Sunday, August 16, 2009

Obama's Cognitive Dissonance

Does he understand what he says?

"Insurance companies will no longer be able to ... place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive or charge outrageous out-of-pocket expenses on top of your premiums," Obama told the crowd of roughly 1,500 people.

First, any "cap" is not arbitrary. And the policy holder is (or should be) aware of what the cap is. He is setting up insurance to go bankrupt instead of individuals. If there is no cap, the cost of the insurance necessarily must increase.

...promising reforms that would prevent firms from... charging "outrageous" fees.

Why? And what qualifies as "outrageous"? And who does this? All of them? Some? Tell me. Give me something. Throw me a bone. I keep hearing anecdotal "evidence", but never anything hard. "Outrageous fees" should make an insurer non-competitive. But if we don't know which ones do, How can we make an informed decision? It's hard to see the statement as anything but "truth challenged".

"I hear a lot of people say, 'How can we afford this right now? We've got to reduce our deficit,'" he said, taking boos from some audience members when he said he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the previous administration of Republican George W. Bush.

"If you are a deficit hawk and you are tired of this crazy spending in Washington, and you want to finally make sure that we are looking out for the next generation, then you more than anybody should want to reform the healthcare system," he said.

Here we go again. Mr. President, explain how an inherited $1.3 trillion deficit is bad, but 4 times that is not? Further, explain to me in detail, how a private insurance system is bankrupting the nation, but a federal bureaucracy will not?

No comments: