Posted on 06/17/2010 4:39:17 AM PDT by Scanian
In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their "paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences" of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.
Which brings us to President Obama's many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds goodbut perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.
This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine$2,000 for each full-time workerand make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I once heard Newt Gingrich say that before he became Speaker of the House, he believed that his opposition was the Democrats helped by the media. After being in the position for a short time, he realized that his opposition was the media helped by the Democrats.
Repeal nobamacare? Doubt it. The pubbies may take back enough of Congress to write and pass a bill repealing it. But nobama will veto it and the pubbies, even by the most optimistic predictions, won’t have enough votes to override the veto.
IMHO, the only way to take this down is to defund it.
This sounds like a flippant remark but I know that it is not. It is utterly profound in depth of meaning and context. I used to think that the MSM supports the Dems. The reality is that the MSM IS the Dems. Theoretically, if the MSM was exactly neutral, the Dem party would have a fight in each election cycle. IF the MSM was just to the right. The Dems would be the perpetual minority party.
The corollary to that would be that every time the Democrats run a weak candidate for POTUS, the Republicans win.
The purpose of campaigning is to cause disinterested voters to become interested.
” The corollary to that would be that every time the Democrats run a weak candidate for POTUS, the Republicans win.”
O’RLY?
Like Bill Clinton?
Stay away from corollaries, they are bad for you.
How about Bob Dole?
McCain trashed anti amnesty conservatives and moderates, and many didn’t vote for him on that alone.
Plus he looked (and was) old and tired.
Plus he campaigned for the man he was running against.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.