eventually this gravy train will cease. I'd rather they cut my pay and benefits now than destroy the entire Federal Government with their crazy spending.
Now Eric, thank your betters, Cubanbob is waiting.
Inga,
I already posted the link in a previous thread.
http://www.fepblue.org/
You can go there and see the differences between 2013 and 2014.
I'll accept a link from you with the differing plans. By the way, my plan is Basic.
Or you can go here if that's easier:
http://www.fepblue.org/news/benefitsandservices/2014-benefits-rates.jsp
My plan is the "Basic Option" not the "Standard Option"
I'll accept a link from you as well. Got a link to your plan last year and this year?
I don't mind thanking the hardworking folks like Cubanbob.
Thank you Cubanbob!
Although I am not considered non-essential, I had to continue working during the shutdown (Although I would have been happy to not work, but they don't close the border during a government shut down).
I guess those of us who get shot at and have rocks thrown at us are considered essential.
But it's because of the producers out there, the people who work in the private sector, that the public sector can exist.
I'm well aware of this economic fact. So thank you, cubanbob.
Eric, if you were to be true to your convictions, you would give up your Federal job. You know they say you are "just one of the pigs feeding at the trough". Your hypocrisy is rank. Just like the Tea Party folks holding up the signs, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
@Cubanbob
I have seen Inga's good side, usually in matters non-political. When it comes to politics though, it's all one sided. Like two different people posting.
@Inga
You know how I feel about you, so don't take my chidings as anything but that.
Inga,
My convictions are that we should have a legal immigration system in the United States with laws that are enforced.
I'm glad to do that job.
Despite what Harry Reid may say on the floor of the Senate, I'm no anarchist. Nor am I even a libertarian. Instead, I'm a conservative who believes in smaller government.
But not a government so small that it has no military, no police, and no fire department.
I hope you're clear on my convictions now.
How about that link to last years insurance vs this years insurance?
And Eric, I don't agree with what they say about pigs feeding at the trough when it comes to government workers. You put in a days work, you get a days pay.
Blogger Inga said...
Arrrrggg. I won't lie to satisfy some need you have to prove I get a subsidy, Cubanbob, sorry, I DO NOT. Don't you think you are being an arrogant elitist?
10/28/13, 4:40 PM
Bravisimo Inga! You should be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics and the Field Prize for Mathematics. You have managed to invent a new form of actuary science that enables an insurance company to calculate a lower premium for you without a change in the underlying risk elements. Indeed we should make you President since the current fellow has admitted he doesn't have a clue to what's going on.
Yes I'm an arrogant elitist, how dare I think that my money is mine and not that of other people who are so nice and kindhearted to let me keep a portion of it. How arrogant and elitist of me to think that taxes are actually for services, things like roads and national defense and a judicial system, law enforcement and other core and essential state functions when in reality those are secondary things, the primary being the redistribution of my income. Yes, the State knows best and what is in my best interest. I will have to re-apply to the State Institute For Mental Correction And Adjustment Of Deviant Behaviors for an adjustment and cure for my individualistic, elitist arrogance.
Blogger Inga said...
Arrrrggg. I won't lie to satisfy some need you have to prove I get a subsidy, Cubanbob, sorry, I DO NOT. Don't you think you are being an arrogant elitist?
10/28/13, 4:40 PM
Bravisimo Inga! You should be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics and the Field Prize for Mathematics. You have managed to invent a new form of actuary science that enables an insurance company to calculate a lower premium for you without a change in the underlying risk elements. Indeed we should make you President since the current fellow has admitted he doesn't have a clue to what's going on.
Yes I'm an arrogant elitist, how dare I think that my money is mine and not that of other people who are so nice and kindhearted to let me keep a portion of it. How arrogant and elitist of me to think that taxes are actually for services, things like roads and national defense and a judicial system, law enforcement and other core and essential state functions when in reality those are secondary things, the primary being the redistribution of my income. Yes, the State knows best and what is in my best interest. I will have to re-apply to the State Institute For Mental Correction And Adjustment Of Deviant Behaviors for an adjustment and cure for my individualistic, elitist arrogance.
How dare there be a government and how dare he be made to pay taxes. Really, the nerve. Because Cubanbob is the only one who must pay taxes. He doesn't drive on the streets, he won't call the fire department, he would not dream of calling the police, his children are in private schools, he doesn't care if the air he breaths resembles China's. He thinks the little people should all mow his lawn.
eric said...
Inga wrote:
"Hey Eric, Cubanbob resents the hell out of the fact that you work for the Federal government and that your health insurance premiums for 2014 only went up by $10.00 for your entire family. He wants you to mow his lawn in way of repayment, because he thinks he is the only one who has a wife and kids to support. "
I doubt he resents the hell out of me, but he would be right to think that we federal employees have it a bit good compared to everyone else.
I have no education to speak of, I get automatic raises, I get a retirement unlike most in the private sector, I get some seriously subsidized health insurance, and I get really good pay.
Sadly, I don't think it will last. The Federal government can't print money forever. Eventually this gravy train will cease. I'd rather they cut my pay and benefits now than destroy the entire Federal Government with their crazy spending.
10/28/13, 4:43 PM
Eric, first you are welcome. I gather that you are with Border Patrol, that being the case that is an essential government service and function. So no, contrary to some particular person perception I don't resent you.
Now the beef I have against government employees in general is that unlike private sector earners most of the public sector earners get a defined benefits pension plan with very little or no employee contribution. Furthermore they generally only have to work for thirty years to get a lifetime pension with COLA's at 60% or more of their final years income including sick and vacation days whereas the private sector stiff gets to kick in 40 years at 12.4% of gross pay up the current annual limits and doesn't get to collect the 'full' amount until age 65 or now depending on what year you were born until age 68 and then depending on the mortality tables live only another 15 years while at best if you were a maximum FICA payer 25% of your Social Security wages. Also private sector employees as a whole aren't guaranteed annual raises or pretty much removed from layoffs like the public sector. Nor do they get seriously good health insurance that they don't pay for. As for getting really good pay, in principle I don't have a problem with that if the pay setting isn't rigged against the taxpayers. If the job is needed then the pay will be have to be sufficient to induce people to do it. You are right that the gravy trend will someday end although when it will could be a long time from now. The end will come when the Fed gets its wish and inflation really kicks in. I don't know how old you are but I remember well the late 70's and early 80's when a 12% mortgage was a good deal, getting 15% on a Eurodollar CD was considered not bad and T-Bills were paying for a moment double digit for a moment. The problem with inflation is once it takes off in earnest it can't be modulated to be just right. It is either throttled, with another major contraction in the economy or left to continue in which case the currency starts to become worthless and no one wants to buy your bonds. Having traveled to Argentina and Brazil a lot on business in those days you have no idea what real inflation is like.
So yes eventually the government will have to take the measures necessary to fix its finances and the longer it waits the worse the pain will be.
And like many others we resent the attitude that all too many government employees have is that they are doing us a favor with our money- you being excluded- and they know what's best for us and that we should be grateful for them doing a job that isn't in principle any more difficult or dangerous or requiring a level of education and skills that is above and beyond what the private sector requires and that we should happily pay them more than what the private sector gets for comparable work. It's the arrogant entitlement attitude that is so grating and is resulting in so much resentment.
"How dare there be a government and how dare he be made to pay taxes."
Hey, Inga. When you finish the parody comments, let us know. Newcomers might actually believe you are as dumb as you sound.
Oh, and thanks for the link to the Forbes piece. You really should read it, I did .
Inga said...
How dare there be a government and how dare he be made to pay taxes. Really, the nerve. Because Cubanbob is the only one who must pay taxes. He doesn't drive on the streets, he won't call the fire department, he would not dream of calling the police, his children are in private schools, he doesn't care if the air he breaths resembles China's. He thinks the little people should all mow his lawn.
10/28/13, 5:08 PM
Gee Inga, all of the services you mentioned are provided to me by the local and state taxes I pay. You know, services. The roads I drive on and everyone who is alive depends on are built by local and state governments and are funded ostensibly by the fuel taxes, vehicle taxes and tolls paid by the users directly or indirectly. All the feds did was take my money and fork back a bit of it to the locals minus the fed overhead. As for the fire department, what the hell does that have to do with the feds and Medicaid and welfare? For that service I pay a fee in the form of a local tax, same with the cops. As for the schools, you are right. I pay taxes that are designated for the schools except the schools aren't for the most part good enough to send the kids to so I wind up paying for schooling twice. Thanks for nothing.
All of the services the Federal Government actually provides me and actual net taxpayers constitutes less than half of federal expenditures. Be thankful instead of being an ingrate.
cubanbob said...Blogger Inga said...
Arrrrggg. I won't lie to satisfy some need you have to prove I get a subsidy, Cubanbob, sorry, I DO NOT. Don't you think you are being an arrogant elitist?
10/28/13, 4:40 PM
Bravisimo Inga! You should be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Economics and the Field Prize for Mathematics.
Either she simply doesn't get it - likely - or her tale of getting a reduction after a few hours on the ACA site is one of her usual fables - also likely.
My money is on both.
The basic problem with this proposal is that you have Romney doing Obama's job. Romney's not a software guy; his job would presumably be to ride herd on the different agencies, get everyone on the same page, set schedules, blah blah management stuff.
But you can't give someone the responsibility to do something like that without also giving them the authority. People -- including heads of agencies and cabinet officials -- have to know that they can't change a decision by going over Romney's head or slow-walking changes. In some sense, the project manager outranks the President, because he knows more about what needs to be done. People have to know that there's no daylight between the project manager and the President.
But there is daylight! They were rivals for the presidency, and Obama won, and Romney lost. Romney's political base is Republican, Obama's is Democrat. Who do you honestly think has more pull with Obama -- Romney, or some Democratic Senator? (or Valerie Jarrett?)
Obama needs to find someone he trusts with, effectively, his entire Presidency, have him work on this project full time, and invest lots of personal time into oversight so that people know the guy has his full support. Really, he needed to do that a long time ago. There's only one President at a time, and you can't delegate that away.
Obama spent a lot of time and effort to wrap this anchor around his neck. Its only fair we let him sink to the bottom. Why would any republican step in to stop that? I am truly sorry a lot of people are getting harmed by this but there is no other way to disabuse people of the notion the government always knows best.
The other issue is that whoever Obama chooses to run this project has to have the authority to tell Obama when the entire law should be delayed or scrapped. That decision is coming, and Obama has to be able to trust the answer.
In this case, being aligned with Obama's interests is probably even more important than competence. There's a good chance that, competent manager or not, the exchanges won't be working for months or years. Or ever. The big decision is when and whether to admit defeat and do something about the millions of people who are screwed over by the inability to purchase insurance. Only somebody Obama trusts 100% can tell him when to do that.
Even if asked I highly doubt that he would do it. But isn't it sad that its even being discussed?
We need to bring in someone who can save Obama. Someone that should have been president in the first place. Because Obama is so over his head.
The problem is that the only way to fix this thing is to largely undo it. Anything Romney would suggest (which would be something that might actually work) would be rejected on grounds that it undermined the Progressive narrative and the Progressive agenda. Obama and Co. want it to work politically; they don't really care if it works health-care wise or not. So Romney would be in a position where he would only be allowed to do things that made matters worse.
As we have since found out, Mittens did not save the Salt Lake Olympics, nor did he personally save any of Bain Capital's acquisitions - and he certainly didn't save Massachusetts from socialized medicine.
With that in mind, I think that Romney would be the perfect candidate to "save" Obamacare, exactly in the fashion it needs to be saved - in the trash bin of history.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा