I told you so!

Now that President Barack Hussein Obama has been safely re-elected, the mainstream media is starting to take notice of what conservatives have said all along:

States worry about rate shock during shift to new health law

Even states that back Obama’s healthcare law worry about a jump in some insurance premiums as it takes effect.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announce conditional federal approval of the state’s plan for a health insurance exchange under the new healthcare law. Even states that back the law are worried about an initial rate jump in some premiums. (Scott Olson / Getty Images / February 18, 2013)

By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau | February 18, 2013, 3:00 a.m.WASHINGTON — Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama’s healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself.

Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

“The single biggest issue we face now is affordability,” said Jill Zorn, senior program officer at the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, a consumer advocacy group that championed the new law.

Administration officials have consistently downplayed the specter of rate increases and other disruptions as millions of Americans move into overhauled insurance markets in 2014. They cite provisions in the law that they say will hold down premiums, including new competitive markets they believe will make insurers offer competitive rates.

Exactly how high the premiums may go won’t be known until later this year. But already, officials in states that support the law have sounded warnings that some people — mostly those who are young and do not receive coverage through their work — may see considerably higher prices than expected.

More at the link. But let your Editor correct the last line: “some people — mostly those who are young and do not receive coverage through their work — may see considerably higher prices than the supporters of the law expected.” Conservatives have said all along that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was wholly misnamed, was deceptively named, was deliberately falsely named.

It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen: you can’t add thirty to forty million people who couldn’t afford insurance previously to the insurance rolls, you couldn’t impose regulations prohibiting the standard insurance cost-cutting measures such as lifetime limits on coverage and denial of insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions, and not add to the costs of providing insurance. You couldn’t require insurance companies to continue to cover family members for longer periods of time — the 18 to 26 year olds — without adding costs to the insurance companies. Insurance costs more because it has to cost more.

The supporters of ObaminableCare made the conservative-sounding argument that the addition of thirty to forty million new customers would lead to increased competition among insurance companies, pushing premiums lower. But it was always a specious argument, made by people who either did not or chose not to understand competition. Everything offered for sale has a limiting factor to its price: the ability of the potential buyer to choose not to buy at all, the ability of the customer to say, “I might want this, but I am unwilling to pay this much for it.” Once the customer has no choice but to buy, competition may occur between different suppliers, but there is no competition with choosing not to buy at all; look at the ridiculous rates charged for automobile insurance and ask yourself if competition has held down prices there. And when you underpin that requirement with government subsidies to buy what is otherwise beyond your ability to pay, there is little reason for insurance companies to compete at all. I’ve said it before: if a liberal really understood economics, he wouldn’t be a liberal.

However, perhaps I should give at least some liberals credit here: some of them really didn’t care about the economics, and some of them knew that ObaminableCare would fail. I wrote previously “the Democrats agreed to some compromises that they knew wouldn’t work, to get the last few conservative Democrats to go along with it, to simply establish the precedent that the federal government is ultimately responsible for paying for everybody’s health care. Then, when this abomination fails, the only remaining option will be single-payer; a return to the system as it was in 2008 won’t be an option.”

Of course, single-payer has its problems as well.

Well, we elected Barack Hussein Obama, and then, after a record rife with failure, we re-elected him, so it’s difficult to argue that we don’t actually deserve what we have gotten. For those people who supported our President, when they start seeing their health insurance premiums rise and rise and rise, they will have become the victims of karmic justice. And when they complain, we conservatives will say, “We told you so!”
_____________________________
Related Articles:

6 Comments

  1. ” … we elected Barack Hussein Obama, and then, after a record rife with failure, we re-elected him,”

    Well, I did not elect him and have no responsibility for his Manchurian Candidate actions, nor any moral obligation of fellowship, of shared suffering, or of sympathy for those moral miscreants who did.

    ” … so it’s difficult to argue that we don’t actually deserve what we have gotten. “

    You might as well claim that you deserve to die of AIDs because some asshole is a drug addict.

    “For those people who supported our President, when they start seeing their health insurance premiums rise and rise and rise, they will have become the victims of karmic justice. ”

    No they won’t, because the whole thrust of the liberal project is to establish a regime of coercive cost shifting in the name of a spurious human solidarity. The liberal, in principle an enemy of self-governance and restraint, once seeing it has destroyed its life is never satisfied until it can drag you down with it.

    And unlike some Christians, it feels no guilt in doing so.

    And when they complain, we conservatives will say, “We told you so!””

    It would be better if we could just stand aside and let them self-destruct and shrivel away.

  2. A good article generally, but I disagree with the following statement:

    look at the ridiculous rates charged for automobile insurance and ask yourself if competition has held down prices there.

    Actually, auto insurance does seem to be pretty competitive, at least to judge by the ads where GEICO, Progressive, State Farm and others all claim to save you lots of money over their competitors. But the reason is simple. Unlike Obamacare (and current health insurance laws) you can buy from insurance companies located anywhere in the country. Most states require you to buy health insurance only from within that state, limiting competition considerably. Also, there is much more flexibility in the kind of auto insurance you can buy. If you have an old junker, you can purchase liability coverage only, most likely you won’t care much if the car is stolen or wrecked because it simply isn’t worth much. By contrast, if you have an expensive new car, you will probably opt for full coverage, and of course you can choose the size deductible which affects rates as well. Not so much with Obamacare. There, the government tells the insurance companies what kind of coverage they must offer, and by extension, limits the choices in the kind of coverage the consumer must buy. For instance, to satisfy the Sandra Flucks of the world, Obama now demands you be forced to pay for birth control coverage whether you want it or not. Basically, it’s the old left wing assumption that we’re a bunch of morons and chumps who are too stupid to make our own decisions and thus must have the government do it for us.

  3. I’ve said it before: if a liberal really understood economics, he wouldn’t be a liberal.

    And I’ve said before that it could well be that left wingers aren’t ignorant of economics per se, it’s just that their economic goals are vastly different from our own. Conservatives value economic growth and rising prosperity generally. We do not see striving for success as a bad thing, but rather a bedrock part of the American Dream. Left wingers, in contrast, want the economy to be “Fair” above all else, and if that means poverty is distributed equally, well, fair’s fair. Success and prosperity to them are thus evils that need to be eliminated, or at least sharply constrained, so if a left winger favors economic policies that seem counterproductive to us, it’s not that they’re idiots who don’t know what they’re doing, but rather that their economic “Ideals” are the opposite of ours.

  4. Eric says:

    Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 11:20

    I’ve said it before: if a liberal really understood economics, he wouldn’t be a liberal.

    And I’ve said before that it could well be that left wingers aren’t ignorant of economics per se, it’s just that their economic goals are vastly different from our own. Conservatives value economic growth and rising prosperity generally. We do not see striving for success as a bad thing, but rather a bedrock part of the American Dream. Left wingers, in contrast, want the economy to be “Fair” above all else, and if that means poverty is distributed equally, well, fair’s fair. Success and prosperity to them are thus evils that need to be eliminated, or at least sharply constrained, so if a left winger favors economic policies that seem counterproductive to us, it’s not that they’re idiots who don’t know what they’re doing, but rather that their economic “Ideals” are the opposite of ours.”

    That is a conclusion many people cannot bring themselves to face.

    On another blog site, originally pointed to by John Hitchcock, the proprietor NeoNeocon, has been arguing for the proposition that the run-of-the-mill liberal needs to be distinguished from the ideologues who continually press toward the institutionalization of collectivist governing principles.

    Apparently she is referring to cradle and knee-jerk liberals who have been inculcated from childhood with the ambient notion that liberalism equals compassion and understanding; without necessarily grasping the logical implications of such a system when applied to the government.

    But can it really be that the majority of Democrat voters are so ignorant of the implications of the programs they are endorsing at the polls?

    Just who would those Democrats be? Say, fans of the hosts on MSNBC?

    Lawrence O’Donnell proudly proclaims himself a socialist. Do any of his viewers doubt it? Could they be ignorant of it? How about Maddow? Does anyone doubt the kind of polity she is aiming for, or that should they get behind her and push, that they would be instrumental in bringing about that particular state of affairs.

    Closer to home, our former poster He Whose Name We Shall Never Again Mention Since He Is Not Here To Defend Himself, was clearly a witting collectivist.

    He was in fact a man who admitted that he wanted government enforced self-sacrificial “sharing” from others: not in the name of legal justice or even temporary social compensation, but in order to permanently even out life’s intrinsically unequal burden’s more to his liking through government redistribution of life efforts and handicaps.

    Was he some poor misguided soul who somehow missed the fact that he was placing others in his thrall for his convenience and comfort? No. He eventually admitted what he was all about, even though it took literal years to get him to do so.

    I don’t know then who these so-called innocent or naive liberals are.

    Are they people who imagine that money grows on trees? It seems that if they were, they would be asking for a tree rather than for their neighbor’s tax dollars.

    Are they profoundly stupid, devolved, state dependent slovens who are in principle so degraded that they are intellectually incapable of even conceiving of the problem as it applies to politics and governance, and its implications for a worthily lived human life? The defenders of liberalism would shout “No!”.

    Well, then, if they are capable of understanding, of reasoning, then they do know what they are doing. And what they are knowingly doing is killing freedom and making themselves unworthy and undeserving of consideration and fellowship: because and by virtue of their aimed for end they are not in fact, moral fellows to freedom valuing men and women.

    Liberals don’t want the same things. Freedom, and responsibility for their own lives, least of all.

  5. Since I have been flogging a dead horse for many months now, I might as well make one other point, a technical point, which conservatives need to grasp in order to appreciate the dynamic they are confronting.

    They need to step out of their comfort zone for a moment.

    They have to do so in order to say to the liberal, or to imagine themselves as saying – no matter how disorienting or emotionally frightening it is for them to do – “Go ahead, liberal, and f–ck yourself up. Just make sure you leave it there”.

    Now, I don’t pose this as an actual solution to social conflict; as if conservatives could somehow thrive apart from liberals while sharing the same political space.

    It’s not possible because liberals simply would not allow it. Your withdrawal from being reduced to a coerced agent for the fulfillment of their wants, is precisely what they aim to prevent. “By any means necessary” as they are so fond of saying.

    But the conclusion – to the conservative – will never become clear as long as the left is allowed, with the conservative’s ham handed if inadvertent complicity, to shield their demands behind the banner of personal liberation and autonomy.

    Until they are told and registered as having been told: “Be thou liberated, to your own destruction if that is the case”, what they are really demanding, i.e., the appropriative and totalitarian aspects of it, will always be at least somewhat disguised behind their rhetorical deployment of the language of liberation.

    Sure, occasional cases like the useless and annoying Ms Flucke, the woman who demands that others underwrite to their cost her pursuit of what she sees as her sexual satisfaction, will startle us into seeing their program more clearly.

    But as long as conservatives try to guide (in the name of caring and fellowship and goodwill) the liberal, the liberal will make use of the rhetoric of liberation.

    The time is probably not far off when Obama’s fascist and totalitarian program of “positive liberty” will be more widely and brazenly embraced and the claims leveled by the left against the lives of the responsible citizens made even less inhibited and cautious. (Yes it is possible, believe it or not)

    At that point, the left will explicitly posit the condition of human liberation and fulfillment as conditioned on the predicate of centralized social direction, and will present that condition as the moral default position: “Selfish and irresponsible ‘freedom’ for you means that the freedom to develop and thrive is stolen from others” will become the slogan. The zero sum analogue will be applied directly to life, rather than to monetary wealth.

    Conservatives, busy trying to preserve “society” and “values” and doggedly imputing value to those who mockingly deny life has intrinsic value, will find their own intellectual and emotional commitments and apparatus, inverted, and then turned against them.

    We’re already just about there, actually.

  6. Pingback: LA Times Discovers The High Cost Of Obamacare | The Lonely Conservative

Comments are closed.