Politico has awakened! As I and many others said three years ago, Obamacare is not really about improving the delivery of health care services. It's not so much about reform as it is about redistribution...of wealth, that is:
[T]he problem with Obamacare’s stumbling start is that it shined a harsh light on intended consequences — more costs and more government regulation — that were always embedded in the ACA, yet were deliberately downplayed by Obama and Democrats on the way to passage. Backers hoped the costs of the ACA and its roster of losers would remain obscured after launch in a rush of good feeling about the laws benefits and its roster of winners....some very clear tradeoffs that were always central to Obamacare have been put on sharp display.
*It is, in many respects, a classic social welfare program. Like other social programs, it involves transferring from haves to have-nots. Healthy people are going to have to pay to help sick people get coverage. People who had skimpy coverage before — and in some cases, not-so-skimpy coverage — will have to upgrade to insurance that covers more things, but costs more. And young people will have to pay so older people don’t face sky-high premiums.
Imagine if we had reporting like this in 2009 and early 2010!