“Obamacare had the worst debut since the Titanic. The website was non-functional for weeks, the back-end still isn’t fully built, whole states have had minimal numbers of people signing up, countless Americans have been cut back from full-time work to part-time, millions lost their insurance, and Obama has been illegally changing the law every other day like some sort of banana republic dictator. In other words, Obamacare has been a rolling train wreck that has shown Barack Obama’s promises about the law to be nothing but lies while proving the conservatives who said the Affordable Care Act was a disaster 100% right.” —John Hawkins, Five Disasters Yet to Come with Obamacare
“There’s an incredibly offensive air of casual disdain for the details hanging over every aspect of ObamaCare. The latest faceplant comes with the launch of the Spanish-language version of HealthCare.gov, which was delayed for over two months, carries a fresh infestation of bugs… and was evidently written by someone who doesn’t actually speak Spanish, leading critics to suspect someone dashed off the text in English and ran it through a crude translator program. That’s what you get when you only give Team Obama the better part of a billion dollars to design a website, I guess. But what’s going to happen to that ObamaCare death spiral if Spanish-speaking customers – initially among the strongest supporters of the program – are turned off by their misbegotten afterthought of a website?
“There was no oversight for the website construction, no planning to deal with adverse selection issues – White House advisers cheerfully admitted there was no Plan B when asked about this in December – and no advance plans to handle the wave of insurance cancellations Obama knew was coming when he told his Big Lie, over and over again. It’s all being made up on the fly, with the legal requirements of the Affordable Care Act disregarded as necessary. It seems like nobody in the Administration thought seriously about anything except making sure the government funding for ObamaCare was secure, making it difficult to defund or repeal. It’s a virus that cares little for the health of its host organism. But the death spiral is a financial reality nobody can spin away.” —John Hayward, ObamaCare Demographics Finally Released, and It’s Not Looking Good
“Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius may be the second-most serendipitously named court case in U.S. history, second to Loving v. Virginia (wherein Richard Loving, who was white, and his wife Mildred, who was black, in 1967 overturned Virginia’s law against interracial marriages). The Little Sisters are challenging the Obamacare mandate that makes them complicit in providing, through their health insurance, contraception, something that offends their faith.
“This mandate illustrates Gesture Liberalism: It is unimportant to the structure of Obamacare. It has nothing to do with real insurance, which protects against unexpected developments — car insurance does not pay for oil changes. The mandate covers a minor expense: Target sells a month of birth control pills for $9 . The mandate is, however, a gesture affirming liberalism’s belief that any institution of civil society can be properly broken to the saddle of the state. —George Will, Liberalism by Gesture
“The Little Sisters of the Poor provide nursing home care to the elderly poor. They are giving the old, indigent, and isolated not only a place to live, but the care rooted in a kind of personal love that neither the government nor business (as such) are well positioned to provide. No society can have enough of what the sisters are giving. In a sane world, the Obama administration would simply have given the sisters a thank you and left it at that. When it became clear that the president’s health care law would force the sisters to violate their consciences as a condition of continuing to alleviate the suffering of the vulnerable, the Obama administration could have apologized for the confusion and then either issued a waiver or called on Congress to adjust the law.
“But, since the sisters’ beliefs are an example of unauthorized diversity, the Obama administration did not grant them a waiver. The Obama administration chose a ‘compromise’ in which the sisters would still have to contract with a third-party to provide contraception coverage. This is not exactly a question of access to contraception. President Obama’s party enjoyed supermajorities in Congress for the first several years of his term. If the Obama administration prioritized subsidized contraceptives, they could have sought a direct government subsidy for those who did not have coverage for contraceptives through their employers. President Obama has instead chosen to make those who have religious objections to offering contraception personally responsible for contracting contraception services as a condition of helping the helpless. As Yuval Levin wrote, the demands of the Obama administration constitute a warning that those voluntary institutions that help the poor will be allowed to exist only by meeting whatever conditions are imposed by the political left.” —Pete Spiliakos, Little Sisters in the Political Madhouse
“Why are the Little Sisters of the Poor caught up in the mandate madness? Why can’t they just get on with their good works and forget about their conscientious scruples? Or, as has been suggested, why won’t they just sign a piece of paper and let someone else do their dirty work—surrogate soldiers and contract killings are quite common in some circles.
“The answer is quite simple: They actually believe all that stuff they claim to believe. Just like the early Christians who refused to place a pinch of incense on the altar of the imperial deity in order to escape reprisals and recrimination, the Little Sisters of the Poor know, as St. Paul wrote to the Christians at Corinth, that they are not their own, that they do not belong to themselves, that they have been bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The Little Sisters will not violate their core values for the sake of expediency. …
“The Little Sisters are not engaged in a political stunt but in an act of moral resistance to the egregious violation of religious freedom. Such freedom was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution and codified in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” —Timothy George, Get Thee to a Nunnery
“The latest ‘nobody’s this stupid and incompetent’ revelation is that Obamacare’s enrollment system ‘lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes.’ Press reports indicate that it’s literally impossible to add a new child to an existing health plan once a person or household has enrolled. That’s not all. HealthCare.gov also cannot handle ‘marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, or even moving to a different community.’
“No one should try to verify the existence of these problems on their own. That’s because the web site is such a security nightmare that outside IT experts have publicly stated that it’s too dangerous for a user concerned about the privacy of their personal data (i.e., anyone with a brain) to use. As if that’s not enough, in late September, the chief information security officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ‘told congressional interviewers that she explicitly recommended denial of the website’s Authority to Operate.’ She ‘was overruled by her superiors.’” —Tom Blumer, A Chaos-Driven Path to Single Payer?
“Convincing throngs of young and healthy people to overpay for coverage in order to subsidize aging, sicker Americans was always going to be one of Obamacare advocates’ toughest tasks. In assessing the composition of healthy, sustainable risk pools, the administration pegged its target percentage of “young invincibles” at just shy of 40 percent. Coming up short of that goal would risk an adverse selection “death spiral” — or a politically radioactive bailout. …
“If insufficient numbers of young Americans enroll in Obamacare’s exchanges, insurers will be stuck with sicker, costlier risk pools. They’ll compensate for projected losses by jacking up rates on other customers, which could send additional comparatively healthy consumers heading for the exits. To forestall this crumble, the administration may tee up taxpayer-funded bailouts for insurance companies. They could expand a provision within the law that was designed to offer targeted, small-scale bailouts if specific companies ended up getting caught with the short end of the adverse selection stick in certain markets. Republicans are seeking to block this bailout scheme, and I can’t imagine the public is too excited about Democrats sending millions or billions to insurers because their trillion-dollar program has been a technological and demographic bust. The New York Times published a story over the weekend describing how the number of coverage misfires is growing. As we’ve predicted, people are showing up for care only to discover that their insurance company can’t confirm that they’re covered. Some people are being given the choice of either paying exorbitant out-of-pocket fees or walking away without being treated.” —Guy Benson, Death Spiral: Too Few Young Americans Sign Up for Obamacare
For further enlightenment:
Some Find Health Insurers Have No Record of Them, by Tom Murphy and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Second Wave of Health Insurance Disruption Affects Small Businesses, by Ariana Eunjung Cha
Sebelius May Face Perjury Charges for Misleading Congress on Obamacare, by Steven Ertelt