Repeal ObamaCare: Restitch America's fabric
Government interventionism only begets more government interventionism. Government has to continually lie to cover up the predictable failures of its past lies. It's a vicious cycle that tears at the very fabric of America — from free markets and property rights, to freedom and liberty itself.
Welcome to ObamaCare.
In the latest intervention “required” to make sure the last intervention “works,” President Obama on Friday wiped the egg off his face with more egg and announced that those who really want to keep their insurance really can keep their insurance this time around.
That's as long as those big, bad insurance companies that necessitated the government takeover of health insurance — the same bad actors who have spent the last three-plus years overhauling their business models to comply with the last government intervention diktat — can, in a matter of weeks, revert to their old “subpar,” “junk” and “predatory business practices” and policies of old. But just for one year, mind you.
And if they can't do that (or if state insurance commissioners, who have the final say, balk) because real markets aren't very functional in government command-and-control situations, well, hey, “We tried,” the Obama administration will say.
The only real solution is to scrap ObamaCare, remove government from our health care, restore the true meaning of “insurance” — to cover only the truly catastrophic, which will end the kind of overutilization that has fueled runaway premium and medical costs — and begin to restitch the fabric of America.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Cyber insecurity: The feds fail to protect the public’s data
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Charter school pablum: Hillary Clinton misleads on education
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Uber’s fine: The insidious PUC
- The Gerard Mangis sentence: A criminal, coddled
- ‘Vetting’ refugees: A dubious U.N. link