Despite a newsroom full of reporters, the New York Times is having a heck of a time finding a single flaw in the byzantine ObamaCare law, about which bad news seems to pour in by the hour. It’s a natural reaction of knee-jerk liberals to become regular Inspectors Clouseau when it comes time to examine the facts surrounding their big-government boondoggles; it’s just a bit more of a shame when it’s coming from the supposed Paper of Record.
It was in that spirit that the New York Times editorial board dedicated several hundred words to discrediting a TV ad from Americans for Prosperity that merely raises questions about ObamaCare. The ad features Julie, a mother of two with another child on the way, who expresses her own doubts and concerns about how ObamaCare will impact her family’s healthcare. Rather than substantively addressing Julie’s questions, the Times editorial is mostly a personal attack on a pair of successful businessmen whose chief offense appears to be making their own money rather than waiting for it to be handed to them via some government redistribution scheme.
Gallup recently found that a majority of Americans still disapprove of the law because of its inherent complexity marked by a trail of broken promises. Yet from the safety of the editorial throne, the Times laments the “misguided fury” Americans feel over this trillion-dollar boondoggle. It’s a bill that even the administration admits they are currently unable to implement (hence the delay of the employer mandate). So sure are they of ObamaCare’s brilliance that without any facts in support, they claim the law’s “benefits to society may be so profound that Democrats can use it as a badge of accomplishment for generations.”
To the Grey Lady’s editorial board, it seems unfathomable that any American would distrust government. After all, government would never do something secretive and unethical, or target any Americans or groups because of their political beliefs, right? Certainly government, that bastion of effectiveness and transparency, would never waste taxpayer money on failing green energy schemes or investigate journalists who report on them…that would be unthinkable! And while you’re pondering that, be sure to check in with the EPA to see how the ethics classes of “Richard Windsor” are going, because government would never hide pertinent information from the public.
Since ObamaCare’s allies can’t discuss the law without sugarcoating this poison pill, let’s review Julie’s questions here.
Julie’s first question: “If we can’t pick our own doctor, how do I know my family is going to get the care they need?”
Julie, you may be one of the seven million Americans with employee-sponsored health insurance that the Congressional Budget Office found will likely lose coverage by 2022, leaving you with less choice in healthcare providers. You may be unable in many states to pick the same doctors you already know and trust. And remember when President Obama promised, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it?” Well, that was before reality set in and ObamaCare’s complex web of price controls and penalties began limiting healthcare options.
If that were the only problem you’d be facing it might not be so bad, but at the same time you are forced to pick new doctors, there will be fewer doctors to choose from. You see, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the United States is in the midst of a massive physician shortage.
By 2020, the U.S. will be short 91,000 doctors including 45,000 too few primary care physicians to meet demand. As more individuals flood the healthcare market, this doctor shortage could have dramatic impacts on your provision of care, resulting in longer waits for doctor visits and procedures. These problems will only accelerate as one-third of doctors will retire over the next decade. Julie’s second question: “What am I getting in exchange for higher premiums and a smaller paycheck?”
Sadly Julie, study after study shows that insurance premiums are expected to rise under ObamaCare, leaving Americans with smaller paychecks. One Congressional Budget Office study concludes that premiums are expected to rise after the law’s implementation, especially for the young and the healthy. Daniel Kessler of Stanford estimates that 10 million people -- about two-thirds of the market that is low- or average-risk -- will see higher insurance bills for 2014. After analyzing the rates advertised in California’s current exchange, Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute projects that premiums in the state will rise up to 146 percent. Once again the New York Times editorial board turns a blind eye to these folks from their cloud castle in Shangri-La.
For the few of you who still remain entranced by the ObamaCare tractor beam, here’s one more dose of see-for-yourself reality. Just take a look at the government insurance options available to you under the Affordable Care Act at http://finder.healthcare.gov and see how that compares to your current plan.
The final argument in favor of ObamaCare fulfills every stereotype of big-government liberal thinking as they claim that if only government had more taxpayer money to “publicize” this law, everything would work out just fine. Darn any reforms, darn any criticisms. The New York Times believes the Federal Government is here to help, so why won’t you help them help you?
Obama's Anti-Second Amendment Nominee For Surgeon General: Guns Are a Healthcare Issue | Katie Pavlich