I’ve been sick. I noticed the Senate hearings hearing on CSPAN over the ACA with Kathleen Sebelius. I believe we’ve talked about Senate hearings before, during the Benghazi hearings. Republicans attack, Democrats through softballs. You can tell they’re a Republican or Democrat by their opening. I’ll provide a summary of the hearings, with the admission I didn’t make to the end. Ok, couldn’t make it to the end. I’m making these comments under the idea that the ACA is really about healthcare and not about income redistribution. Anyway, here’s a few of my own highlights.
Henry Waxman, D-California, starts his speech by highlighting the politics surrounding this and says “All of this is exacerbated by wild propagandist political statements that have been made even today.” Then goes on to quote the Congressional budget office, which he mentions as non-partisan, and quotes their “estimates” for future enrollment and coverage and points to these as how successful the ACA will be. Honestly, Henry? That’s why you’re there today, because every estimate that’s already been made has not been close to being achieved, has been a failure. So, you cannot point to future estimates as signposts of success. How do these people get away with this?
Then, Henry, you made what to me is the coup de gras of bad arguments, argument by anecdote. You quoted “Stephanie of Pennsylvania.” This terrible tactic should be reserved only for the Presidential State of the Union addresses.
Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee asks about how much money is obligated.
Sebelius replied that; “To date, through the end of October 2014 we’ve obligated 677 million dollars for total IT costs, and so far have outlaid 319 of the 677.” So, you’ve spent half already, and we’re not any farther than this?
Rep John Dingell, D-Michigan, says that Republicans are employing scare tactics instead of encouraging people to sign up and that “doubt exists where none exists nor should.” Did someone just roll you out of your coffin? Did you really say that no doubt should exist about something that so far has been a unmitigated cluster? Dingell didn’t even give us the courtesy of quoting “Stephanie from Pennsylvania.” He read letters from “a constituent.”
Rep. Joe Barton R-Texas, points out that the system isn’t done, how are people going to pay to make sure they have coverage in January?
Sebelius assures him this will not happen. They’ve planned for this. Sure Kathy, you’ve been on point with everything else.
Barton points out the administration is not following their own law on providing subsidies to people who must go through their state exchanges as the law requires. Sebelius defers to the Justice dept. Barton asks her what’s her stance? She defers to the Justice dept. So, is it the law or not?
Democrats like to generally point out that enrollees are increasing, and this is a good thing. They don’t like to point out it’s not hard to go up from zero.
Michael Burgess, Rep-Texas, calls out Sebelius on several points. The biggest one that he closes with is that he himself, has signed up, and was unable to make his payment. So, how are they going to make sure people are going to be covered when they can’t pay? In addition, he asks her if she has any idea how hard it is to make the payment in the first place, (money-wise for people who don’t have a lot) and additionally when it’s a technical dead-end. She has no answer. Time expires.
Next comes Representative Ed Whitfield R-Kentucky. Ed, you are so on point. He starts out by mentioning the fact that when the most comprehensive change for healthcare ever in America went to the floor, no one could offer an amendment. Then, he follows with this: “This all could be leading to a two-healthcare system. One for the wealthiest Americans, and everyone else under the ACA. That is exactly what has happened in other countries that have went down this path.” Yea, chilling point indeed.
I also like Whitfield because he kept referring to a simple fact that this administration is unaware of. When you talk about things being “paid for” you are referring to taxpayer’s money. The “subsidy” is taxpayer’s money. We’re all playing in the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. (He didn’t say this, I did).
Congressman John Shimkus and Sebelius had the most heated exchange over “mandated coverages.” At one point he says “It’s like talking to the Republic of Korea or something.” Yea, he actually said that. Got pretty heated then. He goes on to point out that Sebelius promised a list regarding policies that had abortion services. He asks for this list. Sebelius says it listed on the plans. Basically, she doesn’t have it and is not providing it even though she apparently promised it.
It’s a circus spectacle.
Congressman Timothy Murphy, R, Pennsylvania, points out that a lot of numbers are being thrown around pertaining to how many have signed up, how many have paid more, how many have paid less, etc., and that it would big good to have the actual facts. Sebelius does not have any facts pertaining to any of those subjects. She goes on to say that basically they won’t be able to tell them anything. That’s my paraphrase, anyway. But if you think she’s going to produce any hard numbers or facts about anything, inbox me, I’ve got some real estate for sale.
Ok, enough, we’re not accomplishing anything here, back to some On Demand.
Two final points….
The Democrats like to wave the “people are only losing their plans because they’re bad plans” BS. Which is the typical “We know what’s better for you than you know what’s better for you” elitist drivel of the left wing. I’m sure we’re going to hear this in various forms for quite a while now.
People have until the 23rd to sign up. Then they have until the end of the month to pay. So that would be December 31? Have any of these idiots thought about the fact that people that are having to pay for these plans will have to pay 6 days after Christmas? Does this not occur to any of these people? Personally, I don’t think they care one way or another. If you really gave a damn about the working man, you could’ve at least moved those dates.