Reid: We’re gonna need a lot more ObamaCare money to stop the train wreck

posted at 12:01 pm on May 2, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Old and busted: ObamaCare is no “train wreck,” no matter what one of its authors says nowNew hotness: Give us more money to head off this train wreck!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

“Max said unless we implement this properly it’s going to be a train wreck and I agree with him,” Reid said, echoing a warning delivered last month by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Reid warned the federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to ObamaCare. “Here’s what we have now, we have the menu but we don’t have any way to get to the menu,” Reid said.

Well, the Senate has had three years to properly budget for the ObamaCare implementation. Did Reid and his Senate Budget Committee majority build enough spending into the last three budgets to cover that? Oh, wait — Reid and his Senate majority never bothered to produce a budget at all! So whose fault is it that Reid doesn’t have the cash now?

And also, didn’t ObamaCare have a whole trainload of taxes included in the bill?  Remember, Democrats insisted that it would not create any deficit spending in the first decade, and that front-loading the taxes would provide the necessary lift for proper implementation.  Now they’re claiming poverty as a reason the ACA is running off the rails.

By the way, Reid’s admission reveals that Barack Obama’s answer yesterday at the press conference on ObamaCare was entirely misinformed, no?  That’s certainly my conclusion in my column for The Fiscal Times:

“For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance,” Obama helpfully informed his audience, “they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act — even if they don’t know it.” Insisting that the implementation has already been accomplished for the already-insured, Obama claimed, “Now they don’t have to worry about anything else.”

Nonsense, scoffed Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler. “There are a variety of studies and reports that suggest that, beyond those groups, some 10 million people face the prospect of losing their current health care,” Kessler said in rebuttal to the President’s remarks.

University of Chicago study shows that nearly half of existing individual plans (as opposed to employer-provided group plans) will not qualify under Obamacare mandates for coverage. This means that these already-insured Americans will have to start shopping around again and spend more–25 percent more  or even worse. In Oregon, one insurer is applying for a 53 percent increase in individual-plan premiums in order to bring their insurance into compliance with the ACA, including the pre-existing condition mandate. …

Besides, the people who really need to worry are those about to be thrown onto the individual market.  Employers are looking for ways to reduce existing employees to part-time status in order to duck the mandate to provide subsidized group insurance.  NPR reported this week on the business trend, which would save costs to the company but massively increase costs for Obamacare thanks to its system of subsidizing individual plan purchases through the ACA exchanges.

Investors Business Daily reached the same conclusion:

At his press conference this week, President Obama tried to reassure Americans about ObamaCare. Instead, he displayed either an incredible lack of understanding about his own law, or something far worse. …

But almost nothing he said in defense of ObamaCare was accurate. Among his statements:

“A huge chunk of it’s already been implemented.”

In fact, all that’s been implemented so far are a few PR-friendly changes like a mandate to cover children up to age 26 and a more generous Medicare drug benefit.

Democrats put off the bulk of the law — the massive market regulations, the government-run exchanges, mandates to buy coverage, and various taxes and fees—until 2014, both to hide its true costs and to avoid any unpleasantness before the 2012 elections.

If you want to see where the train wreck will take place, read Josh Kraushaar’s piece on how ObamaCare will likely become the Democratic Party’s Iraq War:

Support for the war dropped as officials struggled to implement nation-building after the fall of Saddam Hussein. As casualties piled up and the violence worsened, the fringe position of the liberal base gradually became more palatable. No longer were war-critiquing Democrats seen as soft on national security. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats effectively campaigned on an anti-war message to take back the majority in the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years, capitalizing on war weariness. Eventually a number of Republicans split from the party to save their political hide.

While the debate over Obama’s health care law isn’t a life-or-death battle, health care affects voter livelihood (and their voting decisions) like few other issues do. And there are clear signs that if premiums go up, businesses are forced to change how they insure their employees, and implementation of the law is uneven, the potential for political consequences are significant. In the 2010 midterms, Democrats suffered a historic landslide when the debate over health care was abstract. The stakes could be even higher when voters have first-hand experience with its effects. (Just look at the fevered reaction from Hill staffers affected by the law for a sampling of how intense voter anger could become.)

In both examples, the presidential sales pitch ended up being overhyped, with promises made that couldn’t realistically be achieved. At its heart, the mission to oust Saddam Hussein was about preventing a dangerous tyrant from using weapons of mass destruction – but administration officials advocated everything from democracy promotion to preventing an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaida as part of its overall argument. When events turned south, failure to achieve many of the items on the checklist proved politically embarrassing.

Obama’s health care law was designed to expand access to the uninsured. It’s a noble goal, if not necessarily a smart political priority. (It’s more popular to advocate for improved health care, not expanded access.) But to win support for the law, Obama claimed it would lower costs, improve the quality of care and not force anyone off their current health care plan. That’s not shaping up to be the case. Premiums are rising, employer uncertainty is growing and voters aren’t viewing the law favorably – with many not even aware of the frontloaded benefits already in place. And even on the access side, the law of unintended consequences is kicking in: Some large retail companies are cutting back employee hours so they won’t have to offer health insurance. That’s not good for the economy or health care access.

Democrats own this train wreck entirely — even if the top Democrat insists that the train is chugging along and all the passengers are happy travelers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I smell the stench of single payer wafting through the air.

Philly on May 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

“For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance,” Obama helpfully informed his audience, “they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act — even if they don’t know it.” Insisting that the implementation has already been accomplished for the already-insured, Obama claimed, “Now they don’t have to worry about anything else.”

It depends on the meaning of ‘benefits’.

My health care insurance has doubled in price, higher deductables, less coverage. Car insurance also went up primarily do to medical. Wonderful benefits.

TerryW on May 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, you must understand his intention is noble.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM

nobar on May 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

What train is about to wreck?

Why, the Party Train.

All aboard
Every all aboard
Anybody wanna take this ride
Anybody wanna ride
All it takes is a nickel or a dime
Be sure to get your ticket
Hurry, don’t miss it
Everybody’s got to stand in line
So make sure that you too will be right on time
Everybody all aboard
Everybody all aboard
Mmm
Mmm
All aboard
Don’t you miss it, baby
If you miss that train
Don’t miss the party train
Oh…don’t you miss it, baby
If you miss that train
Don’t miss the party train
Everybody all aboard………….

BobMbx on May 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM

What train is about to wreck?

Why, the Party Train…

BobMbx on May 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Worth repeating…

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM

“…unless we implement this properly…”

Weasel words for higher taxes.

sadatoni on May 2, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Worth repeating…

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM

What kind of mind would could conceive of doing that?

Quite possibly the greatest video ever.

BobMbx on May 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM

“We’re gonna need a shltload of dimes.”

fogw on May 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

While the debate over Obama’s health care law isn’t a life-or-death battle, health care affects voter livelihood (and their voting decisions) like few other issues do.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement above in bold (emphasis mine). To many, many people who are denied access to health care services because they can no longer afford them, because of some death panel or whatever, it is a life or death situation.

Theophile on May 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM

although i am not an Obamacare enthusiast-it is here. and the people who get penalized for government incompetence are the buyers of the insurance who have no choice.More money should be given to implement it if just to save the nation from major frustration rage.

i was a pharmacist when medicare part d started and it was a disaster for at least 3 months.

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

More money should be given to implement it if just to save the nation from major frustration rage.

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

That’s the last reason more money should be dumped into Obamacare. A little national frustration rage and next thing you know, Obamacare won’t be there. And neither will the clowns who foisted this redistributionist fraud on the nation.

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

I’m shocked, absolutely shocked that Obamacare is going to need even more money. It’s a good thing I was sitting down when I read it.

Minnfidel on May 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Easy to get the money, all YES votes to this atrocity gives theirs up first.

Then enact it only for the house and senate. after 10 years, then peasants are allowed to opt in, only if they want to.

RealMc on May 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

That’s the last reason more money should be dumped into Obamacare. A little national frustration rage and next thing you know, Obamacare won’t be there. And neither will the clowns who foisted this redistributionist fraud on the nation.

you jest,

Obama is there for 3 more years.even if republicans take control of senate in 2014 it could not be repealed for at least 4 years.

its going to be implemented. the choice is easy(er) or hard.

putting your head in the sand and ignoring that fact iz crazy

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

i was a pharmacist when medicare part d started and it was a disaster for at least 3 months.

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Medicare Part D affected only a very small niche.
ACA is a bigger shock to the system and will probably be a disaster for the first year. It’s even harder to pull off when a large block of legislation had a dead-ender attitude and is incapable of saying anything other than ‘no’.
You can’t move forward without the change, and you can’t start to change the underlying and old school healthcare cost model without disrupting the status quo.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Simple solution to raise the money to implement Obamacare… start seizing the assets of politicians who supported it. This includes the Kennedy fortune.

malclave on May 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM

ACA is a bigger shock to the system and will probably be a disaster for the first year. It’s even harder to pull off when a large block of legislation had a dead-ender attitude and is incapable of saying anything other than ‘no’.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Well, since they lack the votes or the power to actually provide a legislative alternative, they’re left with either saying “no” to this disaster or acquiesce in implementing this p.o.s.

There’s the old saw about what to do when one is in a hole, but it looks like your prescription is indeed to keep digging and in fact, encourage everyone to grab a shovel.

No thanks.

PackerBronco on May 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM

So the lying salesman lied abut the cost, and is now going to charge more, due to his lying.

I can’t wait for Justice Roberts to opine “caveat emptor”

Odie1941 on May 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

its going to be implemented. the choice is easy(er) or hard.

putting your head in the sand and ignoring that fact iz crazy

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Opting for “hard” is hardly putting one’s head in the sand. 4 years of misery should just about finish off the party that forced this on the nation. Completely ignoring the laws of economics and of human nature, either Obamacare was designed to fail, or it will fail in any case. Either way, it doesn’t need another dime from my pocket to pay for that.

Just feeding this monstrosity in hopes that it becomes less monstrous is the head-planting strategy.

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM

I predicted to my husband that this train wreck wasn’t going to get off the ground when it was supposed to. Years ago. They’d have some excuse or other. I also couldn’t understand why the health insurance companies backed this mess. For what? Short term gains, then eventual extinction? Talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

“Oh, your premiums are too high for you to afford? Well, we have this nice single payer thingie that we couldn’t get passed before….”

Repeal, repeal, repeal. This thing is just plain stupid, and everyone knows it. Except the stupid sheep in this country. And there are way too damn many of them. Look who’s still president.

sage0925 on May 2, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Lucky for Us, That Ain’t Gonna Be A Happening! 2014 should be painful and Funny as Hell as the Lame Stream Media tries to hide this Trojan Horse in Obumbler’s azz. I’m sure they’ll say they thought he Vetoed it and it was the Republican’s were the ones that passed it. ROTFLMMFBO!! It’s going to be fun to watch!

Tbone McGraw on May 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM

gerrym51 on May 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Kind of like acquiescing on taxes, the 2nd amendment, amnesty or any social issue RethugliKKKcans don’t want to get hit with in the media. Let’s just keep ceding ground because it’s just easier to let the government/progressives destroy our nation than fighting them.

This is also the left setting the stage for the future failure of obamacare. When it does fail, they will point back and say “See, we told you what was going to happen because of those dastardly Republicans not giving us more money in addition to the trillions we are already spending…” Lowering expectations. Something obama has learned to deal with since his lowering the tides, heal the earth inauguration.

JAGonzo on May 2, 2013 at 8:40 PM

If you think this nation is turning into a welfare state now, just wait until next year. USSA.

Philly on May 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM

This is looking more and more like an Ayn Rand novel.

Sharke on May 2, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Here comes the tax on your retirement accounts.

Philly on May 2, 2013 at 8:58 PM

He keeps using that word “benefit” … I don’t think it means what he thinks it means….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

ProfShadow on May 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Where is Sandra Fluke on ObamaCare, gun control, immigration, gay marriage, Benghazi and Boston, ‘n other stuff?

Get to work, girl!

We do miss your cute mustache so!

Sherman1864 on May 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM

It’s even harder to pull off when a large block of legislation had a dead-ender attitude and is incapable of saying anything other than ‘no’.
 
bayam on May 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM

 
If something isn’t in the best interest of one’s health or finances, “no” is all you have to say.
 
Or are you suggesting you want rapists to negotiate with their victims?
 
How about negotiable domestic abuse?
 
Is that really what you support? Because that’s what you’re saying.
 
(We know you’ve already abandoned the thread (again) after not saying anything, but the point is there for the readers to see.)

rogerb on May 2, 2013 at 10:07 PM

So the lying salesman lied abut the cost, and is now going to charge more, due to his lying.

Odie1941 on May 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

If only we had a Lemon Law for lemon laws.

malclave on May 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM

There is no reasoning with someone who wants to take everything you have (and will have in the future) so they can bestow it upon others, and if you cede ground to these people you will never be any better off.

rightmind on May 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM

The GOP message on this is simple and should be repeated often:

“You Democrats built this. You own it. You forced it on the American people. We will not help you fix it. It is not fixable. We will not help you spend more money on its implementation. You lied about what it will cost. We will help you do only one thing for Obamacare and that is REPEAL IT root and branch. The end.”

And Obama’s signature is NOT needed for a full repeal. It can be done with 2/3 majorities in both houses. Long shot? Yes. Impossible? No.

Doug Piranha on May 2, 2013 at 10:38 PM

There’s the old saw about what to do when one is in a hole, but it looks like your prescription is indeed to keep digging and in fact, encourage everyone to grab a shovel.

No thanks.

PackerBronco on May 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM

+ 100..Awesome..Spot on post..:)

Dire Straits on May 2, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Reid: We’re gonna need a lot more ObamaCare money to stop the train wreck

Full steam ahead for yet another D.C. scam to bilk the American people and accrue more power for the pols and their buddies.

I doubt most Americans will ever catch on, or want to. All they hear is “free health care” and they’re on board.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Really? And you expect the House to pass more spending for this sh!t sandwich?

John the Libertarian on May 3, 2013 at 1:31 AM

For the life of me, I cannot understand why these folks keeping referring 26 years old as children. They are adults! When I was 26, I was well into my second enlistment in the military.

But, then again, liberals love to treat adults like children, and children like adults.

Gothguy on May 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I’ve been thinking about this every since I read the 15-year-olds getting morning after pills story. I think we need a new term for those people the government thinks are fully adult enough for sex and abortion but so childish they still need covered on Mommy and Daddy’s health care.

My suggestion is hedonagers.

CJ on May 3, 2013 at 4:48 AM

Same answer to Obamacare as to the rest of the federal government:

Start in the House… fund by agency… don’t fund some agencies fully or use funding towards other programs and leave Obamacare high and dry.

There are a ton of programs you can kill by not funding them.

Just because a prior Congress wants it doesn’t mean a current Congress is obliged to fund it. There is no law against not funding these things, none at all. This requires a wholesale change of the R party in the House, particularly the sclerotic leadership. Obama can’t stop the House from not funding items, only keep on sending the bills back TO fund parts of agencies. If he wants to kill off some government agencies by killing their funding: LET HIM DO IT VIA THE VETO.

And then THANK HIM to rub salt in the wounds.

Would he really not want to sign off on a downsized IRS? And to put the IRS FIRST to set the tone. Then HHS. Then FDA.

You want this to happen? Then the House Republican ‘we have to fund everything other Congresses started’ contingent MUST GO. There is no law that says they MUST DO THAT. One Congress cannot bind another Congress via legislation and since the House holds the purse strings, it is there that fiscal rectitude must start. Not the Senate. Not the POTUS. Not the SCOTUS. You want to get a smaller government? Start at the US House of Representatives. Want to blame someone for the deficit? Also the US House. And the Debt as well. Surely for $3.2 trillion you can run a minimal government… if the debt service payments don’t EAT IT ALL UP, of course.

That is the Obama goal to collapsing the Nation: create a debt so vast that even current revenue can’t support minimal payments.

Your Nation goes under, your currency becomes worthless, your savings disappear and no amount of POWER from DC can make that better because it CAN’T BE FUNDED ANYMORE. If we are very lucky there are two elections left before that happens. If we are unlucky there is only one. If our luck has run out, you have seen our last election as a free people.

Change doesn’t start in DC: it starts with you, holding DC accountable and telling them to ‘stop the spending’. Yes they aren’t listening there or on the compliant and submissive Left… they want a tyrant, a dictator, a despot… their freedom isn’t in question. Yours is. Act like a free man who expects government to be beholden to the people, live like a free man who expects to be held accountable for his misdeeds, and praise virtue whenever and wherever it appears and support it. You carry through the actions and you just might be able to protect your liberty and join with those who think like you to ensure them.

There is a cost to this, of course.

Your money: gone.

Your savings: gone.

Your property: ravaged and destroyed.

You: free to start over or die trying.

Remember I’m the guy in poor health who won’t survive for long if the system goes south. Yet I’m preparing for those losses as best as I can. Because my freedom is priceless beyond any value, and I am more than prepared to be impoverished to remove this system of petty tyranny of rules above law and those who think they are above any law making the rules for themselves. You can start now by pestering your Congresscritters. It won’t change them, but it will change you.

ajacksonian on May 3, 2013 at 7:11 AM

This whole thing is going to get a 2014 exemption from our Supreme Leader (legal or not, he cares not). Just long enough to hide everything before the November election. After that the significant loss of health care and the increased taxes will be enacted upon the people.

Carnac on May 3, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Reid warned the federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to ObamaCare.

Repeal We Much?

Barnestormer on May 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM

If I were dependent on medications for survival, I’d be having a conversation with my doctor about laying in a supply of those prescriptions….enough to keep you alive through the “growing pains” of Obamacare, however long you think that might be.

Are you willing to trust the Real Men Of Genius to ensure continued supplies of your stuff?

I’m not.

BobMbx on May 3, 2013 at 10:41 AM

You mean its going to cost a lot of money to give free health care to the 49% of the people in this country that are Dead Beats, Illegals, Drug Users, and No job seeking bottom feeders?

Really? You mean that is going to cost a lot of money?

Well I’m just shocked that “Free” would cost any money at all.

Dino V on May 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Obamacare…Anything Democrats propose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU

Marco on May 3, 2013 at 11:09 AM

It’s all a big lie, they CAN’T implement it before the 2014 elections, it still has to be the big unknown.

Fleuries on May 3, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Well, now that we passed it and got to see what is in it, we can probably get rid of it (and all of the fools who supported it or decided to go along to get along).

virgo on May 5, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2