I don’t think that the various machinations in the implementation of ObamaCare suggest that the law is a “train wreck”. That the claim is being made is easy enough to find so I won’t bother to link to any of them here. Just Google “train wreck”. At the top of the list of results will be posts, articles, etc. either claiming or denying that it’s a train wreck.
What I do think they reflect is a very different view of law and government than I’m comfortable with. Essentially, it’s “how to sculpt a statue of a rabbit” as applied to government. Take a block of stone (the law as enacted) and then cut away anything that doesn’t contribute to a general impression of rabbititity (exercise executive discretion).
The law is just a reflection of reality. Private insurance is a tangle. Obama’s choice with the ACA was to abolish private insurance and replace it with a single-payer or to try to work with the system. He chose the latter.
A single payer system was completely unacceptable to the majority of people. The PPACA, though, was a way of side-stepping what dems knew couldn’t pass, substituting in it’s place an unread, contorted piece of legislation that was only able to receive unilateral congressional approval on the eve of one of the biggest national holidays. The inherent weaknesses, bulk, unpopularity, and unsustainable promises made will eventually crater the bill, and then the single payer will be vigorously pursued as the default HC system replacement.
Consequently, Obama could be said to have merely worked superficially with the current system in place, creating it as more of a detour or subterfuge, in order to reach the single payer he has supported for years.
Is there anyone here who wants to simultaneously defend ObamaCare and the list of those exempted, or asking for exemptions?
They are not “exemptions” if by that you mean “something given in perpetuity” — they are grants of delay in conforming with the requirements of the law. In the case of the caps, for instance:
Source
The system incompatibility argument is perhaps the phoniest I’ve ever heard. They’ve had four years. If the problem can’t be resolved in four years, it can’t be resolved at all.
The Louisiana Purchase? Really?
A month or two ago a guy had blood on his hands after murdering a British soldier……on camera. I’m absolutely convinced that there are commenters who could see Obama with same and figure out an excuse.
The issue is simple. If you are employed by the XYZ widget company you have one set of rules. If you are employed by the government or a politically favored entity you have another. The law stinks to high heaven, and anyone who can is running for the hills.
“Regulatory capture” and “rent seeking” are thrown around intellectually and reviled by all………..unless “your guy” or “your issue” is behind it.
After all……….The Louisiana Purchase……snicker.
“The system incompatibility argument is perhaps the phoniest I’ve ever heard. They’ve had four years. If the problem can’t be resolved in four years, it can’t be resolved at all.”
Well, there was a small thing like the Supreme Court case. It wasn’t clear at all that the law would be upheld. In fact, after the oral arguments, most legal observers thought it was a goner. (Kennedy, Altio, Scalia, and Thomas were ready to sink the whole thing under the weight of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. It was a near thing.) The companies were put in a tough spot, don’t you think? Suppose they’d started the revamp, with the upheaval and the costs, only to find out that, when the law was declared unconstitutional, they didn’t have to do it. Then where would they have been? So, if there was some foot-dragging, I think it’s understandable. And looked at from that angle, it’s also understandable that the government would cut them some slack.
It’s still folderol. Google, eBay, and Facebook were all started in less time that they’ve had. The insurance companies themselves could have had accommodation packages.
What I think is really going on is that it’s not a case of “can’t” but “don’t wanna”. They still won’t wanna in a year and my guess is that they’re planning on another postponement then.
At that point Republicans might be in control of both houses of Congress. No use in getting ahead of ourselves. Wait and see if the program actually gets off the ground…
@sam, is there any evidence that there was some foot-dragging, other than they are not ready? steve I believe has written something similar. In my experience, regulators don’t talk or act like that, they’ll say the law is being fought-out above their pay grade and they have deadlines to meet. Legal challenges are built into every new regulation; a challenge here was not unusual.
The simpler explanation is that a big law was passed to attempt to reform a huge sector of the economy largely without debate and consultation over its specific details because of fear that reform would die from a million small cuts and fear-mongering. But its that process of public review and comment that identifies the types of technical issues now being revealed. That’s a trade-off. Also, the deadlines probably had more to do with meeting budget goals than practical goals. To quote the Bard, George W., “It’s hard work.”
And sam, you may have better insight into what Jefferson believes in his heart of hearts (I think he’s a hard read), but IMHO a better president, when faced with the possibility of being required by his oath of office to re-enslave some or all people freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, said he would certainly resign the office. Nobody held a gun to Jefferson’s head, nor Obama’s — they want this.
Its not unusual for an administrative agency to have a standard that is in disconnect with the ability to monitor or detect compliance, or at least to do so fairly. If the Agency finds that recent studies indicate that over time it is only same to consume 1.37 ppm of a sodium concentrate, but that most food producers only have equipment that can detect above 5.00 ppm, then the regulators announce that they will rely upon the existing, commonly used equipment to determine compliance, but give the regulated community a reasonable time (say two years) for the interim rule to lapse, at which time the best existing detecting equipment will be used.
The trick here is that the compliance standard is not changed, its the means of determining compliance which is generally an administrative function is relaxed in light of obvious technical problems. I don’t see why in this case the standard and timeline for compliance cannot be maintained, while the Agency states an interim rule that will only look at information available to the insurer.
Dave,
I think the bigger issue is government computer systems. Megan McArdle wrote a couple of very good articles about the difficulty of integrating the legacy systems together, to say nothing of the private systems, which would be required to make the whole system work. I think the systems integration portion will likely prove to be a critical deficiency in implementing the PPACA.
It’s funny you should mention that, Andy, because I’ve written on that subject several times previously and I’m drafting a post on just that subject as it relates to the PPACA.
“It’s still folderol. Google, eBay, and Facebook were all started in less time that they’ve had.”
I was unaware that those companies had executives WITHIN their midst who were actively working to sabotage or prevent their formation and growth. I have a lot more respect for them now. Any company that can survive 40 votes by the board of executives to shut down and yet go on to succeed is a testament to perseverance.
Steve
“It’s still folderol. Google, eBay, and Facebook were all started in less time that they’ve had.”
I was unaware that those companies had executives WITHIN their midst who were actively working to sabotage or prevent their formation and growth. I have a lot more respect for them now. Any company that can survive 40 votes by the board of executives to shut down and yet go on to succeed is a testament to perseverance.
Steve
“It’s still folderol. Google, eBay, and Facebook were all started in less time that they’ve had.”
I was unaware that those companies had executives WITHIN their midst who were actively working to sabotage or prevent their formation and growth. I have a lot more respect for them now. Any company that can survive 40 votes by the board of executives to shut down and yet go on to succeed is a testament to perseverance.
Steve
That supports the point I’m making rather than contradicting it. What you’re saying is that the problem is one of willingness rather than capability or, as I put it above “don’t wanna” as opposed to “can’t”.
The stated reason for the deferment is that they couldn’t comply not that they didn’t want to. Willingness to comply won’t change in a year.