Last week, the White House claimed 28 states are “on their way” toward creating ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. Here’s what Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinks about that:
[E]ven if one were to accept the White House’s accounting…that would mean that 22 states — roughly 40 percent of the country — are not “on their way” toward erecting the Obamacare exchanges. Isn’t that a problem? Further, upon closer inspection, it’s clear that many of the 28 states that are supposedly “on their way” really aren’t “on their way.”…
A more accurate description of what is going would go like this…the administration can rightly claim 15 states are more or less playing ball with them…
[T]here’s a very long list of states — nearly 30 — with strong Republican governors who have absolutely no interest in doing anything to solidify the position of Obamacare…
In other states, with mixed political control, it’s not entirely clear what direction they will go, as the legislatures and the governors are either at odds over the issue or have deferred taking any definitive steps…
So, a fair reading of what’s really going on is that the vast majority of states are not proceeding apace to implement Obamacare, and there’s no prospect of their doing so anytime soon…
Obamacare is under siege at this point. It is on shaky ground legally. It’s opposed by a plurality of voters. And there’s no real plan in view for actually implementing it, even if it were to survive the various challenges coming its way. No wonder the White House is resorting to unsubstantiated happy talk.
Recommended
Read the whole thing.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, I debate ObamaCare‘s individual mandate. Here’s the teaser:
Should Everyone Be Required to Have Health Insurance?
Yes, says Karen Davenport of George Washington University, because it’s the key to making health care more affordable and accessible. No, says Michael F. Cannon from the Cato Institute, because it will make health care more costly and scarce.
I did not write that unfortunate title, which uses the passive voice to conceal who’s doing the requiring. Hint: we ain’t talking about your conscience. I like to say that if we banned the passive voice–e.g., doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis–it would take two minutes to realize that government creates most of our health care problems, and we would repeal all subsidies, mandates, and regulations within two hours.
Davenport’s article makes one claim to which I was not able to respond: that under ObamaCare, “global payment approaches and other payment changes are designed [gaa! passive voice!] to improve care for patients with chronic illnesses.” Fortunately for humanity, I already dispatched that claim last week in a blog post titled, “Oops, Maybe ObamaCare’s Cost Controls Won’t Work after All.”
So here are your assignments for today. Read both articles. Don’t forget to take the quiz. Then, watch the related 2008 video I posted under the title, “Does Karen Davenport Owe Me $40?“, and decide for yourself whether Karen Davenport does indeed owe me $40. If you think yes, be sure to tell her so in an email to the address provided at the end of her article.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member