Posted on 02/13/2014 5:36:57 AM PST by xzins
The obvious question, then, is … why continue? Both Kirsten Powers and Ron Fournier have spent the last day offering cris des coeurs over the incompetence of the White House, as the National Journal columnist did yesterday and Powers did last night on Fox News Special Report (via RCP and Truth Revolt):
KIRSTEN POWERS: Well, I think his explanation is probably the true explanation, that they need to do this, but at the same time, it’s now gotten to the point where it seems like there’s an exemption made for pretty much everybody except for individuals. A lot of people who have really been screwed over by the law, you know, who are left without insurance or with extremely expensive insurance. So, I think that Ron Fournier of The National Journal wrote something that ran today about –
BRET BAIER: This was after he expressed himself last night on the panel.
POWERS: The headline is why I’m getting tired of defending Obamacare. And I’m going to say amen, brother, because it’s exactly how I feel. People who have supported the law, who support universal health care, are constantly put in the position of having to defend this president, who has really incompetently put this together, rolled it out, and that’s why he has to do this. It’s why he has to keep doing this, because it’s not working.
The objection from both assumes that this project had a hope of succeeding in the first place. Let’s not forget that ObamaCare passed nearly four years ago, and HHS had 42 months of lead time until its rollout date. Four months after that, the White House keeps shifting deadlines, plainly to avoid the political consequences of its utter failure and ineptitude. How long is long enough to climb off the bandwagon?
Fournier’s argument on that question rests on a supposed lack of alternatives:
I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.
That, however, is a circular argument — because a Congress controlled by Democrats in one chamber will not pass any kind of replacement for ObamaCare, no matter how “serious” or workable it might be. Harry Reid wouldn’t even bring it onto the agenda, let alone schedule a floor vote, and Democrats would close ranks with the White House even if he did. Fournier’s argument boils down to the acceptance that Democrats won’t change their minds, so we may as well keep cheering on the failure, and hope that the incompetents that produced it over four years can fix it in six months. That’s absurd, but it’s the final fig leaf for less-partisan supporters of ObamaCare.
Fournier’s colleague Sam Baker argues that Obama’s doing most of the damage to his law now, not Republicans:
Republicans have done everything they can think of to strike down Obamacare, but they’ve still only managed to come in second place. For all the House votes to repeal, defund, or weaken Obamacare, some of the most significant setbacks for the law have come from the administration itself.
Monday’s delay in the law’s employer mandate was just the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds, just like the HealthCare.gov launch and delays in several programs that simply weren’t ready for prime time.
To be clear, the self-inflicted wounds haven’t been fatal. Obamacare is moving forward—and the doomsayers’ prophecies have fallen flat: People are signing up, premiums are lower than expected, and the law’s basic survival is assured. It gets stronger every month as more people pour into new insurance marketplaces in each state.
But the law does have a specific vision of the future of health insurance. And to hit that vision, it relies on a delicate balance of popular carrots—think coverage for those with preexisting conditions—and unpopular sticks, such as the ever-controversial individual mandate. And the administration keeps chipping away at unpopular parts—sometimes directly, and sometimes by handing Republicans a political weapon.
By the way, who’s going to fix the website, which defenders have mostly cited as the main obstacle on the path to Nirvana? The names have changed, but the faces look awfully familiar:
After denigrating the work of CGI and replacing it as the largest contractor on the federal health care website, the Obama administration is negotiating with the company to extend its work on the project for a few months.
And the new prime contractor, Accenture, is trying to recruit and hire CGI employees to work under its supervision.
I’m sure that will work out well…
The real problem for me with Kirsten Powers is that she says she is a Christian. Her faith, I’ve read, has been unfolding over about a decade. In that time, I’ve noticed an increasing tendency on her part to strive for honesty, talking points be damned.
OK. Something could be going on there.
My prayer for her is that she become brutally honest, and I don’t care if it zings the dems, the GOP, the church, or anyone else....including me. PROVIDED: she give an honest, biblically comprehensive rationale for the zing. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.”
Let’s get on with Spirit and Truth.
Kirsten is all Very pro-life.
Which to me shows why she is still so pretty for being a lib.
Because the Devil isn’t eating away at her soul.
And a reason why I can stand her. If you are aginst murdering babies I can listen to what you have to say even if I don’t agree with it.
It's been a long road. She's a recovering liberal. After all, she was briefly Anthony Weiner's girlfriend about 10 years ago, so she must have started with some weakness for BS.
Yes I read the piece she wrote-—it was here on FR at one time, and it can be googled too-—about how she found Christ, and how it has changed much of her life, values, priorities, friendships.
She lost a lot of friends over her newfound faith and that had to be difficult...not just in losing contact with certain people, but in realizing just how shallow was their regard for her in the first place.
All of that is in one’s mind as one posts slightly suggestive comments about her...and yet she is a lovely woman and I think a woman with a good sense of humor too.
If you asked the liberals to legislate into existence Star Trek transporters, they’d say that defies the laws of physics.
The same people seem to think the laws of economics are somehow less rigid. They’re not.
That explains, then, her analysis of ObamaCare.
The logic of liberal baby policy is: 1 second before it's born it isn't a baby, but one second after it's born it is a baby.
I'm surprised more democrats don't absolutely choke on that. It is so illogical that an honest person would have say to themselves, "That's stupid."
Same thing with ObamaCare. "I have to defend this mess and pretend it's a dandy plan." Then reality keeps hitting in the form of Obama waving his scepter over entire sections of his dysfunctional plan. After a while an honest person has to say, "This isn't just broken; it's chaos."
Exactly. It is by design. That’s why we see The Great Ob with his silly grin even when he isn’t stoned or fresh from a session with Reggie.
Yeah, honey, I get tired of MY job at times, too.
Hang in there. At least your pay is good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.