« | »

NYT Admits That Obama-Care Is Redistribution

From a giggling New York Times:

Don’t Dare Call the Health Law ‘Redistribution’

By JOHN HARWOOD | November 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — … “Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”

But it’s perfectly fine to do it. In fact, it is mandatory in order to achieve ‘social justice.’

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.

What an amazing admission from the ‘newspaper of record.’ Clearly, they believe Obama-Care is now entirely safe from repeal or defunding.

“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”

Once again, the architect of Obama-Care, Mr. Gruber himself, accidentally lets a little truth slip out.

Mr. Obama’s advisers set out to pass the law in 2009 fully aware that fears among middle-class voters sank President Bill Clinton’s health initiative 16 years earlier…

What does the middle class have to fear? Oh, that’s right. ‘The rich’ can afford redistribution. And ‘the poor’ love it. But the middle class is destroyed by it.

So they designed the legislation to minimize the number of people likely to be hurt. Instead of a sweeping change to a government-run “single-payer” system favored by Democratic liberals, members of the administration sought to preserve the existing system of employer-provided health insurance while covering the uninsured through the expansion of Medicaid and changes to the individual insurance market.

They also added benefits available to any family, such as the ability of children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ health plans.

Which will cause premiums as well as taxes to go up for everyone except the poor. And the rich won’t even notice. But the middle class will.

But throughout the process, they knew that some level of redistributing wealth — creating losers as well as winners — was inescapable.

Except the New York Times and the rest of the media managed to escape ever admitting it. Instead, they called anyone who pointed this out ‘kooks’ and ‘extremists’ and ‘fear mongers.’

They were nonetheless acutely aware of how explosive the word could be…

Which is why the news media knocked down the accusation at every turn.

[But] hiding in plain sight … visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view…

In the end, America’s political culture may have made it unrealistic to expect a smooth public reception for the law, no matter how cleverly the White House modulated Mr. Obama’s language or shaped his policy to minimize the number of losers.

And by "losers" the New York Times means us and the rest of the middle class.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, November 26th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “NYT Admits That Obama-Care Is Redistribution”

  1. BillK

    As Mr. Bloomberg would say, we know what’s good for you and everyone else, so just shut up and accept it.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »