Washington Post

[MikeWaters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122002127.html

Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates the Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small-group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the CBO disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties.

So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation's passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.

There's going to be hell to pay for this.

[MikeWaters]

Americans are uneasy, distrusting, tired, and mystified by the healthcare debate currently.

That's why you are not seeing massive protests.

Hands are getting greased all over the place. Big Pharma has cut a deal. AMA has cut a deal.

There is the feeling that we are getting screwed, but we just don't know how yet. The American people are smart. When they find out what the fallout is, the reaction will be swift.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122002127.html





There's going to be hell to pay for this.

Those two quotes emphasize my concerns. We're f...ed, but Emperor Obama would have it no other way.

I wonder if he'll campaign for a Nobel Prize in medicine in light of this debacle.