It looks like from the preliminary report below that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius is falling on her sword and protecting the president. As with all the previous scandals in this administration, the party line is "The president was not informed."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/30/sebelius-to-face-grilling-at-hearing-on-glitch-ridden-obamacare-website-rollout/
Does anybody ever tell Obama anything? Nobody told him about Fast and Furious. Nobody told him that the attack in Benghazi was by al Qaeda. Nobody told him about the IRS scandal. Nobody told him about the NSA bugging Angela Merkel. One wonders what his daily briefings consist of-the ball scores?
And I don't see anywhere where Sibelius is submitting her resignation.
Where is the accountability in this administration?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Does anybody ever tell Obama anything? Nobody told him about Fast and Furious. Nobody told him that the attack in Benghazi was by al Qaeda. Nobody told him about the IRS scandal. Nobody told him about the NSA bugging Angela Merkel."
I bet Michelle and Valerie brief him daily.
Squid
During the recent House hearing, in response to an inquiry from Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) as to whether she would forego her Federal health insurance plan and sign up for one of the exchanges as she is pushing/requiring at least tens of millions of others to do, Gannett News (not really a right-wing organization, I believe) quoted her as first saying she would "look at it" and later stating she believed such an action on her part would be "illegal". How so??
I guess I have never really understood this whole boondoggle from the getgo. Part of the problem is that some, even many, intentionally or through ignorance, tend to use the terms "health insurance" and "healthcare" somewhat interchangeably, when they are in fact entirely different processes.
Pre-Obamacare, depending on who you read/watch/listen to, some 85-90 per cent of us had health insurance, largely ranging from average/basically adequate to outstanding, and about 85 per cent of that 85-90 per cent were quite happy with what they had. Of the remaining 10-15 per cent who did not have health insurance, a significant number, in the tens of millions I believe, were eligible for Medicaid but simply had not enrolled therein.
The 10-15 per cent who do not have insurance did have, of course, basic health care available through hospital ER's if nowhere else. While this is obviously not the best source for care, it is infinitely better that what billions elsewhere in the world have access to.
Further, if you have neither insurance nor sufficient money, you cannot be turned away and this healthcare is FREE. Upon presentation to the ER, you will be diagnosed/treated and either sent home with instructions/prescriptions, etc. or, alternatively, admitted as an inpatient. To reiterate, while this is not the best possible care, it is a LOT better than no care at all.
Quite obviously, while we do need safety nets in various areas for a certain segment of the population, just as obviously, it would have been, and still could be, much simpler, cheaper, and more effective to address the 10-15 per cent where necessary and let the 85-90 per cent continue as usual.
But no, what we have to do in order to provide mediocre/marginally better healthcare to a comparatively very few (perhaps only about 15 million, since according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, some 30 million will still not have health insurance under Obamacare) is to reduce healthcare for the very many, such that their care drops to the average/adequate from the good/very good/excellent.
This, of course comes with a price tag in terms of additional fees and taxes which will be passed on to the rest of us, some of whom can barely afford it. There will also be costs in terms of increased premiums and cuts in benefits to the bulk of us, which has already started and which will continue.
Post a Comment