Like seemingly most who work for Team Obama, Kathleen Sebelius is rather divorced from reality
(Fox News) Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the timeline for the ObamaCare rollout was “flat-out wrong” and that the federal exchange could have used “more time and testing†before going online.
Sebelius, who led the agency through the problem-plagued rollout, made her comments in an interview that aired Sunday on “NBC’s “Meet the Press,†the first interview since she announced her resignation Thursday.
“Clearly, the estimate that it was ready to go Oct. 1 was just flat-out wrong,” she said Sunday.
And who, exactly, was in ultimately in charge of making sure that the federal exchange website? She discusses this like she had little culpability.
Sebelius also said the roughly first eight weeks of the glitch-filled rollout was the low point of her five years as secretary.
Still, she defended the President Obama’s signature law, arguing millions of Americans now have access to health care because of it.
“People have competitive choices and real information for the first time ever in this insurance market,” Sebelius said.
I’m not sure whether to laugh or scream based on the utter idiocy, the sheer propaganda element of that comment. In what reality does this make any sense? In a large number of states, there are only 1-3 insurers participating. In many exchanges, both state and federal, the nations largest insurers said “nope, no thanks.” Even in the states with lots of providers, many have little offerings. California is supposed to have 11 different providers, but many only operate in certain areas, and many only offer one plan per level.
Does Sebelius think these health insurance companies just sprang up to operate in the Obamacare exchanges, and there were few prior to the passage of Ocare? Let’s not forget about all the doctors, medical facilities, and hospitals (including some of the countries best) that are not participating in Ocare networks, either voluntarily or because they were not included to control costs.
I’ve had company provided insurance since I started working back in my early 20’s: I’ve had all the information I needed, even back in the early 90’s when the Internet was in its infancy and insurers provided you with paper explanations and you called them on a landline phone.
It’s no wonder people have little trust in Government, when they spin and flat out lie in manners such as this.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
[…] Speaking of Sebelius, over the weekend she sat down for an interview and actually said that thanks to Obamacare people have choices for the first time ever. […]
Teach typed: “I’ve had company provided insurance since I started working back in my early 20′s: I’ve had all the information I needed, even back in the early 90′s when the Internet was in its infancy and insurers provided you with paper explanations and you called them on a landline phone.”
Good for you. Why do some companies provide health insurance? Because it’s subsidized by the federal government. They get a tax break to provide health insurance.
Good for you for having health insurance that is subsidized by other taxpayers. Good for you. But why would you work so hard to keep others from obtaining government subsidized health insurance like yours?
If I’m a hypocrite for driving a Mazda 8 miles to work, what does that make you for enjoying subsidized health insurance but not wanting others to have it?
It makes you a hypocrite. Willful ignorance on your part is not excuse.
There are many reasons the least of which is the one you gave.
Many companies believe they should offer health care as for their employees. That is their choice. Some companies started offering health care for their employees as an incentive for new hires within the marketplace.
A tax break is not a subsidy. Never has been. Never will be.
But Jeffery’s main point seems to be that a company should be forced to pay for other companies’ decisions to not offer health care. Why that should be the case gets into the idea that Jeffery and his ilk believe that the government has a role in controlling the decisions a company makes.
He also believes that a company should be forced to pay for the same thing twice – the first time when a company pays for insurance for their employees and the second time when they should be forced to pay for others.
It makes you a hypocrite. Willful ignorance on your part is not excuse.
Okay, so let’s be clear here. You are admitting that you are a hypocrite based upon the idea that you do what you say others should not do. However, as usual, your premise is off because a company spending its own money is not a government subsidy. Nice try, but if anything your position shows how you believe that everything and every penny a person makes belongs to the government as opposed to the idea the country was founded upon which was that people have the right to the fruits of their labor.
You just cannot help being against freedom, can you?
Tax breaks are not subsidies??? That’s just silly, or dumb. Of course tax breaks are subsidies!
In a population, let’s say we have 1000 people who make $100,000. There is a flat tax of 20%, so each of those 1000 owes $20,000. One person gets tax breaks reducing their obligation to 10%, meaning they now owe only $10,000. Their take home is now net $90,000 instead of $80,000. Are you saying that’s significantly different from paying $20,000 in taxes but getting $10,000 of that rebated as a “subsidy”?
The subsidy on employer based health insurance is about $300 billion/year, i.e., income that is not taxed. So every 10 years we spend some $3 trillion to support “Cadillac” healthcare plans like Mr. Teach has. Why do we choose to subsidize the middle to upper classes at the expense of others? Because the “others” have so little clout. Mr. Teach has good insurance because of taxpayer subsidies. Period.
Mr. Teach, gitar and their ilk are hypocrites, sucking at the teat of America while not wanting others, less fortunate than them, to join in.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren’t entitled to change the definitions of words to fit your own agenda.
Ummm….. because we haven’t?
It is difficult to discuss this with you because you simply will not admit that your definition is wrong.
Suffice it to say that as usual, you are not telling the truth.