I don’t remember where I found the link to the ThinkProgress post entitled Republicans Reject Obamacare ‘Fix’ Because It Includes Too Many Consumer Protections, and I am certainly not going to risk sending them any traffic by providing it here. Still, the hypocrisy should be noted for its humor. The post castigates House Republicans for rejecting a Democrat bill that allowed insurance companies to provide consumers with the plans Obama promised them they could keep.
The Democrat version differed from the bill the Republicans (along with 39 Democrats) did pass in that the Democrat version:
1- Did not allow new policyholders to buy the plans
2- Mandated that insurers notify policyholders of exchange options
3- Mandated that existing rate review processes apply to renewed plans
In other words, it put further burdens on insurance companies – making it unlikely they could even offer the plans in the new few weeks. Both “fixes” allow the plans to be sold and, therefore, equally violate consumer protection by offering the plans the Democrats call “substandard” “junk.”
There is a more humorous aspect, however. The consumer protection laws ThinkProgress finds so important absolutely prohibit false advertising and fraud. Those are crimes the President committed when he repeatedly lied about Obamacare. What consumers need is protection from the President.
Why would any organization continue to pursue practices and policies which have exactly the opposite effects of their stated goals? Why would they double down on an obvious failure??
Ethanol as fuel provides a case study:
Ethanol Fraud and Why You Pay More at the Pump
It starts as mere cronyism, and ends up as Fascism – the ultimate public-private partnership. The partners will beggar consumers (and tax them for the privilege), pollute the air and water, install protectionist tariffs and stifle innovation and competition with arcane and draconian regulation.
When this is rolling along nicely, they create an unnecessary and inefficient market to
place rigged bets on trade in the ruination. All the while they whine about the evils of free markets, castigating “greedy people” who are too venal and stupid to behave according to the central plan. The solutions always require more money and more regulation.
Conservatives (who used to be called liberals) believe all people are imperfect and subject to the temptations of power. Therefore, they seek to limit the application of power.
Progressives (who are now called liberals) believe all people, except those in power, are imperfect, and that the temptations of power are trumped by good intentions. They seek to maximize the application of their intentions – no matter the results.
Note: The article linked above repeats itself, so when you reach the part you’ve already read, you can stop.
The sequester debate isn’t about spending cuts, it’s about a tiny slowing in the rate of increase of funds transferred to Federal rent seekers. Noted in the Wall Street Journal: The Unscary Sequester
In Mr. Obama’s first two years, while private businesses and households were spending less and deleveraging, federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84% with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets.
… from 2008-2013 federal discretionary spending has climbed to $1.062 trillion from $933 billion—an increase of 13.9%. Domestic programs grew by 16.6%, much faster than the 11.6% for national security.
Transportation funding alone climbed to $69.5 billion in 2010 with the stimulus from $10.7 billion in 2008, and in 2013 the budget is still $17.9 billion, or about 67% higher. Education spending more than doubled in Mr. Obama’s first two years and is up 18.6% to $68.1 billion from 2008-2013.
… total discretionary domestic spending is up closer to 30% from 2008-2013. The sequester would claw that back by all of about 5%.
… The sequester will surely require worker furloughs and cutbacks in certain nonpriority services. But most of those layoffs will happen in the Washington, D.C. area, the recession-free region that has boomed during the Obama era.
If Mr. Obama were really serious about improving the equality of income distribution, he might consider that a positive. According to Stephen S. Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University, about
“…15 cents of every dollar from the entire federal procurement budget stays in or around the government’s hometown. …”We’re seeing an enormous transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the Washington economy,” said Fuller.”
Upton Sinclair was a socialist, but when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” he was on to something; though he did neglect to mention the mendacity of politicians in fostering said ignorance. The threats issuing forth from the Obama administration – to prioritize cutting baby food and meat inspection rather than not funding the next Solyndra or ending high speed rail boondoggles; and putting slashing veterans benefits ahead of cancelling the DOD’s “green” projects – show a cynical disregard for taxpayers and reveal the deep hypocrisy of the president’s purported compassion.