shifting the goalposts
Now We’ll Never Know Whether Obamacare Worked
show comments
  • mesquito


    • Jim__L


      • Curious Mayhem

        Of course.

  • gabrielsyme

    Whether intentionally or not, the Obama administration has graduated
    from delaying various mandates in order push a reckoning over Obamacare
    past the midterms.

    The Obama administration may be incompetant about many things, but few have ever accused them of being less than exceptional at tampering with the rules for political gain. A more dishonest White House has not been seen since at least Nixon.

    • Pete

      Richard Nixon was a saint compared to B. Hussein Obama. Fact.

      • Andrew Allison

        Pete,my fist thought was you were overstating the case, but then I realized that Nixon lied about Watergate whilst Obama lies about almost everything. His support of Sharpton was the final straw for me. The man’s racist, and there’s all there is to it.

  • Curious Mayhem

    It’s not “shifting the goal posts.” It’s “removing the goal posts altogether and making sure no one can put any in.”

    Watch the complicity of the hack news media, formerly known as “reporters” and “journalists.”

  • Andrew Allison

    If there’s still an adult present, pease point out to the kiddy-winks that it’s 2014. Given what we know about the gross politicization of the Administrative Branch, under the Obama maladministration, just how is the latest fudging on the part of the Census Bureau newsworthy. The effect of the ACA can be measured rather simply: the cost to the insured for their coverage and the cost to the taxpayer for the difference.

  • Andrew Allison

    Yes we will. However our current maladministration manipulates the the numbers, at the end of the day it’s about the net increase in those insured, the cost of their insurance, and the cost to the taxpayer of the difference.

    • mgoodfel

      Three possible ACA criteria 1) does it improve health. 2) does it cut costs. 3) do people like it?

      1) no, because expensive high-tech health care doesn’t have much effect on longevity. It’s the cheaper stuff like public health measures, prenatal care, primary care, and of course lifestyle that matter.

      2) no, because the government would have to say “no” to the entire health care system and all the dependent taxpayers. We’ll see if small provider networks and high deductibles last. I doubt it. See the “Doc Fix”.

      3) no, because it will be crappy care, high deductible bills, limited choice of doctors, and lots of waiting for the doctors available. The British NHS experience, but twice as expensive.

      The web site fiasco got all the attention, but it was never important.

  • qet

    This is just the latest example in a long list demonstrating that the idea of “evidence-based” policy making, which phrase is regularly incanted as a mantra by self-proclaimed wonks and even by people who ought to know better, is unsound, to be charitable. All of the so-called evidence is unreliable. The change in Census technique; the inability of people and institutions simply to count the number of ACA enrollees; the constant significant inaccuracy of government cost projections for its policies; outright fraud in reporting certain statistics near an election. People in this country–people who ought to know better–constantly confuse valid reasoning with sound reasoning. The former is merely a method, while the latter depends on true premises. The reasoning of all our policy wonks and mavens is unsound because the premises are almost never correct, and we have no reliable means for determining which premises are correct. And yet many of us still go around crowing that we are for evidence-based policy. We should not wonder at the sorry state we are in.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.