[Skepolitic]

In what sense can an entirely predictable consequence be called “unintended”?

“Unintended consequences” are like “failed government programs”. “Unintended” by whom, or “failed” by whom? It is usually the case that the “unintended consequences” were exactly what the ruling elite wanted, and the program’s “failure” to accomplish its ostensible objective was in the interest of the ruling elite. Poverty pimps need more poverty to aggrandize their power.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

You don’t go far enough. This is the beginning of the end-game of the communist dictatorship in the WH — embed this “benefit” so deeply it’ll never be uprooted and completely bankrupt the nation, leaving us defenseless in the face of our enemies as spending shifts away from defense to “health” care. We will forever henceforth have rancorous “debates” on how to fix this mess — just as Mark Steyn predicted about four years ago. But that’s simply a smokescreen covering our destruction. Get ready for decades of darkness.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

“Unintended” by whom, or “failed” by whom? It is usually the case that the “unintended consequences” were exactly what the ruling elite wanted, and the program’s “failure” to accomplish its ostensible objective was in the interest of the ruling elite.

I think ObamaCare was designed to fail, so that the president might declare that he tried to reform the system; but, since it failed, the only remaining option is to go directly to government-sponsored healthcare, such as tne NIH in the UK.

Of course, this strategy presupposes that the Democrats will retake control of the House in the 2014 midterms; or, alternatively, that there will be such a groundswell of support for an NIH-style plan that even Republicans in the House will acquiesce to it.

Personally, I would consider both of these possibilities real longshots--to say the least...