« | »

Ron Fournier Is ‘Sick Of Defending Obama-Care’

From Ron Fournier at the National Journal:

Why I’m Getting Sick of Defending Obamacare

By Ron Fournier | February 11, 2014

It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naïve columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation.

Oh, so now Mr. Fournier says he is just a naïve columnist. When he was pushing Obama-Care on us, he was an all knowing, all seeing ‘journalist.’

For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers… Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.

The hell you say! (By the way, who doubts that, as the time draws nigh, Obama will quietly delay the employer mandate just a few more months, past the 2016 elections.)

The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation.

Not to mention (illegally) using ‘budget reconciliation’ to avoid having to get a supermajority, which is the way ‘transcendent legislation’ has always been passed.

It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point – "If you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan." And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.

We knew Obama was the victim of something here.

Defending the ACA became painfully harder when online insurance markets were launched from a multibillion-dollar website that didn’t work, when autopsies on the administration’s actions revealed an epidemic of incompetence that began in the Oval Office and ended with no accountability.

Harsh words from such a dependable lap dog.

Then officials started fudging numbers and massaging facts to promote implementation, nothing illegal or even extraordinary for this era of spin. But they did more damage to the credibility of ACA advocates.

It isn’t illegal for the federal government to knowingly report false statistics?

Finally, there are the ACA rule changes – 27 major adjustments, according to Fox News, without congressional approval. J. Mark Iwry, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for health policy, said the administration has broad "authority to grant transition relief" under a section of the Internal Revenue Code that directs the Treasury secretary to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement" of tax obligations, according to the New York Times.

Notice that even here Fournier is claiming that it is legal for Obama to change tax law on a whim. Or worse than a whim — for political expediency. Who knew?

Advocates for a strong executive branch, including me, have given the White House a pass on its rule-making authority, because implementing such a complicated law requires flexibility. But the law may be getting stretched to the point of breaking…

If not illegal, the changes are fueling suspicion among Obama-loathing conservatives, and confusion in the rest of us. Even the law’s most fervent supporters are frustrated…Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits.

And never mind that only about 10% of those enrolling in Obama-Care were previously uninsured. And never mind that vastly more people have lost their insurance, thanks to Obama-Care, than have gained insurance. And never mind that the CBO claims there will be 30 million uninsured Americans ten years from now. Which is exactly the number the administration claims are uninsured today.

I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for the Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken.

Charles Lane and every other White House parrot, who have repeated administration’s preposterous spin about the so-called ‘insurance trap’ of having a full time steady job. (AKA ‘job lock.)

I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.

Mr. Fournier is now an expert on healthcare? Didn’t he tell us that Obama-Care was a serious alternative to what we had before? Didn’t he push it for years without having the slightest clue what it was going to be?

Unfortunately, the president and his team are making their good intentions [sic] almost indefensible.

Don’t worry. None of Mr. Fournier’s current complaints will make one iota of difference in the long run. He will continue to defend Obama-Care and Obama with every fiber of his being. After all, he is a ‘journalist.’

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 11th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Ron Fournier Is ‘Sick Of Defending Obama-Care’”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    G.O.P., Gutless ‘Ol Party can’t even drum up 1/10th the outrage as this liberal reporter does…..for shame. -By that I mean elected Republicans in federal office.

    Retrieved from the Memory Hole: Obama 2008: Bush Used Signing Statements To “Accumulate More Power”
    From Real Clear Politics: http://tinyurl.com/3cfk4df

    -Amazing isn’t it? In light of what he has done in office, what he has threatened to do with his executive order pen, and has already done, and his continued “end around Congress” at every turn of his desire. Unbelievable that I posted this on February 12, 2014, and haven’t heard one Republican use this to their advantage even once since Obama took office.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    The Gutless Old Party reminds me of Mel Brooks as Governor William J. Lepetomane in Blazing Saddles .. especially when .. http://goo.gl/MqP5E .. phony baloney jobs ..

  3. canary says:

    Ron Fournier feels bad not 200 million democrats couldn’t create a health care program for a low percentage of American people.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »