Reason #387 why government can be so frustrating: the response to Obamacare. First the facts:
- During Oct. 1st – Nov. 2nd, 26,794 people enrolled on the federal website.
- When state exchanges are included, 106,185 people enrolled.
- The 106K number includes persons who put a plan in their cart but never paid (think Amazon.com, in which “in cart” does not equate to actual “sale”).
- 7,000,000 people are forecasted to be enrolled by March of 2014; this equates to 1.5% of the forecast currently, partially enrolled.
- In regard to plan cancellation, an estimated 5 million people have already been notified they are losing their desired plans.
- As recently as September, Pres. Obama said repeatedly that people could keep their plans.
- Premium prices are skyrocketing for many. Specific factual data on this aspect remains ambiguous.
Instead, however, of transparently acknowledging the above negative results — and the inability of being financially sustainable — our elect choose spin instead of governing.
Do both the Democrats and Republicans contribute to this? Of course they do. Some act as if it’s the end of the world, while others act as if it’s insignificant; still some suggest it’s only a flawed website. In my opinion, one of the primary problems with this law is that it was not bi-partisanly crafted. No Republican supported the totality of this law. While aspects have been previously supported by both, the massive extent of this law was written and enacted by one party, which is not consistent with the way this country has ethically governed. There exist huge problems. Here then, are my questions for Pres. Obama, Congress, and Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, that I’d like them to publicly, honestly, and concisely answer:
- Why did you promise repeatedly that people could keep their healthcare plans?
- Was it because you believed without the untrue promise, the bill would be too unpopular? … that the legislation might not pass? … that your own re-election might be dependent on that lie or faulty promise?
- If it wasn’t a lie, how did you not understand the implications of the policy you advocated?
- Is this current mess all part of the plan — just a necessary, negative step on the way to universal, single payer, or socialized healthcare?
- Have you been truthful and transparent?
- Where have politics entered into play?
- Why the numbers only now?
- Why include those who have not paid?
- Is it appropriate to raise men’s premiums to pay for the more costly women’s care? … is that fair?
- Is it appropriate that the young and stereotypically healthy pay for the elderly and stereotypically more expensive care?
- Does what the public thinks on this matter?
- Does the opinion of persons from any other partisan stance matter?
- Is that ethical governing?
- And does a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan make either economic or ethical sense?
As the Intramuralist has articulated since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, there are some serious, sobering actions and implications within this bill. In my semi-humble opinion, it makes government too big — and exponentially increases the potential for corruption and incredible cost inefficiency. Call it far more than concern #387.
Unfortunately, however, we don’t seem to be dealing transparently with the concern. The President, Congress, and Sec. Sebelius seem too focused on the spin. The words change daily. Watch them. And depending on one’s partisan persuasion, the words either minimize or maximize the negativity… and the lack of truthfulness and transparency in Washington. That is not ethical. That is not governing. That is not ethical governing.
Respectfully,
AR