I still don’t understand how anyone expects those with insurance to subsidize those without insurance by not transferring wealth from one group to the other.  I also don’t understand how anyone thinks that a massive expansion of Medicaid, the IRS, and what will become an enormous political/bureaucratic/health-care sector is really an efficient means to deliver health-care, meeting the promise of helping all groups of interested parties as well as the greatest number of individuals.

Have you observed the design problems inherent in the VA?

Have you ever sat around with a broken foot, counting your blessings that so many politicians/lobbyists could be involved in making it better?

Neither the moral nor practical case has been made to me that this is the way to go, rather, from where I stand,  I see a huge, rather poorly-designed, rammed-through-politically bill that can’t possibly meet all those promises.

Still unfolding…

From The City Journal: ‘The ACA’s Unintended Consequences‘

Megan McArdle at Bloomberg: ‘Life Under Obamacare‘ (we’re not really there yet, speculation abounds)

Previously: Charlie Martin here.

‘Whatever solution we look for though, the really important point is this: the whole basis of Obamacare, the notion that we can have more people, getting more benefits, and pay less, is just impossible. The arithmetic doesn’t work. And if you think that’s “unfair,” I’m sorry.

Avik Roy addressed this before the 2012 Romney/Obama presidential election, before we really started taxiing Obamacare down the runway:

‘Obamacare’s approach to pre-existing conditions, in summary, may help a tiny minority with pre-existing conditions to gain coverage in the short term, but the law will drive up the cost of insurance for everyone else, leading to adverse selection and higher premiums for all. And the price of Obamacare is steep: the individual mandate; trillions in new spending and taxes; deep cuts to Medicare providers.’