Why Would Obama Want People to Keep Their Old Plans?

obamaBy merely adding up recent media reports of insurance providers sending out cancellation notices, as conservative blogger David Hogberg did the other day, one can find that nearly 1.5 million Americans have already lost their health insurance plans as a result of Obamacare.

As Hogberg points out, this number really just scratches the surface, because it only includes the notices that have been documented by the media, and the media have only reported on a handful of insurance providers in a handful of states. Cancellation notices that have yet to be added to that total include the ones recently sent out in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Maryland. And there are surely many more to come.

What also hasn’t been added to that total are the number of cancellations that took place prior to this past month. As I found out first-hand a couple of years ago, health insurance providers like Aetna figured out early how the Affordable Care Act would affect the way they did business. The individual plan my family was covered under at the time was dropped, with the letter we received from Aetna specifically stating that the reason for the cancellation was that the plan wouldn’t comply with the ACA.

In fact, health policy expert Bob Laszewski believes that up to 16 million people could have their policies cancelled as a result of Obamacare by the time all is said and done.

No one knows what the real number will be. What we do know, however, is that when President Obama repeatedly told the American public that no one would lose their current policies as a result of the Affordable Care Act, he was outright lying.

Sound a little harsh? I used to keep open the possibility that our president was just dangerously naive when it came to Obamacare, not fully understanding the ramifications of the healthcare bill he, himself, signed into law. However, according to numerous reports including this one from NBC News (a network that has been very favorable to this president) the administration has known for at least three years that millions would indeed lose their policies.

And when you factor in how practically every other promise made by our president regarding the ACA has turned out to be false, it becomes clear that this wasn’t just a case of painful ignorance or gross incompetence. There was a willful intent (similar to what we saw with the Benghazi attack and YouTube video scapegoat) by the administration to lie to the country.

To understand why the administration would lie about such a thing isn’t all that hard. They of course wanted to sell Obamacare to the American public, thus they had to paint it as something it clearly wasn’t in order to get the bill passed.

It seems to me, though, that there could be an additional explanation for such dishonesty: Enrollment numbers in the Obamacare exchanges.

The ACA can’t possibly hope to function unless a large number of people enroll in the exchanges. And if people are happily insured and have no need for the exchanges, that hurts enrollment and thus adversely affects the funding mechanism behind the program.

As many in the media have recently pointed out, Obamacare relies on young, healthy people entering the exchanges in order pay for the healthcare expenses accrued by older people in the system. Many have also pointed out, as syndicated columnist George Will did back in July,the big flaw in relying on that logic.

“What Obamacare requires for it to work – mass irrationality,” Will said on ABC News, before pointing out that young people are expected to “pay 3, 4, 5 times more for health insurance than it would cost them to just pay the fine (for not having coverage) and ignore it.”

He was right. Obamacare can’t just rely on young people signing up for it. It needs as many people enrolling in it as possible. With that mind, what possible incentive would there be for the administration to allow people to keep their private healthcare plans?

There is none.

Did the administration want a large number of people to lose their private plans?  It’s hard to say. But clearly, they had absolutely no incentive to prevent people from losing their plans, because those people’s losses are the Affordable Care Act’s gain. While some people will be able to switch plans under their current provider and begrudgingly accept a more expensive policy with a higher deductible, others won’t, and in some cases can’t. Just like with what will surely happen when the employer mandate kicks in, and companies decide to drop their employees’ coverage in favor of paying a government fine, Obamacare might become the remaining option for those left behind.

Thus, the lie that people could keep their current plans probably wasn’t a hard one to tell for an administration that always looks out for its own best interests over those of the American public. From a Dead Sleep by John A. Daly

When you think about it, this isn’t all that different than how many on the left now portray our slowly dropping unemployment rate. Democrats view any drop in that rate is good for their party, and that’s the way the media paints it as well. It’s not good for the nation, however, because those drops are largely coming at the expense of Americans who have either left the workforce or can only find part-time work (thus are no longer counted as ‘unemployed’).

Does anyone really believe that if Obamacare enrollment picks up as a result of people being kicked off of their private plans (because of Obamacare), it will be portrayed as anything less than a success by both the administration and the media?

Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

 

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • D Parri

    In the macro view, the Demo-heads have a goal of achieving a federal state of socialized medicine. Obamacare is an intermediate step and it is not necessary that Obamacare function properly. Actually, the goal will come quicker if Obamacare fails.

    This tactical movement will be defined by the collapse of our free-market based medical insurance industry. Once destroyed, this will lead to a Demo-head presentation of socialized medicine as the Phoenix–the only viable solution to the pursuant calamity brought about by Obamacare. It is a logical path that can be flow-charted and shown as requiring specific movements from our pre-Obamacare healthcare insurance industry to the Demo-head goal of a socialized medicine state, and it can best be described as–guess what–fundamental change. Does that sound in any way familiar?

  • sjangers

    The deception may go even deeper than we have assumed, John. According to a report in Forbes today, the Obama administration estimated in 2010 that as many as 93 millions Americans would lose their health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA. So while the President was jetting around spreading the happy talk, his own administration was estimating that close to a hundred million Americans would not be able to keep their current health coverage. And it wouldn’t matter whether they like their current plan or not.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Just saw an interview with Maher, called Bill,
    and for this plan he always did shill,
    say’s lyin’s alright
    for winning this fight
    and the rest of us just swallow that pill.
    .
    Yes it’s true. Obama, say’s Bill Maher shouldn’t have lied about keeping your plan and your Doctor. BUT? Had the truth been told, the plan probably would have been defeated??? So it was necessary. (you know, for the sake of the 30 million uninsured poor people).

    • Jeff Webb

      Brian,
      You are a fine wit and solid debater, but I gotta respectfully ask: why do you often put multiple question marks after a statement that isn’t a question?
      After all this time it still throws me off.
      : )>

      • Brian Fr Langley

        In my neck of the woods multiple question marks are kind of like saying “are you serious”? or this is unbelievable. but kind of as a hyper exclamation. My kids would probably put “WTF” but I’m just too polite for that.

        • Jeff Webb

          Fair enough.

        • D Parri

          That’s what I thought. Sounds right. Another form of the milder–and older–“Say again?” Also, a very close relative to the “You gotta’ be kiddin’!”

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’m not sure the icon by your name is actually a minute man, but I referenced the minutemen in a limerick in O’Reilly’s “Is the party over” he posted on this website the other day. You may find it (semi) amusing.

          • D Parri

            Brian, I have enjoyed your talents wherever they’ve shown up. You’ve even fulfilled some of my requests. I’ll try to find the one you speak of. Thanks.

          • D Parri

            Minuteman is the name,
            An iconic figure–one and the same!

  • Wheels55

    I thought from the beginning of this lousy legislation that the end game for Obama was to make people leave the private sector of health insurance for a single payer system. I am convinced this is why he loves the ACA being called Obamacare – because if this all works, we will go decades calling the only source of health care insurance “ObamaCare”. There is no end to this guy’s ego.

  • gold7406

    Consumers have been educated that when they purchase a used car, they ask to see the carfax. this is why pelosi encouraged her sheep to just pass it.
    hucksterism personified.

  • Chuck_Borealis

    This just in from the Ministry of Truth: You are a racist if you want to keep your old plan.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      lol.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    what can I say, I’m inspired by your articles.
    Limerick?
    .
    Since Obama care’s come down the river,
    I’ve gotten so mad that I quiver,
    but now that I think,
    it’ll turn me to drink,
    at least I can buy a new liver.

    • Jeff Webb

      Barack said the new law would work
      Without flaw, downside, or quirk
      Sure enough, it went bad
      Now the people are mad
      At this lying-ass democrat jerk

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    The truth was never about health,
    It was always just “spreading the wealth”,
    since American’s hate,
    a socialist fate,
    the economy needs captured by stealth.

  • potemkin_village_usa

    DAMAGE CONTROL FROM THE LEFT ON ‘THE KELLY FILES’

    __Obama said: IF you like your plan, [THEN] you
    can keep it, period. Notice here that the single qualifier in Obama’s logic
    is “IF you like your plan” . ERGO, you can keep it, period [no
    other qualifier]. This is untrue for most plans according to evidence
    presented by Megyn Kelly on her show ‘The Kelly Files.’

    __The truth is that the primary qualifier, is
    not whether you like your plan, but, does your plan conform with the new law
    and its new requirements, and, if it does, THEN you have the choice of
    keeping your old plan or not. The truthful logical statement should have
    been: IF your present plan conforms to the new requirements of the health care
    law, AND, you like that plan, ONLY THEN are you allowed to keep
    that plan. There are two qualifiers here of which the primary one is whether or
    not your present plan conforms to the new requirements set forth within the
    law. Soooooo, once your old plan passes muster with the new requirements of the
    healthcare law, ONLY THEN do you qualify in keeping your old plan if you
    desire to do so.

    ***Please Note: Obama cannot reconcile his
    first statement with what his apologists insist on what Obama meant,
    or, what other inferences the people must draw from his original
    statement as “reasonable.” The fallacy of false comparisons; the
    fallacy of reasonable inferences and perhaps the fallacy of “everybody
    knows” what the president meant.

    AN ASIDE: I love the way Megyn Kelly
    negated, her democrat guest’s attempt at fallacious obfuscation, with
    surgical precision. Ms. Kelly nailed him on the straw man arguments he
    presented; his answering of questions not asked; and his
    making of arguments that do not follow the premise of the
    narrative. Megyn Kelly turned the tables on this democrat’s wordcraftiness
    with precision responses curtailing his
    ridiculously clever body language. Please note that the
    guest’s deliberate use of headshaking and paternalistic smiles as a form
    of subliminal ridicule worked quite effectively with other moderators, but, did
    not work with Megyn Kelly who derailed his propagandic body language by
    distractfully putting him in his place verbally.

    • Wheels55

      All true.
      This puts Obama in an uncomfortable place: either he knew what he was saying was untrue or he didn’t know what his signature legislation was going to do to us.

      What is left out in many news stories is the large amount of people who have employer provided insurance and are being made to accept lesser coverage, contribute more for their coverage or being dropped in some way – all because the plans offered keep changing and prices keep going up. In a slow economy, such a large piece of it becoming more expensive only benefits the insurance carriers (they get these higher premiums).

  • Jeff Webb

    Reporter: “Headmaster Jones, there are rumors of pervasive intimidation and abuse at your school, even to the point of teachers duct-taping students’ mouths. Any comment?”
    Headmaster: “I’ve heard no complaints.”

    • D Parri

      Special!