I believe it was only a lie if it was premeditated, otherwise it was making un-achievable promises based on misguided information. Since I can’t read the president’s mind…
There are two problems with this.
- Obama made certain promises very clearly and emphatically about a situation *over which he had control *and then did not keep them.
Remember your wife who died and was unable to keep her promise to grow old with her husband–it’s not like that. It’s more like a wife promising to grow old with her husband then running off with another man a couple of weeks later… on the money she got from her husband by saying that.
Obama told us clearly we could keep… if we liked… then either crafted or allowed to be crafted in his name a bill and/or regulations *which went directly against what he had promised. *
Moreover, Obama made these promises *in order to get the authority to do what he did. *So he said, give me money and I’ll help poor people with it, and then took the money and used it to impose a huge tax on us instead. Believe me, someone who was barely above water before this came out will shortly find themselves underwater, and paying a hefty percentage of their income to get there.
Besides, what good would it do me to get furious over this?
The point is not to get furious and just sit there. The point is to be outraged by the manipulation of the American people *and learn something. *“Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” after all.
It’s already done. I’d much rather see energy focused on achieving effective health reform and from my viewpoint that means people giving constructive feedback (positive or negative) about specific problems being encountered.
We have been doing that in several areas for decades, mostly clearly in education. The progressives come in with their ideas, the government mandates them, and we end up in worse shape than we were in before. This downward spiral has been going on for decades. Because we have not learned from the lies which people continue to call failed promises, our children and grandchildren continue to suffer through the reduced levels of what we continue to call education.
And I do believe that discussions like this can be useful in giving that kind of feedback. What I don’t believe is that it is wrong/bad/immoral for government to be involved in health care - whatever the level: state or federal. I respect that others feel differently. For myself I don’t care who does what as long as problems get addressed in a moral and effective manner.
And this is the crux of the matter: you applaud those who wring their hands and say they are concerned and want to fix the problem. What you fail to see is that all their fixes at best merely perpetuate the problem in *every area in which they meddle. *
What was this whole boondoggle supposed to accomplish? There were 30 million people (47 if you counted those here illegally)* without health insurance.
Health Affairs predicts 26-27 million will remain uninsured
Here is a Washington Post article which goes into a fair amount of detail and in which it is also explained that *those here illegally make up only 1/5 of the total without insurance, not 1/3 as we were told before ACA. (Very confusing stuff, that.)
So we’ve spent millions ($174M, according to Sebelius), and committed ourselves to paying an actually unknown amount but estimated at $1.3T to $1.8T over the next ten years to accomplish what, exactly?
And for the record, no, I don’t believe that waste or lack of accountability are unique to government enterprises or that effective solutions are the preserve of private enterprise.
The difference is that in private enterprise, feedback occurs swiftly. In government, it may never occur at all. Barney Frank continued in office until he retired at the age of 72(?), despite his blocking improvement to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac which led to the 2008 collapse.
Maybe I’ve just lived in too many places where governments (with or without the help of outside governments and organizations) have been instrumental in eradicating diseases, decreasing mortality and extending healthy lifespans.
But where do the *improvements *come from? The vast majority come from here, where there is enough money in health care to fund research. So while these other nations *provide *more, their costs are reduced because they pay for only a small amount for the research which goes into the improvements.
And it’s not as if the US government has done *nothing *for those in need: Medicare and Medicaid cover quite a few people!
Not saying the US is doing really well or that there were no problems before. There absolutely were problems before. My main point is that the ACA did not address the *causes *of the problems, and this did nothing to solve the problem.