Whoa! Chicago Tribune Calls for Full-Blown #ObamaCare Repeal!

Points and Figures has it, "Hey, it looks like Senator Ted Cruz was right! Even the venerable Chicago Tribune is calling for outright repeal of Obamacare. It’s what happens when one party rams objectives down the throat of constituents."

And at the Tribune, "Stop digging. Start over":

As Friday dawns, here's what a health insurance crisis looks like to many millions of Americans: Barely six weeks shy of 2014, they do not know whether they will have medical coverage Jan. 1. Or which hospitals and doctors they might patronize. Or what they may pay to protect themselves and their families against the chance of medical and financial catastrophe. How much, that is, they may pay in order to satisfy the Democratic politicians and federal bureaucrats who are worsening a metastasizing health coverage fiasco.

For perhaps 5 million of those Americans thus far — estimates vary — the Washington-ordered cancellation of their policies is especially maddening. In the past these people took responsibility for their coverage and bought policies that balanced their needs, finances and personal choices. Congress and President Barack Obama, by enacting the Affordable Care Act, in effect ordered insurers to dismantle many of those individual plans — and cancel those policies.

The Americans manhandled by this exercise in government arrogance now find themselves divided into warring tribes: Those with chronic ailments who have found new plans on Obamacare exchanges and are pleased. Those who don't want or can't afford the replacement policies Obamacare offers them. Those whose new policies block them from using the health providers who have treated them for many years. The estimated 23 million to 41 million people whose employer-sponsored plans are the next to be imperiled. And on and on.

Most of these tribespeople only wish their big problem was a slipshod Obamacare website. On Thursday, their plight grew more frightful. With even Democratic members of Congress storming the White House over the cancellations, Obama declared — by what legal authority is unclear — that he would overrule the law he signed in 2010 and allow insurers to extend those canceled policies for a year.

If, that is, insurance regulators of the 50 states permit this potential distortion to risk pools inside and outside of Obamacare. The regulators, including those in Illinois, had better put protection ahead of politics: Within two hours of Obama's announcement, Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner of Washington, a Democrat-leaning state, rejected the president's notion, citing "its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market. ... We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies."

Note that these are the same insurance companies that have done what Obamacare demanded of them, while they often were being vilified by politicians and bureaucrats who haven't done what Obamacare demanded of them: Create workable, economically sustainable, insurance markets. A spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said Thursday that Obama's decree could further drive up prices: "Premiums were set based on assumptions about people transitioning to the (Obamacare) marketplaces," Robert Zirkelbach told The Washington Post. "Changing the rules in the middle of the game could dramatically change who actually signs up. If the exchanges become nothing more than a high-risk pool, that's going to result in massive premium increases for consumers"....

We understand why the president and leaders of his party want to rescue whatever they can of Obamacare. On their watch, official Washington has blown the launch of a new entitlement program ... under the schedule they alone set in early 2010.

What we don't understand is their reluctance to give that failure more than lip service. Many of the Americans who heard their president say Thursday that "we fumbled the rollout of this health care law" would have been pleased to hear him add: So we're admitting it. This law is a bust. We're starting over.

Remember, this is the president's hometown newspaper. Lots of hardcore Obama-cultists will be canceling their subscriptions at the audacity of dissing the dope!

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: 'Good Lord. She's Baghdad Bob...'

At Twitchy, "Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Remember, 500,000 have signed up for Obamacare."

She's also pushing the line that Democrats will run on ObamaCare in 2014. Bwahahaha!!

Rush Limbaugh Slams "#ObamaCare Fix" as Fairytale

It's unfixable, via Daily Rushbo.

#ObamaCare Debacle Sparks Debate Over Future of Big-Government

A great discussion with Eric Bolling and crew on Fox News this morning.

Michelle Fields is especially hot.

@EricBolling, Guilfoyle Battle Juan Williams Over How ‘Destructive’ Obama's Been http://t.co/Cbjp7j195C via @mediaite

— Michelle Fields (@MichelleFields) November 16, 2013

PREVIOUSLY: "#ObamaCare Implosion Signals Collapse of Radical Progressivism."

Obama on the Ropes

From Fred Barnes, at the Weekly Standard:

When in trouble, presidents have ways to escape the hubbub, deflect attention from what’s causing the problem, and wait for the whole thing to pass. In 1974, as Watergate was engulfing his presidency, President Nixon traveled to Egypt. A million people lined the roads to see him. Nixon aides quipped that “a million Egyptians can’t be wrong.” But they were wrong, and Nixon resigned a few weeks later.

In 1987, President Reagan was beset by the Iran-contra scandal. His advisers came up with a clever idea for him to emphasize in speeches, an “economic bill of rights.” Its acronym was EBOR, so it was half-jokingly referred to at the White House as “ebor.” Talking about it was preferable to addressing Iran-contra. But the press and public stayed focused on the scandal.

In the firestorm over Obamacare, President Obama has few of these tools of evasion at his disposal. His ability to change the subject from his embattled health insurance plan is limited. This is mostly his fault. Thus he was forced to yield last week to pressure to address the chorus of complaints generated by the cancellation of millions of individual policies....

Obama is in a bind. To save Democratic incumbents in the 2014 election, he’ll have to accept further changes that mollify critics while undercutting Obamacare’s fragile financing scheme. For Republicans, there’s a lesson here: Keep pressuring Obama to stop forcing people to buy more insurance coverage than they want or need, offer an attractive health plan of their own, and await the day a Republican president buries Obamacare once and for all.

That's what I'm talking about!

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon, "Here's a couple of Obamacare "Got Insurance" liberals didn't create (but they should have)..."

Shock: Obama Didn't Consult With Insurers Before He Announced His 'Plan' to Rewrite the Law Yet Again

At AoSHQ, "Obama did consult the insurers after he made his announcement, which is the smart way to do it."

Emma Kuziara

I've been slacking on my babe blogging.

The ClusterCare news has been just overwhelming, lol.

Here's Emma K., via Twitter.

'Charles Krauthammer was surprised when President Barack Obama invited him to the White House last month...'

Heh.

At Politico, "Krauthammer on Krauthammer":

Since Obama took office, the columnist and Fox News contributor has been among the most forceful critics of the president’s policies. Krauthammer’s long been widely read among conservatives, but has recently raised his prominence with unrelenting and searing attacks on the president’s health care plan, proclaiming earlier this month that the “unraveling” of Obamacare, the administration, and the Democratic Senate majority could amount to nothing less than “the collapse of American liberalism.”

With Obama’s approval rating at an all-time low, and the Republican establishment at odds with the conservative base, Krauthammer had become more than “critic in chief.” Blending high-mindedness with strong conservative values, he has commanded respect on both the extreme and moderate sides of the spectrum, becoming the closest thing the factionalized GOP could have to a spokesperson, a de facto opposition leader for the thinking right.

But on that October day when a small group of conservative writers gathered for an off-the-record session with Obama, Krauthammer checked his criticism at the gates to the White House.

“I wouldn’t presume to be schooling the president of the United States in his own house on political philosophy,” Krauthammer told POLITICO in a recent interview. “I wouldn’t do it to a friend, let alone to a president who invites me to see him. The role of that encounter is for me as a journalist, as an observer, as an outsider and as a critic to try and get a sense of how his mind works, so I can more accurately understand him and what he does. So it’s not my role to go in there and say ‘You’re a romantic, sir.’”

Such diplomacy goes right to the heart of Krauthammer’s temperament. Despite bold statements and dire predictions, Krauthammer is revered by colleagues on the right and widely respected by those on the left. Fellow pundits call him one of the most important voices in conservatism. Top Republican lawmakers read his columns, as does the President of the United States.

He's a classy guy.

Continue reading.

And here's Krauthammer's book at Amazon, Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics.

Sarah Silverman Returns Ex-Boyfriend Jimmy Kimmel's Things During Interview - UPDATED!!

Poor guy.

Kimmel was with Sarah Silverman? And whatever moved him to invite her on the show? Magnanimity, I guess.

From Kathy Shaidle, "Not only was Silverman’s cleavage more charismatic than her ex Jimmy Kimmel but her bit about returning Kimmel’s belongings was the funniest thing we’ve seen all week. Take note, ladies — this is how you win a breakup."

ADDED: That link is to a blog Kathy tweeted ( nd she commented at the post). My bad. Here's her entry, at Five Feet of Fury, "Five years later, Sarah Silverman still pushing ‘Jimmy’s ex-girlfriend’ schtick."

UnitedHealth Group Purges Doctors Amid Massive #ObamaCare Funding Cuts

It's the country's largest private Medicare provider --- getting slammed by Barack Obama's monstrosity.

Remember, Democrats had to destroy the American healthcare system in order to save it.

These cuts will essentially mean healthcare rationing for the elderly, long wait-times and curtailed doctor visits. Because equality!

At the Wall Street Journal, "UnitedHealth Culls Doctors From Medicare Advantage Plans: Physicians in 10 States Notified; Insurer Cites 'Funding Pressure' From Federal Government":

Doctors in at least 10 states have received termination letters, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the health-care environment." The notices also tell doctors they can appeal within 30 days. That means many physicians and patients won't know for sure who is in or out of UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage networks before the open-enrollment period to switch Medicare plans ends on Dec. 7.

UnitedHealth said its provider networks are always changing and that it expects its Medicare Advantage network "to be 85% to 90% of its current size by the end of 2014," although it declined to say how many doctors are being cut in individual states or what criteria it is using.

The company said it is managing its network, in part, to provide more value for members, particularly given Medicare's new five-star rating system that ties bonus payments for insurers to certain measures of cost and quality.

"That's what's driving our actions," said Austin Pittman, president of UnitedHealth's networks. He also said, "It's no secret that we are under substantial funding pressure from the federal government."

UnitedHealth Group reported a third-quarter profit of $1.57 billion last month, but Chief Executive Stephen J. Hemsley has issued cautious outlooks for 2014, citing expected cuts in Medicare payments tied to the Affordable Care Act.

Medicare Advantage, an alternative to traditional Medicare, combines hospital and doctor coverage and often includes prescription drugs and perks like gym memberships. Enrollment has more than doubled since 2004 to 13 million in 2012, which represents about 27% of Americans on Medicare.

The federal government pays private insurers a per-capita fee to manage the benefits. The rate is currently about 12% more than the average Medicare patient spends annually. The Obama administration plans to cut those extra payments to insurers by about $150 billion over the next 10 years to help pay for the health law. Some experts expect enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans to decline sharply if that occurs.

Other Medicare Advantage providers, including Humana Inc., Aetna Inc. and WellPoint Inc., said they are always evaluating their provider networks, but doctor groups say none appear to be shrinking them to the extent of UnitedHealth.

UnitedHealth is the biggest player, with nearly three million members in Advantage plans, many of them sold under the AARP brand. The company says it had over 350,000 doctors in its Advantage provider networks.

Among the practices UnitedHealth has dropped are Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., and the Yale Medical Group in New Haven, Conn., which includes 1,200 faculty physicians.

"Instead of a scalpel, United is using a chain saw," said Michael Saffir, a rehabilitation specialist and president of the Connecticut State Medical Society, which estimates the insurer has cut 2,200 doctors across the state.

Two Connecticut county medical groups filed suit against UnitedHealth in U.S. District Court, alleging that the terminations violated contract provisions.

Several state attorneys general are investigating. Congressional delegations have complained about the company's timing and tactics to Medicare administrator Marilyn Tavenner, as did 43 national medical associations and 40 state medical societies in a joint letter on Nov. 6.

A spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said CMS is reviewing UnitedHealth's and other provider's networks "to ensure that beneficiaries have full, transparent and timely information and access to needed care."

"We recognize that change is hard," said Mr. Pittman. "This is about meeting the needs of patients in specific geographic areas, improving the quality and sustainability of our networks and deepening our relationships with providers over the long term." The company said it had no comment about the investigations.

AARP issued a statement saying it "has heard from a small number of our members regarding this decision" and was encouraging anyone with concerns to contact UnitedHealth directly.

Some terminated physicians predicted that UnitedHealth's patient satisfaction, a factor in Medicare quality ratings, would suffer with fewer doctors in the network.

"Fewer practitioners mean longer waits, longer drives, less convenience," said ophthalmologist Steven Thornquist of Trumbull, Conn., who said he is the only specialist in adult strabismus—which causes double vision—in a 20-mile radius.

"Patients battling cancer should be focused on their treatment, not on finding another doctor," said gynecological oncologist Johnathan Lancaster, one of more than 200 doctors dropped from UnitedHealth's network at Moffitt, which is a nationally recognized cancer center.

Dr. Lancaster said the cuts mean that about 2,500 current Moffitt patients will have to switch plans or find other cancer doctors—and that thousands more who come for consultations and second opinions can no longer use their UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plans there.

IMAGE CREDIT: Michelle Malkin.

The Only 'Fix' Is to Scrap #ObamaCare

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ, "The President's ObamaCare Backpedal":

The White House "fix" was likely also groundwork to shift the blame for canceled policies to insurers and state regulators, trusting the public won't notice the difference between "can" and "may." It is highly unlikely that most insurers "can" rip up their business plans (rates, policies, eligibility, actuarial tables), get state regulator approval, reprogram their computers, send out notices and new explanations, give consumers time to think, and then re-sign people up in the one month that remains before the Dec. 15 deadline. But as Mr. Obama has now said they "may," and you can bet he'll blame the failure for this to happen on anyone but his administration.

The question is whether blame-shifting is even possible. The Obama announcement was designed to quell the cancellation furor, to push it beyond next year's midterms. But what's becoming clear to horrified Washington Democrats is just how successfully they re-engineered health care. ObamaCare's pieces are vastly complex, intricately linked, and built upon each other. For Democrats who want political cover, there are no "fixes" around the edges.

A great piece. Strassel's one of my very favorite political writers.

RTWT.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers on 'The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson'

She's weeks away from having another baby!

What a great lady.

The #ObamaCare Implosion is Real — And it's Spectacular!

From Director Blue, "HEADLINE O' THE DAY: ClusterCare":

The cover of today's New York Post, subtle as always. pic.twitter.com/peF0g6ejpL

— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) November 15, 2013

BONUS: From Johah Goldberg, "Obamacare Schadenfreudarama":

If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place. Because, frankly, this has been one of the most enjoyable political moments of my lifetime. I wake up in the morning and rush to find my just-delivered newspaper with a joyful expectation of worsening news so intense, I feel like Morgan Freeman should be narrating my trek to the front lawn. Indeed, not since Dan Rather handcuffed himself to a fraudulent typewriter, hurled it into the abyss, and saw his career plummet like Ted Kennedy was behind the wheel have I enjoyed a story more.

Jean-Claude Van Damme Epic Volvo 'Split' Ad

From Mary Katharine Ham, at Hot Air, "Video: Jean-Claude Van Dammmmmnnnn."

Socialist Kshama Sawant Wins Seattle City Council Seat

Well, it's Seattle.

I doubt this is a bellwether, especially considering how socialism's taking a beating at the national level.

At the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Socialist Sawant wins City Council seat."

Seattle City Council candidate Kshama Sawant, a “Socialist Alternative” insurgent, has unseated four-term incumbent Richard Conlin, with the latest batch of mail-in ballots nearly tripling Sawant’s lead to 1,148 votes.

A year ago, Sawant was running against the Legislature’s most powerful Democrat, House Speaker Frank Chopp, charging that the “Democratic Party-majority government” had slashed billions from education programs while bestowing tax exemptions on “rich corporations.”

On Thursday evening, however, the victorious “working class activist” Sawant was headed for a 36th District Democratic fundraiser sponsored by State Sen. Jeanne Kohn-Welles. Sawant’s tireless journalist booster, Stranger news editor Dominic Holden, is appearing on a post-election panel at the event.

The Sawant victory comes exactly 97 years after Seattle voters put their first outspoken radical into office, Seattle School Board member Anna Louise Strong. Strong would write about the Wobblies, oppose U.S. entry into World War I and eventually end her days in China, where she was on friendly terms with Mao Zedong.

While the Occupy Seattle organizer is about to occupy an office in the council chambers, ballots are still being counted in several close races. One big ballot measure is still hanging, while other contests appear narrowly decided.

The $15-an-hour minimum wage proposal in SeaTac, already under legal challenge, leads by exactly 53 votes. The margin was cushioned by 12 votes in Thursday’s count.

The proposal for taxpayer-financed elections in Seattle, Proposition 1, has climbed in the late vote count. Unlike Sawant — who overcame a 6,193-vote election night deficit — Prop. 1 hasn’t quite climbed enough. The “No” side still has a lead of 2,656 votes.

So, an "Occupy Seattle" organizer wins a seat on the city council. Maybe she can personally clean the defecation off the city's police cars, the idiot.

And wouldn't you know it, but the folks at Democracy Now! are down with it, to say nothing of Katrina vandenHeuval at the Nation.

Again, thank goodness the left's socialist agenda is imploding at the national level. You'll always have the local communist kooks, but folks are finally waking up to the socialist nightmare that's darkly enveloped the country since at least 2008.

IMAGE CREDIT: Kshama Sawant on Twitter.

39 House Democrats Vote for Upton Bill

At LAT, "Dozens of House Democrats back Republican healthcare bill":

WASHINGTON — Dealing a blow to President Obama’s effort to fix problems with his healthcare law, more than three dozen House Democrats voted Friday to support a Republican-sponsored bill to address the crisis, brushing aside White House warnings that the legislation would only make matters worse.

Thirty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in a 261-157 vote  to approve the legislation, offered by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), which would allow insurers to continue selling individual policies that do not meet new federal standards.

The Democratic defections, which the White House and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) had hoped to prevent, highlighted the growing unease among House Democrats over the botched rollout of the program and dissatisfaction with the administration's proposed fix, announced by the president on Thursday.

Both the Upton bill and the president's administrative fix were crafted to respond to the number of cancellation notices being sent to customers in the individual insurance market, despite repeated promises by Obama that Americans would be allowed to keep their plans if they wanted.

The GOP-controlled House was always expected to approve the bill, which Republicans described as the first step in a campaign to kill the Affordable Care Act.

“The president repeatedly said that if you liked your healthcare plan you could keep it,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “We knew this was a promise he could not keep, and now it’s a promise he has broken.”

The vote was seen as a critical test of Democratic unity. The president sought to tamp down a revolt from congressional Democrats by announcing the administrative remedy, which gave insurance companies federal permission to renew policies for one year.

Also at NYT, "House Passes Bill Letting People Keep Their Health Plans."

Democrats Won't Apologize for Destroying America's Healthcare System

From John McCormack, at the Weekly Standard, "House Democratic Leaders: We Will Not Apologize to Americans Losing Their Health Insurance":

One week ago, President Obama apologized for giving millions of Americans false assurances that they could keep their health care plans if they liked them. At a press conference Thursday evening, House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Xavier Becerra, and Jim Clyburn were asked if they would like to apologize for making the same false claim. All of them declined.

"I don't think there's anything for us to apologize for," said Clyburn.

"There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that said that your insurance company should cancel you," said Minority Leader Pelosi.

In fact, the Affordable Care Act says that plans created after March of 2010 must be cancelled, and the law also gave the administration the authority to write regulations that forced the cancellation of some policies that existed prior to March 2010.

"Did I ever tell my constituents that if they liked their plan they could keep it?" Pelosi asked. "I would have if I'd ever met anybody who liked his or her plan. But that was not my experience."

In fact, Pelosi said in 2009: "If you like what you have, you can keep it." Pelosi's website still states: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."

"As far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned, what the president said was completely accurate," Pelosi said.

More at the link.

Mitt Romney on CBS 'This Morning': 'The Real Problem the President Has' Isn’t a Website, 'It’s Dishonesty...'

I caught this earlier --- and was reminded of how much better things would be if Romney'd have won last year.

Instapundit has it, "Related: Romney’s Uncanny Predictions About Obama’s Second Term Make Him Look Like He Had Psychic Superpowers."

#ObamaCare Implosion Signals Collapse of Radical Progressivism

There's lots and lots of coverage of the implosion of the president's signature legislation.

I'll be posting as much as I can throughout the day, but certainly the biggest story is now, whatever happens with the law, Obama has personally crossed a political threshold over which he'll never return. He's just not the same old ego-driven big-talker, with his chin stuck up high in the air like a pompous know-it-all. Nope. Now he's a mumbling dishonest groveler struggling to appear reasonably competent in the face of the biggest government debacle in decades. It's been an absolutely stunning political defeat. But of even bigger significance is what the president's collapse means for modern progressivism --- not "liberalism," mind you, but "progressivism," as the left adopted that term to escape the disastrous political baggage of modern liberalism and reinvent leftist ideology as big-government socialism with a wink and a nudge. With enough race-baiting and political demonization of the right, the ruse worked well enough to earn the presidential impostor a second term. But the jig is up. The bloom is off the progressive rose.

Charles Krauthammer offers a devastating autopsy, "Why liberals are panicked about Obamacare":

At stake ... is more than the fate of one presidency or of the current Democratic majority in the Senate. At stake is the new, more ambitious, social-democratic brand of American liberalism introduced by Obama, of which Obamacare is both symbol and concrete embodiment.

Precisely when the GOP was returning to a more constitutionalist conservatism committed to reforming, restructuring and reining in the welfare state (see, for example, the Paul Ryan Medicare reform passed by House Republicans with near-unanimity), Obama offered a transformational liberalism designed to expand the role of government, enlarge the welfare state and create yet more new entitlements (see, for example, his call for universal preschool in his most recent State of the Union address).

The centerpiece of this vision is, of course, Obamacare, the most sweeping social reform in the past half-century, affecting one-sixth of the economy and directly touching the most vital area of life of every citizen.

As the only socially transformational legislation in modern American history to be enacted on a straight party-line vote, Obamacare is wholly owned by the Democrats. Its unraveling would catastrophically undermine their underlying ideology of ever-expansive central government providing cradle-to-grave care for an ever-grateful citizenry.

For four years, this debate has been theoretical. Now it’s real. And for Democrats, it’s a disaster.

It begins with the bungled rollout. If Washington can’t even do the Web site — the literal portal to this brave new world — how does it propose to regulate the vast ecosystem of American medicine?

Beyond the competence issue is the arrogance. Five million freely chosen, freely purchased, freely renewed health-care plans are summarily canceled. Why? Because they don’t meet some arbitrary standard set by the experts in Washington.

For all his news conference gyrations about not deliberately deceiving people with his “if you like it” promise, the law Obama so triumphantly gave us allows you to keep your plan only if he likes it. This is life imitating comedy — that old line about a liberal being someone who doesn’t care what you do as long as it’s mandatory.

Lastly, deception. The essence of the entitlement state is government giving away free stuff. Hence Obamacare would provide insurance for 30 million uninsured, while giving everybody tons of free medical services — without adding “one dime to our deficits,” promised Obama.

This being inherently impossible, there had to be a catch. Now we know it: hidden subsidies. Toss millions of the insured off their plans and onto the Obamacare “exchanges,” where they would be forced into more expensive insurance packed with coverage they don’t want and don’t need — so that the overcharge can be used to subsidize others.

The reaction to the incompetence, arrogance and deception has ranged from ridicule to anger. But more is in jeopardy than just panicked congressional Democrats. This is the signature legislative achievement of the Obama presidency, the embodiment of his new entitlement-state liberalism. If Obamacare goes down, there will be little left of its underlying ideology.

And realize that it's not just people like Krauthammer who recognize the impact of ObamaCare's implosion on the entire leftist project. Ezra Klein, perhaps the progressive left's biggest ObamaCare booster outside of the White House, grudgingly acknowledges how this disaster is crushing modern progressivism, even if he's loathe to express it in so many words. See, "Wonkbook: Obamacare’s troubles threaten Obama’s core political project":

Like many Democrats of his generation, Obama believes that the government is necessary — but that the government must be redeemed if it's to be trusted. He thinks the American people are rightly suspicious that the government doesn't do big things well. He venerates the market's capacity for innovation and efficiency even as he struggles against its ruthlessness and cruelty. And he ran for office convinced that if the American political system was going to be able to address the country's problems going forward, it would require an end to the old ideological battles and the forging of a new policy consensus.

The Affordable Care Act is the purest incarnation of these theories. It's meant to protect Americans from the predations of both the job market and the health-insurance market by making sure the poorest Americans can afford coverage, the sickest Americans can't be denied it and no one is tricked into plans that prove inadequate when health crises strike.

But it's also meant to avoid the pitfalls — both substantive and political — of big-government programs by relying on private insurers competing in tightly regulated, highly transparent, government-structured marketplaces. That's why Obama modeled the plan off of Mitt Romney's largely successful health reforms in Massachusetts. What better way to absorb Republican ideas and generate Republican buy-in then to adopt an idea from one of the GOP's leading lights?

Obamacare's success would've affirmed the theories underlying Obama's presidency — theories that could then be picked up by future presidents. Instead, Obamacare is systematically blowing apart the very premises it's based on.

Of course we'll be seeing last gasp efforts on the left to spin the ObamaCare collapse as the fault of Republicans or the insurance companies, but at this point the most common word I'm hearing on television news is "panic." It's indeed a turning point.

Now there's lots of shadenfreude on the right, and for good reason. This is a wholly owned Democrat debacle. The important thing for conservatives is to avoid acceding co-ownership of the sundry healthcare fixes now being floated on Capital Hill. Sure, constituents need relief. But short-term fixes to the law aren't smart. We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare in toto, and despite the meme that Republicans haven't offered alternatives, the fact is market-based healthcare reforms have been in wide circulation throughout the entire past five years of the Obama interregnum. What matters is for Republicans to win majority control of Congress and the presidency. Then they'll have the institutional political power to unwind the plague of progressivism that's been destroying America for these last few sorry years.

BONUS: At Hot Air, "Krauthammer: Obama’s insurance “fix” just another example of him “rewriting a law unilaterally”."

Obama Offers Fake Solution to #ObamaCare Crisis

At IBD, "Obama's Phony Cancellation Solution":

Fraud: President Obama's attempt to fix the insurance cancellation problem that his own law created isn't meant to help anyone. It's an attempt to shift blame for the mess onto the backs of insurance companies. Some fix.

Even a cursory glance at Obama's "plan" shows that it won't solve anything. Obama says state insurance commissioners could, if they want, let insurance companies extend existing individual plans another year. But they don't have to.

Obama would also leave it up to the insurance companies whether they'd extend these policies, while requiring them to send letters to millions who've already gotten cancellation notices explaining why their current plans suck — thereby loading still more costs onto the backs of insurance companies.

Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether Obama can even do this legally.

This is a president who, after all, has already arbitrarily changed and postponed various parts of ObamaCare — such as the congressional opt-out, the employer mandate, various enforcement rules, cuts to Medicare Advantage, out-of-pocket caps — when they would have proved politically hazardous.

The question is: Why should anyone trust Obama's latest "you can keep your plan" promise?

It turns out, no one should.

Even if Obama's proposal were legal — and he hasn't even convinced liberal stalwarts like Howard Dean, who wonders whether Obama "has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set this up" — it is logistically impossible. And Obama knows it.

Continue reading.