The designers of Obamacare made wholly inaccurate assumptions about how uninsured and lower income people would respond to new healthcare options, and evidence from the troubled program's start-up should provide a lesson on the pitfalls of governing a socially and economically diverse nation, says Michael Barone.
"The evidence is not all in. But it seems that Americans are not behaving as Obamacare's architects — and many critics — expected," the syndicated columnist writes in The Wall Street Journal.
Barone, the senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, highlights three misguided assumptions at the heart of the president's signature healthcare law.
For a start, he says, the authors of the legislation incorrectly assumed that everyone wants health insurance, and that if low-cost coverage was available for those with modest incomes, the uninsured would overwhelmingly take advantage of it.
The evidence so far, Barone says, does not bear that out. He cites low enrollment rates among the uninsured and a recent Kaiser poll indicating the program's unpopularity among that group.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
8 comments:
Was a rather expensive experiment on how the general populace will behave in the future when unconstitutional laws are passed.
Guess it is going to take harder work to turn us into a socialist nation.
This is because we are a free people. Deal with it.
Shut up, Annie.
10:10 don't comprehend very well do ya now?
The Supreme Court said it is constitutional. They get the last word not you.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that slavery was legal. They have ruled killing innocent babies is legal. NO, they do not get the last word, God does.
We are talking constitutional not God, two different things. God did not give us the constitution.
11:15 Try reading the constitution. Obviously God was important to the authors.
The supreme court ruled it constitutional as a tax, not as the law as it was written.
But then the supreme court also said such things as:
When a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him--also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans.
Post a Comment