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)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 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
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