In a Monday dispatch about Obamacare's really bad year and future prospects at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, reporter Calvin Woodward took as a given the left's assumption that Republicans and conservatives take pleasure in the suffering of real people as long as it furthers their political aims when he wrote that "Republicans, of course ... feigned indignation that the law many of them despise wasn't working out so well." That's pure lefist projection.
The genuine indignation has two sources, Mr. Woodward. The first is that much of what has transpired as a result of the deeply flawed Affordable Care Act was predicted or known and ignored. The other is that there were red flags galore ahead of the debut of the HealthCare.gov web site that it wasn't ready. They were deliberately ignored. To name just one instance, those in charge of security wouldn't sign off on the idea of going live on October 1; of course, Team Obama launched anyway. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
WHAT NEXT FOR HEALTH LAW: CALM OR MORE TURBULENCE?
Whether you love it or hate it or are just plain confused by it, you've got to give the health care law this much: There's plenty of drama.
The nail biting goes on. As the clock ticks toward the Jan. 1 start of insurance coverage under President Barack Obama's big, bold and bedraggled creation, there are inklings it might get a second wind.
But that could turn out to be just hot air.
THE GOOD
No more denying people coverage when they've been sick. No more stratospheric premiums for the previously or currently ill, either. No more cutting off insurance payments because someone has used up a year's worth of benefits. [1] ...
... Few in the polarized debate over the health care overhaul defend the history of an insurance system that can drive people into poverty when they get sick or steer them away from treatment they need.
THE BAD
More than 4 million people lost coverage because their policies fell short of new federal standards. Far fewer gained insurance in the new markets in that time. This happened despite Obama's repeated and now discredited pledge that people happy with their insurance could simply keep it. [2] He partnered that assurance with a promise that people happy with their doctors could keep them, too. Not so, in many cases. Another rude awakening. [3]
THE UGLY
Ugly goes to HealthCare.gov, the federal government's buggy online insurance portal, impenetrable for weeks for many if not most who tried to see what plans they could choose from and perhaps sign up for one.
THE UNRAVELING
Washington can put a positive spin on almost anything, and federal officials did just that at the very start. Yes, HealthCare.gov is buckling under the user load. That's because folks love it!
The smiley face soon melted into a swamp of recriminations. Led by Republicans, of course, who feigned indignation that the law many of them despise wasn't working out so well. [4] A more authentic response came from Democrats: the heebie-jeebies. [5]
Notes:
[1] — In just one of well over a dozen examples of changing the law on the fly, the prohibition of out-of-pocket caps has been waived until 2015.
[2] — "Now discredited"? The administration has known that "you can keep your plan" was false for 3-1/2 years. Republicans even tried to do something about it in 2010 when the damning Federal Register estimates of who would lose their coverage in the individual and employer markets were published. They stopped dead in his tracks in a party-line vote, obviously including many of the same Democrats who are now running for cover from Obama's false guarantee.
[3] — "You can't keep your doctor" is a broken promise, not just a "rude awakening."
[4] — Woodward is communicating the left's tired talking point that Republicans don't care about people, and only care about scoring political points. What a load of rubbish.
[5] — So Democrats are "authentic," and Republicans are "feigned." Though it would just as unfair to accuse Democrats of only getting the "heebie-jeebies" about Obamacare's problems because it hurts their reelection prospects, it's certainly also an element in the calculus of their complaints.
My indignation that an AP reporter would simply relay a tired, leftist talking point as if it's "of course" a settled fact is not feigned.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
