Sebelius thrown under the bus; does that help the Administration?

[Peter1469]

Sebelius thrown under the bus; does that help the Administration?

I am torn on this. Did Sebelius resign because Obama dissed her? Or was she a good soldier falling on her sword for her commander? I have a hard time believing that a committed democrat could be that loyal. They tend to be "me or the highway" types of people.

Anyway, this article believes in the former question.


The departure of Kathleen Sebelius (http://topics.bloomberg.com/kathleen-sebelius/) from President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/)’s cabinet removes a focal point for criticism over Obamacare’s troubled rollout, right at a moment when the White House can blunt attacks with enrollment numbers that exceeded targets.

[zelmo1234]

Oh! you know that they will be tossing her under the bus at every given opportunity.

It will start off soft something like

Well we are just now starting to find out some of the errors that the last leader of this department made. It will escalate from there!

I do not feel that it is likely that she gave up that post, willingly, she enjoyed having the power over people health, and power and control is what liberalism is all about!

[Peter1469]

Even Rachael Maddow agrees with me. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/11/maddow_sebelius_exit_steps_on_obamacare_good_news. html)


The surprise news of Sebelius resigning comes ten days after the White House ran its victory lap, when the signups for the president's signature health law beat everybody's estimates of what they would be, especially after all the issues with the website not working when it first rolled out. The congressional budget office projected 6 million signups by the deadline March 31.

last week the president was able to announce actually 7.1 million people signed up, and then just today Kathleen Sebelius was in Congress telling them that signups have now hit 7.5 million people because of folks who were effectively in line to sign up before the deadline but they couldn't get it done by then because of technical reasons.

Technical reasons. Technical delays. Technical screw-ups and lousy communication around technical delays and screw-ups of course plagued the rollout of the health reform law from the very beginning. Secretary Sebelius said she took full responsibility for those failures. But after the rocky start, Obamacare turned out, it worked. They fixed the website and, wouldn't you know it, the law resulted in millions more Americans having health insurance than had it before.

And so now Kathleen Sebelius has to go? Why now?

[Max Rockatansky]

I think she fell on her sword. It was her responsibility and, as the OP article pointed out, it removes a focus of negative attention. She screwed up the roll out and that was a huge black eye for the Obama administration. Their top priority and most visible "legacy" and she screws the pooch with the rollout. Even though she fixed it, it should never have happened.

[Mainecoons]

The enrollment numbers won't save them because they are largely a fabrication. As the dust settles and the data comes in, it will be obvious that most of the "newly insured" are people whose previous policies were torpedoed by ObombedItCare, or young people taking temporary refuge on their parents policies with little hope of affording decent insurance on their own. It will become obvious that highly subsidized or "free" enrollees make up much of the rest and in fact, less than a million of the previously insured now have insurance of highly dubious quality.

The next shoe to drop will be fat rate increases because the program has largely failed to sign up the young people needed to subsidize everyone else.

In short, a colossal failure, just another demonstration that progressive ideas don't work in the real world.

The only thing worse would be single payer managed by the disastrously incompetent Federal government of Washington D.C.

[Peter1469]

Right. And the important thing is young healthy people signing up (which was hurt by the provision that allows kids to stay on parent's policies up to the age of 26). Next year, insurance prices will skyrocket. It will be a death spiral and single payer will be up for consideration.

[Max Rockatansky]

Right. And the important thing is young healthy people signing up (which was hurt by the provision that allows kids to stay on parent's policies up to the age of 26). Next year, insurance prices will skyrocket. It will be a death spiral and single payer will be up for consideration.

Which may have been the long-term plan. The ACA is a mishmash of what everyone wanted. Most importantly, the insurance companies. It certainly didn't address the main issue, rising medical costs, and all that entails.

[lynn]

It doesn't make the Obama administration look very good now that she is resigning which is contrary to what they believe. However she is a fool to take responsibility for a job that was impossible to meet its goals.

The administration knows exactly how the population is currently insured and who did not have coverage based on the 2012 IRS tax year when everyone that files taxes reported this information to them. They also knew that without cancelling many of those individual policies they would have never reached their goal of 7 million on the exchanges. As far as the website not working, there isn't a good excuse for why this happened.

The inability to not have the actual data of people not previously insured, how many got it through their employer, how many have paid is not acceptable in this age of information technology right at their fingertips. They know exactly where everyone stands but they do not want the public to know.

[Mainecoons]

Yep, they're lying through their teeth--again.

Or is that "still?"

[Max Rockatansky]

Yep, they're lying through their teeth--again.

Or is that "still?"
It's still. Business as usual in Foggy Bottom.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Another Heiresshead guillotined (her Daddy was Governor of Ohio). That's got to be good.

[Bob]

I have a true story to tell the forum, one i learned of this past week.

I had a sister that lived near Kingman, AZ. Her husband called me this past week and we chatted a bit.
Turns out that when she died several years back, from an aneurysm, she had been taken to the hospital for care. This took place in her heart.

My former brother in law sued the hospital and bagged them for $150,000 and one of her daughters bagged the hospital for $25,000. That made my former brother in law angry at her, saying due to her small settlement, it cut his down.

No wonder health care costs so much with hospitals the target of sue happy people such as he and she were.

My dad had one in his head and as executor of his estate, I never sued the hospital.

I don't see how a hospital is responsible for that.

Maybe a lawyer can show me I am wrong.

[Peter1469]

Sorry about your sister.

[Max Rockatansky]

No wonder health care costs so much with hospitals the target of sue happy people such as he and she were.Agreed.

If the Hospital was negligent, then someone should have lost their license or be in jail. If not, then they shouldn't have had to pay out for something that was not their fault.

[Bob]

Sorry about your sister.

She was dead well before I found out. My BIL told me when he wanted me to send him a rifle. Turns out that i sent it to him with his promise it had been his. He told me this past week it was not his but he kept it anyway.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=574477#post574477)
No wonder health care costs so much with hospitals the target of sue happy people such as he and she were.



Agreed.

If the Hospital was negligent, then someone should have lost their license or be in jail. If not, then they shouldn't have had to pay out for something that was not their fault.

Had I sued that hospital dad died at, that would force up costs to that hospital. Dad died in a very small town on highway 101 in the redwoods of Ca and it did not come to my mind the hospital did wrong.

My Brother in law lost my sister in a small town hospital. Maybe he thinks he was not wrong. He sure uses the money as if he is right.

Sis and I did not see each other much all of our lives. She was raised by Mom's aunt and I had no idea she existed until I was a teen. We drove 8 hrs to Los Angeles where I first met her and she was in high school.

She preferred to live with the aunt since she had horses and friends in the south.

I flew to visit her once I got my pilots license and when she lived in Barstow, CA, I would visit her when i was that way. She lived around Kingman, AZ when she died. I stayed in that city one time for a few hours sleep on my way to Missouri. I had no idea I was in the area of where she lived at that time. Mom and dad did not include her in their will. She was in the will of the aunt.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was on a college road trip with four friends to San Diego from Greeley, CO when we broke down in Kingman on the way back. While repairing his car, the friend/driver got a bit of rust embedded in his eye. The police took us to the hospital, but we had to walk the 5 miles back to our meager hotel. I led, having had some USMC navigation training, with my friend (now with one eye covered) and his girlfriend in tow.

Kingman, AZ is one place I'll never forget.

[texan]

Why did they sue the hospital? I guess saying they should have been able to save her?

[texan]

I lost a kid to an obvious malpractice case, I even could have had the second doctor testify. But I didn't want to drag a terrible event out in court. But I sure thought about it because that ass should have been put out of business.