XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: Koom-Bay-Ya@space.cadet.NebulaX.com   
      
   On 10/11/2013 7:39 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > You know the ObamaCare debut isn't going well when a pair of supporters,   
   > Nick Wing and Jeffrey Young of the Puffington Host, pen an article with   
   > the headline "9 Valid Concerns We Can All Have About Obamacare, Without   
   > Thinking It Will Literally Bring Hell on Earth." Talk about damning with   
   > faint praise!   
   >   
   > Actually, let's dwell on that headline for a moment. As much as some   
   > people hate ObamaCare, nobody thinks it will _literally_ bring hell on   
   > earth. We say that with confidence because literal hell on earth is a   
   > contradiction in terms. When hell is understood as a physical place, it   
   > is not on earth but beneath it. Hell may be imagined as resembling   
   > certain places on earth--say, the inside of a volcano or a burning   
   > building--but those places are not literally hell. Hell can also denote   
   > an abstraction referring to great suffering, either in the afterlife or   
   > on earth (as in "war is hell"). But again, "hell on earth" is but a   
   > figure of speech.   
   >   
   > Wing and Young are being tendentious, not just playful. Republicans, they   
   > claim, "say the law needs to die in part because President Barack Obama   
   > and his administration are going to use it to 'destroy everything in   
   > America,' fulfilling some sort of sick, biblical End Times prophecy." The   
   > link goes to a report from the left-liberal group that styles itself   
   > People for the American Way, according to which "Rep. Michele Bachmann   
   > accused President Obama of giving aid to Al Qaeda, which she said is   
   > proof that we are living in the Last Days." That does seem bonkers but   
   > has nothing to do with ObamaCare.   
   >   
   > The first link takes us to a National Review Online post quoting Rep.   
   > Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, who says: "America is going to be   
   > destroyed by ObamaCare. . . . This law is going to destroy America and   
   > everything in America, and we need to stop it." Mediaite.com reports that   
   > CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressed Broun to explain what he meant, and at length   
   > the congressman responded: "Well, it's going to take us off the edge   
   > economically. It's going to destroy our economy and it's going to push us   
   > into a total economic collapse of America. And that's exactly what I mean   
   > by it's going to destroy America."   
   >   
   > We'd call that prediction over the top, but it has no evident theological   
   > content. Wing and Young have set up quite a straw man, taking ObamaCare   
   > opponents' most exaggerated fears and exaggerating them even further.   
   >   
   > They set up a straw man on the other side of the debate as well. The   
   > article opens with the "concession" that "the Affordable Care Act isn't   
   > perfect. . . . Like most laws, Obamacare never will be perfect." (That   
   > "most" is a nice touch. One wonders if they have an example in mind of a   
   > law that is perfect.) But we don't recall anyone promising that ObamaCare   
   > would be perfect. What Obama and his backers promised was that it would   
   > be very, very good--that it would provide "universal" (or nearly so)   
   > coverage while reducing costs and maintaining or improving the quality of   
   > medical care.   
   >   
   > Now, however, Wing and Young dramatically scale back that promise,   
   > describing ObamaCare as an "ambitious reform effort meant to make a dent   
   > in the nearly 50 million Americans who currently lack health insurance."   
   > Again, that's a contradiction in terms: It was in fact "ambitious," but   
   > it would not have been so if it meant only to "make a dent."   
   >   
   > This is all by way of setting a very low standard for evaluating   
   > ObamaCare, one that will ensure it will be judged a "success" as long as   
   > it doesn't destroy America. But the meat of the article is actually an   
   > indictment of ObamaCare, at least if one applies a reasonable standard of   
   > asking whether on balance it is a good piece of legislation. Here are the   
   > "concerns" even these ObamaCare enthusiasts deem "valid":   
   >   
   > 1. What happens if not enough people enroll? 2. How will people respond   
   > to paying higher premiums? 3. What happens if the newly insured don't   
   > understand what they're buying? 4. What about the states that didn't   
   > expand Medicaid? 5. Will health care coverage be sufficient for everyone?   
   > 6. What happens if Obamacare succeeds in some states but fails in others?   
   > 7. How will companies handle the employer mandate when it takes effect?   
   > 8. Are there substantial technical flaws? 9. How secure are the   
   > exchanges?   
   >   
   > All of these concerns could have been anticipated four years ago when   
   > ObamaCare was being designed, possibly excepting No. 4, which arose from   
   > the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius, which permitted   
   > states to opt out of Obamacaid.   
   >   
   > Politico reports that Wolf Blitzer, of all people, "said Wednesday that   
   > the Obama administration should consider accepting the advice of   
   > Republicans and delay the Obamacare rollout by a year":   
   >   
   > 	After fellow CNN reporter Brian Todd reported that the   
   > 	administration had been warned months in advance about potential   
   > 	glitches now plaguing the online sign-ups, Blitzer suggested   
   > 	perhaps the administration should have waited a year.   
   >   
   > 	"They had three years to get this ready, if they weren't fully   
   > 	ready, they should accept the advice Republicans are giving   
   > 	them, delay it for a year, get it ready and make sure it works,"   
   > 	Blitzer said.   
   >   
   > After drawing unwelcome applause from ObamaCare opponents, Blitzer   
   > tweeted a "clarification": "Context matters. Earlier I said the govt   
   > shouldn't launch a website before it works. I did not express a view   
   > about the individual mandate."   
   >   
   > The problems with the website are pervasive. A new Associated Press poll   
   > finds that 7% of Americans "reported that somebody in their household has   
   > tried to sign up for insurance through the health care exchanges. . . .   
   > Three-fourths of those who tried to sign up reported problems, though."   
   >   
   > ArsTechnica.com reports that "potential registrants talking to phone   
   > support . . . have been told that all user passwords are being reset to   
   > help address the site's login woes. And the tech supports behind   
   > Healthcare.gov will be asking more users to act in the name of fixing the   
   > site, too. According to registrants speaking with Ars, individuals whose   
   > logins never made it to the site's database will have to re-register   
   > using a different username, as their previously chosen names are now   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)