mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Obamacare Fail
Gray Lady Raises the White Flag on Obamacare
Features Icon
show comments
  • Jim__L

    Time for a reprise!

    Come on Via Meadia, join in the chorus. You’ve earned this!
    Sung to the tune of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, first movement… Allegro con brio, everyone! =D

    I told you so
    I told you so
    I told you so, I told you so, I told you so
    I told you so, I told you so, I told you so
    I told you so (I told you so)
    I told you so (I told you so)
    I told
    I told!

    If you think that would be beneath the dignity of the august American Interest, you could instead sing those words to the second movement (Andante con moto), whose gentle, well-measured, and majestic strains reflect the sort of patient and profound grandeur to which TAI aspires.


    • Arkeygeezer

      If Donald Trump has to deal with this problem, you can sing it to the third movement.

      • M Snow

        He has a better chance than Hillary, “I never met a government expansion I didn’t like,” would.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Thank you! It has been a rough day here in the private sector (grin), and this is the laugh that I needed…

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    The Government is a Monopoly, and like all Monopolies lacks the all-important “Feedback of Competition”. Monopolies are like Parasites; they grow until they are killing their host. The Leftist impulse is “Always” to give more power to the Government Monopoly, and thereby killing the private economy which feeds that Government Monopoly. Obamacare was never going to be what its supporters said it would be, because without the “Feedback of Competition” that provides both the Information and Motivation which forces continuous improvements in Quality, Service, and Price, healthcare can only get worse.

    • Greg Olsen

      Fundamentally government run health care faces a trilemma. You can have high quality care, inexpensive care, universal care; choose two.

      • Matt B

        They obviously can’t choose the first two.

        • Phideaux

          Sure you can. High quality, inexpensive care for those who qualify– those who are generally healthy, have no pre-existing conditions, will never get pregnant. So basically 18 year old males that live in the right zip codes– not exactly “universal”.

      • FriendlyGoat

        I’ll take inexpensive care and universal care, thank you. The truth of the matter is that most people would be as well off and as happy driving a basic Jeep Patriot as they would be if driving a Lexus or Infiniti. They just don’t know it.

  • Gene

    Math wins again. Shocking, I know.

    • JR

      I always like to point out that arithmetic is undefeated since Day 1.

  • Beauceron

    But they meant well.

    It’s the Left so, of course, everything they do is good, or at least well-intentioned.

    Agree or you’re a racist. Or maybe misogynistic. Or a homophobe– or maybe an Islamophobe. You better agree or you are some sort of “ist” or “ism” or “phobe.”

    Besides, we all know that it’s single-payer that would really work.

  • Tom

    It was worse than a party-line vote. It faced bipartisan opposition.

  • Anthony

    It’s not about Schadenfreude; healthcare in the United States (as TAI has cited many times) is a serious matter. Any interested personage ought to see “Health Care Will Not Reform Itself” – George Halverson.

    • seattleoutcast

      Sorry, but schadenfreude will work for me in this case. For those of us who have seen bank accounts eviscerated over this, a bit of schadenfreude is all we have left.

      With regards to health care not reforming itself, I can imagine by the title that Halverson is advocating more government intervention. Perhaps I am wrong. The last thing we need is more intervention.

      • Anthony

        Imagine what you like, read “Book” if you want to know! Schadenfreude may be for small men of small minds as my grandmother would say.

        • f1b0nacc1

          The Shadow…

          • Anthony

            That was the claim.

        • seattleoutcast

          I cannot be happy for others misery (the definition of schadenfreude) because the misery is on many of us destroyed by Obamacare. What we are gleeful for is the destruction of the system. It is not one of small mind to cry for joy at the failure of a policy that is destructive.

          • Anthony

            You have your right (in America) to think as you like – the definition explains itself. I’m done here.

          • seattleoutcast

            You are calling us small minded, yet you don’t understand that we are gleeful the oppressive system is broken.

          • Anthony

            “Us”??? too self absorbed perhaps; but to paraphrase FriendlyGoat latch on to comments elsewhere (no disrespect intended). We’re done on my end.

          • seattleoutcast

            Us is my reference to the other commenters.

            You refuse to acknowledge my point of view and just end the conversation.

          • Anthony


  • Proud Skeptic

    So…I guess the solution is to get government MORE involved in healthcare. That is what they will tell us.

    • Matt B

      Remember, it takes a village. That plus the coercive power of government.

      • Proud Skeptic

        Takes a village what? Idiot?

    • f1b0nacc1

      Of course they will….being a Lefty means never having to say you’re sorry….
      But don’t worry…THIS time will be different!

      • Proud Skeptic

        Isn’t it always…

        • f1b0nacc1

          Well, THIS time we have the right people in charge….Top.Men.

  • Boritz

    “It has been a hard couple of weeks for Obamacare.” -NYT

    Someone slap them.

    • sumlikeit


      Obamacare is to the annals of domestic policy what the Ford Edsel is to the annals of the automotive industry. It’s not only had a “hard couple of weeks”, it’s never had a single good day since the moment it was passed.

      I’m not sure I agree with those who say it was designed to fail — after all, what are the actual odds that it would be replaced by single-payer? Not very good. In fact, I’d say the odds are zero. And Obamacare is going to need to be replaced. Something that cannot go on forever….won’t. But the fact that there are those who say that is telling: it was so obviously flawed from the get-go that no shortage of people believe to this day that the flaws were intentional.

    • carla5731

      It’s been several disastrous years for the self-employed.

  • Frank Cioffi

    So if it’s president Hillary (God forbid) then look for single payer and kiss your paychecks goodbye!

    • sumlikeit

      Well, Hillary is probably going to win. So we may as well get used to the idea. She’s leading most national polls. And the key state-by-state polling looks even better for her. The Republicans screwed up nominating a loose cannon like Trump. But we’ll save that discussion for another thread.

      That said, there is virtually zero chance that the votes will be there for single-payer regardless how the election turns out. Now, I certainly don’t doubt that many Obamacare proponents viewed it as a stepping stone toward single-payer. Barney Frank even admitted as much. But I really don’t think this is what they envisioned — at least, not in this short of a timeframe.

      Even Hillary herself poured cold water over the idea of a federal single-payer healthcare system — and she did so in the midst of her primary with Sanders, to boot.

      • Jim__L

        Sum, there’s a difference between developing contingency plans for catastrophe and “getting used to the idea”.

        The first is far more honorable and sensible than the second.

  • Boston_Patriot

    As long as altruism is accepted as the moral ideal, government intervention in the free market will continue to crush industries, economies and standard of living, as it always has and always will.

  • SortOfNot

    Not that I’ll ever see it, but accountability would be a good step.
    We know their names.

  • John1838

    More than discussed above, the application of Obamacare led to the President enacting / revising law via executive fiat, thereby hastening the demise of Constitutional law in the United States. With the genie out of the bottle, it’s difficult to imagine how we will return to three co-equal branches of government.

    • f1b0nacc1

      When Congress decides to retake the ground that they have ceded to the Executive (and the courts as well), then things can change. Until then, expect more of the same…

  • mhjhnsn

    Stop with the triumphalism, they are just preparing the battle space for “teh government option”, the next step on their path to single payer. That was the plan, all along. And if the #NeverTrumpers have their way, Hillary’s landslide will flip the Senate and House, and they will get what they wanted all along.

    And no, I am not saying Trump is great, and I am not trying to start a thread about the Pres election. But reality is reality.

    • sumlikeit

      Tomorrow we get into the “-ember” months of election year. And despite Trump’s well-chronicled troubles in the polls, there is nothing presently indicating that he’s killing down-ballot Republicans. I’m no Nate Silver, but I think the chances of the Democrats regaining a House majority this year are, at best, single-digits. Clearly, their chances are better in the Senate — but only because the Republicans are defending so many more seats.

      Portman looks strong enough in Ohio that the Kochs are pulling their money out of the state. That’s good news — as it’s long been considered a vulnerable seat. Rubio is also likely to get reelected — Democrats have also been targeting that seat for a long time. I’d say that Illinois and Minnesota are both gone. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire might be, too. Young is trailing Bayh in Indiana right now (but Trump is shown leading big in the same poll…so Young’s deficit is not because of Trump).

      I’m voting for Trump (while holding my nose). But, if I had to guess, I’d say he’s likely to lose by a roughly similar margin as Romney did in 2012. How the Senate will look is anybody’s guess, but it probably won’t be too far removed from 50-50. The House is safely Republican.

      • mhjhnsn

        I would hope you are right, but the Senate is VERY tough for the GOP this year, hard to see them holding 51 seats if Hillary wins big, and 50-50 is a Dem Senate if Hillary wins, and forget about the filibuster, they’ll get rid of that in an instant. The Dems wouldn’t need to win the House, if they could narrow the GOP majority to, say 222-213, they could surely pick off 5 RINOs to make that work for them. And remember I referenced the #NeverTrumpers, some of whom have said they want a Hillary blow-out of 1936 or 1964 proportions, and in that case the GOP holding the House would be very iffy.

      • polijunkie100

        I suspect there will be a run on nose-holding clothespins on election day for both sides!

  • klgmac

    Now that enlightened Progressive policies have fixed the healthcare system and made good friends out of Iran, who can doubt their ability to control the temperature’s of the planet right down to the degree? LOL.

  • jeburke

    The obvious “fix” — the one that does not start with dismantling the whole thing — is to increase the government subsidies, both to individuals shopping on the exchanges and the insurers. Also possible would be a further Medicaid expansion and some sort of Medicare expansion, such as giving eligibility to retired 62 year olds. The Congressional Democrats opening bid will be public option (now that they are rid of Joe Lieberman). I suspect Hillary will dodge that, name a commission to study, and set her sights on getting a patchwork of (costly) changes. Then, she has to find a way to get them through Congress, which will result either in a compromise with Ryan or a deadlock. My money is on deadlock.

    • adk

      All these “solutions” look like non-starters.

      I believe that Congress specifically ruled out any ACA-related subsidies to the insurers (which Obama, in pushing the law through, had probably promised to win them over.) And there’s no money for more subsidies to the individuals, Medicaid/Medicare expansion, etc.

  • jim

    The problem as the New York Times saw it was that their European friends would make fun of them for not having universal health care in the US (“only industrialized country” blah, blah, blah). This was just unbearable, so they supported “something, anything” back in 2009, despite their supposed reportorial strengths which could have informed the debate.

    I hope that Mexican guy calls in the mortgage or whatever he holds on them and that they go out of business.

  • ignatz22

    Mrs. Clinton doesn’t care One Whit that the Obamacare system is a huge mess. In fact, it’s the plan: so when this hybrid mess collapses, the socialists will just blame the insurance companies (already happening) and institute socialized “medicine.” So the Superstate will own your body from cradle to grave. “Want that heart transplant for your dad? Hmmm… [I see you voted against Us.] Denied!”

    Vote for Trump, please. He has promised repeatedly to put American citizens’ interests first, but with Mrs. Clinton, we’re regarded as so much livestock.

  • Anthony

    The bottom line is that Obamacare can be fixed. The problem is deciding to do it – “…at $250 billion yearly, the tax exclusion for employer-paid health insurance costs six times what Obamacare individual market subsidies do.” See:

  • mickBelker

    And the only cure for this mess is…… SINGLE-PAYER!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service