We told you so!

From The Washington Post:

Obamacare’s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer
By , Published: February 4, 2014

For years, the White House has trotted out the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to show that Obamacare would cut health-care costs and reduce deficits:

Live by the sword, die by the sword, the Bible tells us. In Washington, it’s slightly different: Live by the CBO, die by the CBO.

The congressional number-crunchers, perhaps the capital’s closest thing to a neutral referee, came out with a new report Tuesday, and it wasn’t pretty for Obamacare. The CBO predicted the law would have a “substantially larger” impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers, well more than the 800,000 originally anticipated. This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.

This is grim news for the White House and for Democrats on the ballot in November. This independent arbiter, long embraced by the White House, has validated a core complaint of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) critics: that it will discourage work and become an ungainly entitlement. Disputing Republicans’ charges is much easier than refuting the federal government’s official scorekeepers.

More at the link.

It will be recalled that a banned former commenter kept telling us just how good the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is for everybody, how it would “bend the cost curve downward,” cover almost everybody and save us money, and how the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that to be so.

As it happens I just saw this brief story from Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

Unemployed Magazine Executives
Posted on | February 5, 2014 | 11 Comments

Time, Inc. — which publishes Time, Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated and In Style magazines — is laying off hundreds of employees, and the hit list includes executives in the company:

Gone in the cutbacks are David Geithner, an executive vice president who was in charge of the style and entertainment group that included No. 1 moneymaker People and top monthly In Style. Geithner is the brother of former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Good news: He’ll qualify for ObamaCare.


That’s actually the whole story — one far briefer than one normally sees from the esteemed Mr McCain, but there are plenty of good and amusing comments to read at the original.

Mr McCain is documenting — or perhaps mocking — the job losses amongst those professional journalists in the print medium, something I have characterized as 18th Century Technology many times before. What I see as the obvious question, however, is why all of those professional journalists had decently-paying jobs, and were all so wrong about Obaminablecare, while so many of us unpaid bloggers got it right? We have previously pointed out that we cannot add 30 to 40 million people who cannot afford health insurance, maintain high quality for those covered, and still cut costs.1

The liberals, both in the (now shrinking) professional media and in the unpaid blogosphere, including our banned former commenter, were wrong all along! We knew it, we told them so, but they kept sticking their fingers in their wax-filled little ears and chanting, “CBO, CBO, CBO.”

It didn’t take a professional economist and Nobel Prize laureate like Paul Krugman to see this. This wasn’t graduate school stuff, but Economics 101: you cannot add tens of millions of people to the system,2 mandate greater health insurance benefits, prohibit insurance companies from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions, and not make the system cost a lot more money. All of those things have costs, costs a man with a doctorate in economics like Mr Krugman should have been able to see, and all of those additional costs would have to be paid, somehow, some way. How is it that a working-class, unpaid blogger with a baccalaureate degree, who runs a concrete plant for a living, could see that, while all of the super-geniuses in the Obama Administration couldn’t?

There are really only two choices:

  1. The liberals really are so dumb that they cannot see what is plainly obvious; or
  2. The liberals are so pernicious that they want to pass what they want to pass, even knowing that it will be harmful, and that they are lying about it.

Eric would vote for the latter, and I’m beginning to think that he’s right.
Related Articles:


  1. Those links are just from The First Street Journal, or our predecessor, Common Sense Political Thought. Check the other conservative sites on our blogroll, and you’ll find that they were saying the same things.
  2. And they haven’t even accomplished that part yet.

Comments are closed.