This ain’t actually possible Bill

Mr Clinton called on his Democrat successor to “honour the commitment” he had made that the new law would not have any impact Americans who already had health insurance.

For years, Mr Obama repeated his pledge that, “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan”.

But since Obamacare came into force at least 3.5 millions Americans have received letters telling them their plans have been cancelled because they did not conform with the requirements of the new law. That number is expected to continue to rise.

Mr Clinton said the White House should do whatever it takes, even altering the president’s signature legislation, to make sure the promise was met.

“I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got,” Mr Clinton told the OZY website.


The insurance
companies simply do not offer those plans that are being cancelled. And there’s no way they can reformulate them in the 30 days available.

And anyway, killing off those plans was the whole point of the design change. They wanted to destroy “insurance” as a concept in health care and to move to something much more like pre-paid health care. Thus plans that had high deductibles (ie, catastrophic plans, aka insurance instead of assurance) had to be banned. This isn’t a mistake, an error, a flaw in the plan, it was one of the very points of it all.

10 comments on “This ain’t actually possible Bill

  1. Pingback: Hi, I’m Bill Clinton and I’m here to help « Samizdata

  2. Does anyone want to bet me a fiver that even this outbreak of utter out and out lying from Obama won’t dent his chosen one aura…?

  3. Could Clinton be turning on Obama in order to start improving Hillary’s chances for the next presidential elections ?

  4. “Mr Clinton said the White House should do whatever it takes, even altering the president’s signature legislation”: when did they amend the Constitution to let Presidents alter legislation?

  5. if Bill Clinton is pointing out that you’re a liar then you’re in trouble – interesting that he’s already distancing the Clinton name from the organisational trainwreck of Obamacare (regardless of one’s views on socialised healthcare – not a bad thing IMHO – the way it’s been run is shambolic and corrupt) in order to help Hillary’s run in 2016.

  6. dearieme: Obama has been doing any number of things by executive fiat. The delay in the Employer Mandate or the carve-out for unions, for example, were not implemented under the letter of the law but simply by Obama declaring that that is how it should be. It probably is unconstitutional and in an ideal world he’d be in real jeopardy not merely politically but legally. But he’ll skate. We should also remember that there is a big difference between legislation (saying what should be done and regulation (how it should be done.) One of the main purposes of regulation is to interpret the intent of the law. Given that, and also given Obama’s huge advantage in that the Leftist aristocracy in the media etc. is still mightily covering for him, he could ‘suggest’ to the regulatory agencies that their interpretation be changed. He appears to be doubling down, hiowever, in the mulish, Dunning-Kruger fashion that is so typical of him. He personally might not suffer too badly, but then he’s not running for re-election.

  7. “insurance companies simply do not offer those plans that are being cancelled. And there’s no way they can reformulate them in the 30 days available.”

    Wait – wait a while.

    The plans aren’t cancelled yet. Yes, the insureds received a notice of cancellation. But keep in mind that states require such notices be served in advance. For example, California requires a 90-day advance notice. I think most if not all of these plans remain in full effect until January 1 2014.

    If so, it is still possible for the insurance companies to rescind their cancellations, and continue the plans.

    However that possibility will rapidly diminish as time passes.

  8. he delay in the Employer Mandate or the carve-out for unions, for example, were not implemented under the letter of the law but simply by Obama declaring that that is how it should be.

    He did this during the Macondo crisis. I forget the details, and a Louisiana-based blog covered it very well, but it was something about an instruction that the federal government gave to the authorities in Louisiana that was ruled illegal by the state court (I think). Obama chose to ignore the ruling simply because he was president and he could do what he wanted. The MSM didn’t raise an eyebrow, but it was a big story in Louisiana. I’ll dig out the details at some point.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>