CONSPIRACY: Was the ObamaCare disaster intentional?

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Thought-provoking article...

http://www.truthandaction.org/conspiracy-obamacare-disaster-intentional/

Was crashing and burning ObamaCare part of a plan all along? What if it’s the intentional first step on the way to a ‘single-payer’ system?

Even before the disastrous ObamaCare launch, many conservative pundits have said the so-called “Affordable Care Act” was the first step toward a single-payer, universal healthcare system in America.
…

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in August that he felt ObamaCare was just a step towards single-payer.

But Harry Reid has little to no credibility, so consider:

* The vast majority of people that will successfully purchase insurance through the exchanges will be currently uninsured sick people that need coverage.

* A tremendously small percentage of the healthy young people necessary for the system to “work” will enroll.

* Millions of Americans will lose health insurance they had before the plan was implemented due to their policies not being acceptable under the new law.

* This could result in millions of Americans suddenly in desperate need of coverage, far more than prior to the law being enacted.

President and Obama and the Democrats ride in as the white knight with the plan to rescue the nation: single-payer.

Still not convinced? Check out these clips showing Barack Obama’s preference for a single-payer system…before he was even elected:

What do you think?

 

[bolil]

What I cannot say: Whether this is true, but it sounds right
What I can say: I am not signing up, I am not paying fines, and I am not going to prison .

 

[mrsat_98]

Dayum dude !! intentional ? yah think ?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The clusterfuck that Obamacare will create was intentional, and was designed to be the first step towards a single payer system. That is very apparent. I feel that the plan was to launch the program and the natural consequences would occur (plan cancellations, job cuts, docs refusing to accept, premium increases, etc). Obama and the Dems would blame that all on the GOP, insurance companies, Wall Street, the Tea Party, Fox News, "greedy doctors", corporations, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, racism and their usual list of suspects. The Dems would take the House in 2014 based on this and pass a single payer system in 2015.

However, Obama is both a megalomaniac and incompetent. The failure of the website has made him look like an ass. They can't blame anyone for that (and if you noticed, they really haven't been trying to other than trying to spin its failure as "glitches" and "temporary setbacks". That might have worked if the site was up and running a few days later - but it's not.

So what is making headlines is the failure of the site along with the cancellation of plans. Now, they knew there would be cancellation of plans, and if you see the Progressives on TV they are sticking to the game plan of blaming the insurance companies. And they could have offset that with all the "wonderful success stories" from people using the site and getting plans. BUT, they do not have those stories now and the failure of the website has caused them to lose a ton of credibility, so whether or not their blame game will stick has yet to be seen.

Personally, I think one of two things will occur. Obamacare will cause either the destruction of the Democratic Party or the destruction of the health care system (and for that matter the entire economic fabric of the country). If the site had launched without issue, I would say the latter. But with the abysmal failure of it all, I think the former is more likely. And you can already see Senate Dems who are running in 2014 running for cover - my guess is they think the same as I.

 

[FrankRep]

Harry Reid and Tom Coburn Agree: Obamacare Was Designed to Fail, Pave Way for Single-Payer


Weekly Standard
August 10, 2013


Obamacare, designed to fail, is failing too soon


Washington Times
October 25, 2013

 

[Woods]

That depends on what one means by "disaster." The intent of the legislation is to separate people from private insurance. It's working.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

That depends on what one means by "disaster." The intent of the legislation is to separate people from private insurance. It's working.

Yes, but the success of Obamacare is being able to blame that on the insurance companies and everyone else the Dems love to blame. They can only pass single payer if they take the House. If they fail to take the House AND lose the Senate then Obamacare is dead.

 

[jkr]

GOT hegelian dialectic?

 

[Ronin Truth]

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind164126.html#XiUoXmzxwAhGVB5C.99
​

 

[Acala]

Intentional by whom? A whole lot of people were involved in making Obamacare the law, including the Heritage Foundation that thought it up, Mitt Romney and other phony conservatives who pushed it, hundreds of politicians too stupid to plan anything beyond putting one foot in front of the other on the way to the chow line, and millions of voters who were largely mislead into believing that it was the solution to an obviously failing health care system. So which one of these "intended" it to fail? Certainly not most of them. There were undoubtedly some high level planners who thought it was a step towards a fully-socialized system one way or another. But I would guess that not many intended it to fail because that is a very risky proposition. Certainly Obama, to the extent he even thought about it, did not intend for his "signature" program to be a flaming train wreck. He is way too arrogant to intentionally destroy his "legacy".

 

[Cowlesy]

If there is one thing I've learned about watching people test software, is that if you have a bunch of amateurs doing the testing or people who aren't systems experts, your website portal and the output it creates will be a total disaster. Nothing but brutal, painstaking slow and detailed, rigorous testing can make something like his site work. Even with a simple software with a finite possibility of outcomes takes an immense amount of testing.

And I'm not even a comp-sci, engineer or IT person. I've just witnessed the nightmare before.

There was no way they were going to get healthcare.gov to ever work without extraordinary help from real professionals, not the bozo .gov contractors that feast off the beltway.

I don't think it was a conspiracy at all for the simple fact it puts more strain on everything to load it up with sign-ups. Now that all their pals in Silicon Valley are rolling up their sleeves to help out, it won't be long before they get it working.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe it should have been farmed out to Amazon or WalMart. They both seem to have a handle on website development.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Intentional by whom? A whole lot of people were involved in making Obamacare the law, including the Heritage Foundation that thought it up, Mitt Romney and other phony conservatives who pushed it, hundreds of politicians too stupid to plan anything beyond putting one foot in front of the other on the way to the chow line, and millions of voters who were largely mislead into believing that it was the solution to an obviously failing health care system. So which one of these "intended" it to fail? Certainly not most of them. There were undoubtedly some high level planners who thought it was a step towards a fully-socialized system one way or another. But I would guess that not many intended it to fail because that is a very risky proposition. Certainly Obama, to the extent he even thought about it, did not intend for his "signature" program to be a flaming train wreck. He is way too arrogant to intentionally destroy his "legacy".

I think you are being a little naive here. Failures of government programs are always blamed on third parties and lead to an expansion of government programs. History proves this. Of course it was designed to fail, but the blame was to be placed on third parties for the failure, and the solution would be a single payer plan. Just look at some of the key components of the legislation:

Employers with over 50 full times, must provide care: Do you think that no one planning this realized that employers with 55 employees would fire people?

If an employee works 30 hours per week he is considered full time: Do you think that no one realized that employers would cut hours to 29 per week or less?

Insurance plans must include maternity, Rx drugs, and have a maximum deductible: Do you think that no one realized that this would cause insurance companies to cancel policies?

Plans must cover pre-exisiting conditions: Did you think no one realized that this would cause rates to rise for everyone else?

I could go on and on, but the proof is right in the legislation. There were intended consequences of this legislation that were purposely designed to fuck up the insurance market, cause job loss, raise prices, etc -- all of which are going to be blamed on everyone and everything else, but the legislation itself. The only hope we have is that because of the colossal fuck up of Obama and company to design a website that their credibility will suffer greatly, their incompetence be exposed and that their blame game will not work. I think we have a pretty good shot at that happening and in reality, we only need to sway a very small percentage of the population away from voting Dem in 2014 and this legislation could be repealed in its entirety. If so, you can take single payer off the table for at least a generation.

 

[Woods]

Yes, but the success of Obamacare is being able to blame that on the insurance companies and everyone else the Dems love to blame. They can only pass single payer if they take the House. If they fail to take the House AND lose the Senate then Obamacare is dead.

Even if the Republicans take the Senate and grow balls, the Dems would filibuster anything they don't like, so Obamacare is not dead in that variation.
From the statist point of view, the success of Obamacare is it's mere existence as a weapon against liberty. It is a tool to make single-payer evolve by destruction of the private market. They don't have to pass any other legislation to achieve de facto single-payer. I suppose having the (now nationalized) insurance companies to blame is helpful THIS WEEK, but not necessary to "success."

However, Obama is both a megalomaniac and incompetent.

I wonder if the megalomania does make the idea of competence irrelevant. If one is building a monument to oneself, then it doesn't matter how many peasants get crushed. History won't remember. It will just idolize the monument. That's why it is not a "disaster" to Obamacare that he is breaking someone else's eggs along the way to making his omelet.

 

[Woods]

Intentional by whom? A whole lot of people were involved in making Obamacare the law, including the Heritage Foundation that thought it up, Mitt Romney and other phony conservatives who pushed it

Heritage did not think it up and was not "involved" in making it law. Romney described himself as "progressive," not conservative.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Even if the Republicans take the Senate and grow balls, the Dems would filibuster anything they don't like, so Obamacare is not dead in that variation.

Assuming a big defeat in 2014, and being hot off the heels of that, filibustering wouldn't be wise politically for the Dems. Remember 15 or so of them have to run in 2016. I doubt they would put their own careers at risk for a President who is not only a lame duck, but just cost the party the Senate. Of course this is all based on the hypothetical assumption that the GOP wins the Senate.

From the statist point of view, the success of Obamacare is it's mere existence as a weapon against liberty. It is a tool to make single-payer evolve by destruction of the private market. They don't have to pass any other legislation to achieve de facto single-payer. I suppose having the (now nationalized) insurance companies to blame is helpful THIS WEEK, but not necessary to "success."

True, but in order to get single payer quickly, they would have to pass more legislation. It would take years for the insurance market to collapse entirely, and remember too, Americans are resilient and there are many ways (that we have no even considered yet) to work around Obamacare (concierge doctors for example). They want single payer and they want it ASAP. Winning the House is the quickest path.

I wonder if the megalomania does make the idea of competence irrelevant. If one is building a monument to oneself, then it doesn't matter how many peasants get crushed. History won't remember. It will just idolize the monument. That's why it is not a "disaster" to Obamacare that he is breaking someone else's eggs along the way to making his omelet.

To his worshipers no. But to those that are the swing voters, it does. There are some people out there that voted for him twice, supported everything he has done so far, and were all ready for Obamacare that are suddenly realizing their error in judgment. Is it a lot of people? I don't know, but realistically, it only take a small percentage of the voters to flip one lever to the other and the Dems lose the Senate. If you look at the races, there's a lot of Senate Dems in red states that are up for reelection, and from what I have read, most, if not all of them are starting to jump ship and calling for a delay.

 

[Carlybee]

Probably...most Dems are committed to getting single payer and feel this is the first step. They are very good at getting their talking points out to their sheeple too. What the vast majority of them don't have a grasp on is that they are relying on the same organization (government) that plundered the social security fund to tax and administrate it. What could start out as a 2% tax on income would quickly become as much as they want it to be after they steal from that fund too.
Bottom line..the lunatics are running the asylum.

 

[Acala]

Heritage did not think it up and was not "involved" in making it law. Romney described himself as "progressive," not conservative.

Heritage thought up the insurance mandate that is the heart of the Act:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...Feed:+wallstcheatsheet+(Wall+St.+Cheat+Sheet)

Romney and Gingrich, who both pushed it, both ran for President as conservative Republicans. Neither would call themselves progressives today.

 

[Acala]

I think you are being a little naive here. Failures of government programs are always blamed on third parties and lead to an expansion of government programs. History proves this. Of course it was designed to fail, but the blame was to be placed on third parties for the failure, and the solution would be a single payer plan. Just look at some of the key components of the legislation:

Employers with over 50 full times, must provide care: Do you think that no one planning this realized that employers with 55 employees would fire people?

If an employee works 30 hours per week he is considered full time: Do you think that no one realized that employers would cut hours to 29 per week or less?

Insurance plans must include maternity, Rx drugs, and have a maximum deductible: Do you think that no one realized that this would cause insurance companies to cancel policies?

Plans must cover pre-exisiting conditions: Did you think no one realized that this would cause rates to rise for everyone else?

I could go on and on, but the proof is right in the legislation. There were intended consequences of this legislation that were purposely designed to fuck up the insurance market, cause job loss, raise prices, etc -- all of which are going to be blamed on everyone and everything else, but the legislation itself. The only hope we have is that because of the colossal fuck up of Obama and company to design a website that their credibility will suffer greatly, their incompetence be exposed and that their blame game will not work. I think we have a pretty good shot at that happening and in reality, we only need to sway a very small percentage of the population away from voting Dem in 2014 and this legislation could be repealed in its entirety. If so, you can take single payer off the table for at least a generation.

I think you underestimate the economic ignorance and incompetence of politicians and policy wonks in general.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think you underestimate the economic ignorance and incompetence of politicians and policy wonks in general.

And not to trade barbs with you here, but I think you underestimate the evil in the hearts of Progressives and their desire to destroy this country. I feel when they wrote this legislation, they knew exactly what the initial consequences would be, and that it was all part of their game plan.

What they didn't count on was their complete inability to get a website up and running.