Marcus Aurelius
07-09-2013, 03:48 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-08/six-inconvenient-truths-about-obamacare.html
First, important parts of it are badly designed. President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/)’s administration has pulled back on the employer mandate -- the part of the law that fines large businesses that don’t offer health insurance -- because, among other things, it threatened to depress full-time employment before the next congressional elections.
Second, the Affordable Care Act is a standing affront to the rule of law. Unlike past expansions of government assistance -- think of Social Security (http://topics.bloomberg.com/social-security/) or Medicare -- much of the health-care law consists of granting discretionary power to the executive branch.
Third, the law is struggling politically. During the debate before Obamacare was enacted, supporters said it would become popular once it passed, or once its early benefits started flowing. Yet the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll shows that only 35 percent (http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/) of the public has a favorable view of it. That’s why the administration is so nervous about implementing the law.
Fourth, the administration is not following previous norms about how to build public support for a new program. Instead, it has adopted a whatever-it-takes mentality to overcome the opposition. It will use force or stealth as needed to get its way.
Fifth, the law’s problems aren’t simply the result of Republican sabotage, as many of its supporters say. It is an odd defense of a law -- especially one that most people oppose -- to say that it would work well if only the country were uniformly behind it. And last week’s delay undermines this defense. The administration simply flinched from the economic consequences of the law; Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Sixth, opposition to Obamacare is reasonable. Democrats have been portraying any disagreement with the law as pathological, a break from the standard practice in which the losing side of a legislative debate reconciles itself to defeat and works with the winners. But the law is itself a break from standard practices in several respects, it remains unpopular, and the administration has now effectively conceded that it’s seriously flawed and not set in stone.
There is no reason, then, to give up on replacing this law with something better (https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/349681/chronic-disease).
First, important parts of it are badly designed. President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/)’s administration has pulled back on the employer mandate -- the part of the law that fines large businesses that don’t offer health insurance -- because, among other things, it threatened to depress full-time employment before the next congressional elections.
Second, the Affordable Care Act is a standing affront to the rule of law. Unlike past expansions of government assistance -- think of Social Security (http://topics.bloomberg.com/social-security/) or Medicare -- much of the health-care law consists of granting discretionary power to the executive branch.
Third, the law is struggling politically. During the debate before Obamacare was enacted, supporters said it would become popular once it passed, or once its early benefits started flowing. Yet the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll shows that only 35 percent (http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/) of the public has a favorable view of it. That’s why the administration is so nervous about implementing the law.
Fourth, the administration is not following previous norms about how to build public support for a new program. Instead, it has adopted a whatever-it-takes mentality to overcome the opposition. It will use force or stealth as needed to get its way.
Fifth, the law’s problems aren’t simply the result of Republican sabotage, as many of its supporters say. It is an odd defense of a law -- especially one that most people oppose -- to say that it would work well if only the country were uniformly behind it. And last week’s delay undermines this defense. The administration simply flinched from the economic consequences of the law; Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Sixth, opposition to Obamacare is reasonable. Democrats have been portraying any disagreement with the law as pathological, a break from the standard practice in which the losing side of a legislative debate reconciles itself to defeat and works with the winners. But the law is itself a break from standard practices in several respects, it remains unpopular, and the administration has now effectively conceded that it’s seriously flawed and not set in stone.
There is no reason, then, to give up on replacing this law with something better (https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/349681/chronic-disease).