Why Did Obamacare Pass? Because 'Math is Hard'

I heard something jarring on Fox News Sunday this week, that had me shaking my head. Mara Liasson (D-NPR), I think was trying to convey the administration's position on Obamacare, not necessarily her own:

"...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage."

Did you get that? "more people will end up paying less for coverage". Exactly how does that work out for us green eye shade types? For starters, the government, who doesn't trust you to make an intelligent or self enlightened position on buying light bulbs or toilets, doesn't think you can pick out your own insurance, so they've come up with a one-size-fits-all approach to coverage.

Single man? Elderly?? The government adds maternity, prenatal care and birth control to your new policy. Let's see a show of hands of all you who think that adding additional coverage will lower your insurance bill? Anyone?? Anyone at all??? We'll put these people in the column of "people paying more".

Well, how about those "millions of uninsured" O'care promised to cover? If they start paying anything at all, they're paying 'more', right? But, in order to subsidize these folk, who presumably couldn't afford it before now, someone is going to have to subsidize the difference, no? You can't add subsidies to millions of people currently without insurance without someone paying 'more'. Another addition to the column of "people paying more".

And what about that large group of uninsured who were so by choice? Those young, healthy individuals who made a rational decision, or even a gamble, if you will, that they would not need catastrophic insurance or perhaps any insurance at all? They are now forced to buy insurance they didn't want, or pay a fine. Thus we add them to the column of "people paying more".

In addition, how about the magnanimity of covering preexisting conditions? Any added costs there? You do realize the concept of an insurance pool, right? Enough healthy people or good drivers pay in enough, so that when any of them get sick or have an accident, that there is money to pay them, with enough left over to keep the doors open at the insurance company (so they can at least make the next payout). Insurance companies hire people called actuarials, to figure out out, of any average given number of people, how many develop cancer, broken bones or strep throats, fender benders and DUIs, as opposed to a larger number (more) who won''t, so that they can calculate the costs and set rates accordingly. Every person you add with a 'preexisting condition', throws that average off, and immediately raises the costs, which then have to be passed on to...everyone. If a cancer patient joins an insurance 'pool', paying a $200 a month premium and has a $2 million dollar a year medical bill, who picks up the difference? Oh, yeah...some people who are paying more. So, if you currently have a policy, covering other people's preexisting conditions, without qualification, will cost you "more".

Let's recap: if you're a single guy, an elderly man or woman, young adult, or anyone currently buying insurance, the odds are you're going to be paying more. The only people who would be paying less, are those few, who are currently insured, but still poor enough to qualify for subsidies, for which, as you know, all of the other suckers are paying...you guessed it...more. Funny how we don't hear a lot of success stories of people getting better coverage for less. I thought there'd be more of them?

Now when someone, (well, someone other than Barack "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" Obama), says that "...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage", an honest person, taking this at face value, would probably assume that the speaker meant that the "more people who would pay less" was in comparison to "those who would pay more". But, could this be one of those "the meaning of 'is' is" moments that sneaky liberal and lying Democrats but I repeat myself) are known for? Could the "more people paying less" be totally unrelated to the number of more paying more? Given the track record of this administration, you tell me.

The Obama administration is counting (pun intended) on the innumeracy of the American public, ill served by decades of government education, added to (ditto) the innumeracy of the MSM, who are loathe to call Obama to account for even his most flagrant shortcomings, in order to sell this to the American public. Obama's Chief Financial Adviser, Malibu Barbie, once stated that "Math is hard". President Obama feeling as if that undercut the administration's position on all things numerical and blow his cover, admonished Barbie not to speak publicly of this again.

Ms. Barbie could not be reached for comment.


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR