The law’s namesake and Democrats in Congress are  shocked at the reaction of Americans to Obamacare after its implementation.   Just as the Congress passed this law so they could find out what’s in it, many  Americans reserved their judgment of the government healthcare insurance law  until after its roll-out.  Millions of Americans received cancellation notices  from their healthcare insurance providers while the government website for  enrollment into Obamacare was, in the most pleasant of terms, inoperative.   Those who were able to access the new Obamacare exchanges were hit with higher  premiums, deductibles, and some discovered they were ineligible to receive a  subsidy to offset the increased cost.  The result is Americans who originally  supported Obamacare have now jumped ship, previously insured Americans will now  be uninsured, and those Americans the law targeted will continue to be  uninsured.  Add to this equation the dismal numbers of Americans who have  actually accessed the exchanges and the emerging picture of “failure” becomes  clear.

Now, some Democrats, who previously supported this monstrosity, have begun to  distance themselves from the disaster using many different tactics ranging from  blaming the Republicans, dropping the affectionate designation “Obamacare,” to  calling for complete repeal.  Obama has entered damage control mode, but his  goal of a single payer system is still the brass ring he strives to reach.  In  his latest attempt to soothe the masses, Obama has indicated his signature  healthcare law needs “a  full-blown rebranding effort.”  Once again, Obama hits the campaign trail  in  public relations gear attempting to remarket a product that is more than  defective – it’s totally broken.

At  a meeting in Washington, hosted by the Wall Street Journal, Obama told  attendees, “I am confident that the model we’ve built, which works off the  existing private insurance system, is one that will succeed.  We’re going to  have to, A., fix the website so everybody feels confident about that.  We’re  obviously going to have to remarket and rebrand and that will be challenging in  this political environment.”

Translation:  “What we have is causing me grief; it’s not working so  I want my name off of it.”

(added by me, Jerry Broussard)

Rebranding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, and competitors.^[1][2] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate.

Rebranding can be applied to new products, mature products, or even products still in development. The process can occur intentionally through a deliberate change in strategy or occur unintentionally from unplanned, emergent situations, such as a “Chapter 11 corporate restructuring,” “union busting,” or “bankruptcy.”

Obama and a Democratic majority Senate and House decided that 30 million  uninsured Americans needed to purchase healthcare insurance.  They declared our  healthcare system “broken” and passed Obamacare.  These same politicians  modeled  Obamacare “off the existing private insurance system.”  Now, due to the  negative  backlash, Obama has decided that a new marketing campaign and  rebranding this  atrocity is the solution.

One question that should be asked of Obama is:  If our system was “broken,”  why was the existing private insurance system used as a model to build the  current one?

The 30 million Americans who are uninsured is not because of a “broken”  system.  Those uninsured are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid.  Private  individual healthcare insurance policy premiums are out of reach for some based  on their income and/or numerous economic difficulties.  Then, there are those  Americans who choose not to purchase healthcare insurance policies for reasons  that are not income or economic based.

The premise made by Obama and his idolatrous worshiping Democrats was  individuals without healthcare insurance coverage did not have access to  healthcare or “good” healthcare services.  Access to healthcare is very  different from the ability to pay for those services.  Having healthcare  insurance does not guarantee the receipt of healthcare services nor does it  guarantee payment for those services.  Healthcare insurance coverage is  designed  to offset the cost of medical services thereby reducing out of pocket  expenses  to the individual.

An individual may not be able to “access” healthcare services when needed  because of logistics.  In very rural areas, healthcare facilities are not as  prevalent or varied as in cities.  It may be inconvenient for individuals to  travel long distances to receive services.  And, the healthcare industry is  suffering from lack of doctors and support personnel, such as nurses, to  adequately expand services in needed areas.  Depending on the need for  specialty  services, individuals may wait months to see an orthopedist,  neurologist or  rheumatologist, to name a few.  Mandating individuals to  purchase healthcare  insurance does not solve the problem of logistics.

During the Washington gathering, Obama  did acknowledge problems with the Obamacare website stating, “There is a  larger problem … the way the federal government does procurement and does IT  is,  just generally, not very efficient.  In fact, there’s probably no bigger  gap  between the private and public sector than IT.”

Translation:  “I know we gave a no-bid contract to Michelle’s  friend’s company but Congress allows it.  The company is the one who defaulted,  so it’s not my fault.”

The company selected to build the federal website for access to the exchanges  was awarded to the company where Michelle Obama’s friend held a high position.   According to one source, the company responsible for the failed website was paid  $394 million – four times the original quoted cost of $94 million.   Facebook  and Twitter were created for less.  When procurement of a company to  do business  with the federal government is based on cronyism, one can almost  predict there  will be problems.  So, the problem is not a big IT gap between  the public and  private sector nor is it inefficiency with procurement.  The  problem is  politicians and presidents rewarding friends and monetary  contributors with  government contracts or positions instead of basing  procurement and employment  on qualifications.  That is not inefficiency.

During one of my second year nursing classes, a guest speaker stated “no  matter how many times you kiss a frog, it’s still a frog.”  It’s the same with  Obamacare.  No matter how Obama and the Democrats try to dress it up, change  its  name, change its website or flip-flop the disaster that it is, it is still  an  unconstitutional law that forces Americans into a system that ultimately  removes  individual choices regarding healthcare in favor of government dictates  in an  area the government has no business.

So, keep kissing that frog, Nancy.

Obamacare shock among its namesake and Democrats is already having its  effects.  Obama is being derelict in his duty to make sure the law is  faithfully  executed by legislating changes in the mandate deadlines through  executive  order.  Democrats and RINOs in Congress are swiftly attempting to  pass  legislation so those millions who have received cancellation letters from  their  carrier can keep their policy, for only a year.  They are having a  knee-jerk  reaction to problems they knew would occur when the law was passed  three years  ago.  Ego and desperation are the driving actions, nothing  more.

Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, the government mandating individuals  purchase healthcare insurance or the government providing socialized medicine  is  not an enumerated power of Congress per our Constitution.  All branches of  our  government ignored this stipulation regardless of whether it is described  as a  “tax” or not.  Instead of adhering to the Constitution, the egos of Obama  and  the Democrats chase after this pig of a piece of legislation that’s covered  in  lard.

Americans are saddled with this unconstitutional law and are, basically,  being forced to obtain a healthcare insurance plan or face a penalty (tax)  imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.  Obama and his donkeys continue to  kiss  the frog in hopes of a prince or continue to put lipstick on the pig in an  attempt to disguise the “pork.”  Either way, the American public can expect  more  posturing, more lying, more deception and more unlawful behavior from our  elected officials as more information is revealed about this law.

More Obamacare shock is on the horizon for Americans as well.  Congress can  repeal this nightmare of an abominable, unconstitutional law or states can  nullify it.  Until then, the only recourse Americans have against this shock is  to walk off the dealership lot.

 About the Authior, Suzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered  nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of  Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand  up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian  political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of  education.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#ixzz2lJdwtsiv Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#T6EDEXBrvyprXvq3.99