NYT: The administration doesn’t want you to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but just to be clear… it is.
posted at 6:31 pm on November 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
I would almost call it a bit of a zinger from the New York Times, except that they still do their level best to couch the essential facts with every possible excuse. ‘Yes, President Obama and his administration did deliberately deceive the American people by actively refusing to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but they had to do it, you see, because those uncivilized Republicans would have used the term as a political bludgeon. Let’s face it, he basically had no choice!’
“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”
These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall. …
They were nonetheless acutely aware of how explosive the word could be. When Mr. Obama ran for president in 2008, Republicans tried to wound him by accusing him of waging “class warfare” to achieve wealth redistribution. …
In the end, America’s political culture may have made it unrealistic to expect a smooth public reception for the law, no matter how cleverly the White House modulated Mr. Obama’s language or shaped his policy to minimize the number of losers.
“America’s political culture”? …Riiight. I suppose the president had nothing to do with that. Still, though, the gist is that the Paper of Record is not feeling shy about referring to ObamaCare by its most aptly descriptive noun (whatever else they’re still feeling demure about, ahem), and they just pointed out that the White House shamelessly peddled and lied about ObamaCare any which way they felt they needed to to get the law passed. Most unfortunately for the White House, however, ObamaCare’s true nature is beginning to show itself despite all of the prohibitively abundant glitches preventing so many people from shopping for plans. The inherent redistributive properties at work are already rearing their politically ugly heads:
Fears that insurance exchanges that are the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul wouldn’t attract the young, healthy people needed to make them financially viable are being heightened by the early results of signups in several states.
If it becomes a trend, that could lead to increases in insurance premiums and deductibles next year. Along with the paltry enrollment numbers released this week, officials in a handful of states said those who had managed to sign up were generally older people with medical problems — those with the greatest incentives to get coverage. …
Insurers have warned that they need a wide range of people signing up for coverage because premiums paid by adults in the younger and healthier group, between 18 and 35, are needed to offset the cost of carrying older and sicker customers who typically generate far more in medical bills than they contribute in premiums.