Byron York explores for the Washington Examiner the political fallout associated with the Obamacare rollout fiasco.
[T]here is more and more talk about Obamacare’s “winners” and “losers.” It has become impossible to defend President Obama’s promise that his health care scheme would make the system work “better for everybody.” It’s also impossible to defend his claim that Obamacare would “cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.” And now even Americans who receive health coverage through their jobs are growing worried that Obama’s if-you-like-your-coverage-you-can-keep-it promise, proven false for millions in the individual market, will prove just as false for them.
So the unavoidable truth is that Obamacare will hurt millions of Americans; the only question is how many. And that has caused some observers to take new note of the law’s basic structure. “The redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law,” writes the New York Times’ John Harwood. “Throughout the process, [the law’s authors] knew that some level of redistributing wealth — creating losers as well as winners — was inescapable.”
The problem is, President Obama and his Democratic allies neglected to tell the public. And now, when the bad news about Obamacare piles up day after day, none of it sounds like what Obama promised.
It’s taking a toll on the president’s ratings. In a new CNN survey, just 40 percent said they believe Obama “can manage the government effectively.” But much more importantly, it has entirely changed the way people view Obamacare.
In the three and a half years between March 23, 2010, the day Obamacare was signed into law, and Oct. 1, 2013, the day its implementation got under way, millions of voters, no matter what doubts they might have had, thought it best to give Obamacare a chance to work. That’s why they didn’t respond to the GOP’s dire warnings. But now, they’ve seen what Obamacare can mean in their lives. And they won’t be buying any more promises.
