Four weeks ago, President Obamadelivered a speech in San Jose, California touting the supposed benefits of his signature healthcare law. For 85 percent of Americans, he claimed, the only change they'll experience is superior coverage. For virtually everyone else, there will be competitive exchanges in place starting next year, from which they'll be able to selectaffordable coverage . And if some people still aren't able to pay those new, lower rates, the government would step in with subsidies to make up the difference. Needless to say, his promises were deeply misleading at the time: Premiums were already heading north for millions of Americans, and many of those exchanges were already well behind schedule -- to say nothing of layoffs, reduced hours, ortargeted dumping. What we now know that even as the president laid out this sunny vision in San Jose, he was already well aware that key pieces of his law would not be ready by the legally-required implementation date, throwing several wrenches into the seamless operation he was describing for public consumption. Here's what he left out of his prepared remarks on June 7:
Guess what? We've known for months, too, even as administration denied it until they were blue in the face. "Eighty-five percent" of Americans don't believe everything will stay the same or improve under the new law, nor should they. The law is crashing under its own weight, which may explain why a sizable majority of the public would prefer to turn back the clock on Obamacare. Remember, Democrats will have had four years to get their law ready for prime time, and will have failed. But by all means, let's entrust them with new, sweeping legislative designs. Check out the quote in bold above. Evidently, those must-have pieces include neither the promised exchange for small businesses, nor the promised requirement that medium and large-sized employers offer "affordable" (a relative term) plans to their workers. The White House has also revealed as non-essential the basic requirement that functioning exchanges must include active anti-fraud measures to prevent ineligible people from receiving undue and expensive subsidies. The National Journal piece forecasts more unannounced glitches, delays, waivers and changes. That easy prediction is already being proven right; indeed, a few more emerged just today. Bloomberg reports on a new study indicating that Obamacare's huge expansion of
Oops! Time to unilaterally re-write another part of the law while ignoring its black-and-white implementation mandates, it seems. While Obama's busy erasing, John Boehner wants to know why the White House won't extend the same delay courtesy to small businesses, families, and individuals as they have to larger businesses. Hit that individual mandate tax hard, Mr. Speaker. It has been -- andremains -- really, really unpopular:
Allahpundit thinks Boehner should invert his messaging here. Begin with Obama throwing open the floodgates to rampant fraud and cheating on the subsidies front, then pound away at the individual mandate tax. That might be a slightly more effective strategy, but Boehner covers both during his short statement. He's also vowing to hold more repeal votes, which may place vulnerable Democrats in a terrible bind. Do they maintain their lockstep support of a law that's falling apart in a very public an embarrassing way, or do they try to save their own skin by signing on to targeted Republican efforts to roll back and delay the most problematic elements of the law? Will they at least postpone the hated mandate tax, and keep the IRS out of Americans' healthcare for another year or more? If not, why not? (Republicans should mention the IRS element as often as possible). As Yuval Levin has written, widespread delays may be the only remaining path to eventual repeal. To that end, GOP leaders should force votes on delaying the individual mandate for at least a year, and they should absolutely adopt Phil Klein's populist, anti-fraud proposal:
If Democrats resist such a plan, let them explain to taxpayers why they need to shovel billions of dollars in subsidies to people who may not even qualify for them. It's the poster child of waste, fraud and abuse, and it's easily understood by average voters. I'll leave you with this brilliant piece by Phil Kerpen, who imagines what the news coverage would look like if President Romney were the one who is unilaterally delaying and waiving major segments of Obamacare. One small morsel:
No comments:
Post a Comment