What? When? Why?


Exactly what did the president just “apologize” for?

For lying, when he promised, over 30 times, that if you like your insurance you can keep it, “period”?


For saying, as late as Sept. 25, “If you already have healthcare, you don’t have to do anything”?


For misleading people when he said those things?


For causing millions of people to lose their insurance, and other millions to lose their full-time jobs over the insurance issue, caused by him?


For permitting a healthcare delivery system to be initiated despite the fact that the people administering it knew it wouldn’t work?


“You know — I regret very much that — what we intended to do, which is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em, as opposed to because they're forced into it. That, you know, we weren't as clear as we needed to be — in terms of the changes that were takin' place. . . .

“Keep in mind that most of the folks who are gonna — who got these c — cancellation letters, they'll be able to get better care at the same cost or cheaper in these new marketplaces. Because they'll have more choice. They'll have more competition. They're part of a bigger pool. Insurance companies are gonna be hungry for their business.

“So — the majority of folks will end up being better off, of course, because the website's not workin' right. They don’t necessarily know it right. But it — even though it's a small percentage of folks who may be disadvantaged . . . I am sorry that they — you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me.”

Huh? If that’s an apology, what is he apologizing for?

And when did he realize that he was, uh, well, uh, uh . . . that he might be somewhat, uh . . . at fault . . . ? Or no, that he needed to . . . maybe . . . uh . . . apologize? . . . Or no, that he needed to say those magic words “I am sorry”? I mean, stick them somewhere in a sentence.

Was it on Oct. 30, when he belligerently claimed that he had never said that if you liked your insurance, you could keep it, period, because what he had actually said was that you could keep it if it didn’t change (because he made laws to force it to change)?

Was it last week and all this week, when his propaganda machine blamed the insurance companies for causing all the problems?

Was it last week and all this week, when his propaganda machine blamed the Republicans for causing all the problems?

Was it when he and his party claimed that millions of people had gone online to sign up for insurance? Or when they kept claiming that the insurance website was entirely cool? Or when, last week, they claimed that it was fully functional, just somewhat “slow”? Or when — even now, five weeks after the disaster began — they decline to tell anyone how many people have managed to sign up? Or when — constantly — they have claimed that Obamacare has already reduced the cost of insurance “for everyone”?

What? When? . . . And why? Does anyone believe that Obama “apologized” because he was sincerely aggrieved to discover that he had done something wrong? In short, does anyone still believe that he has a conscience?

Tell me.

Share This


Greg Robbins

I don't know what Obama is referring to when he says that people are "finding themselves in this situations based on assurances they got from me." What situation is he referring to? Policy cancellations? Policies were not cancelled because of his assurances, they were cancelled because of actions he and his cohorts in Congress took to pass specific legislation. I guess it's too much to ask for a politician to speak clearly.

Derrick L.

He is "sorry" for getting caught. That's all.

Jon Harrison

It's an outrage, no doubt about it. Equally outrageous is the Administration's statement that it alone will "fix" the problem, rather than entertain any solutions proposed by Congress.

The good things about Obamacare -- no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, keeping your kids on your plan until they reach 26, and a few other things -- could have been handled through legislation without creating a big national health care program. But Democrats love to establish big, bureaucratic entities that provide jobs for people who aren't ready for the private sector (this is not meant as a dig at all government employees: the military, the foreign service, and some of the agencies are staffed by many superb people).

This is the "signature" domestic achievement of the president, and as such he'll do just about anything to keep it around. If we really want national health care, there are far better models in foreign countries that we should copy or modify to meet our own particular needs. Obamacare, which is basically a compromise between single payer and the Republican plan of 20 years ago, was bound to have problems, if not fail outright. It lacks simplicity. Why, for example, is Colorado divided into seventeen regions, each with a different premium rate? It's a joke. Either establish a real national program, or enact reforms for specific problems that cropped up in what we had before. Close up, Obamacare looks more and more like some kind of Rube Goldberg device.


How are mandates like "no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, keeping your kids on your plan until they reach 26," etc., "good things" about Obamacare? How are such mandates consistent with the rights and freedom of the persons who own, manage, run, and are employed by insurance companies? Does Harrison also argue that car insurance companies be forced to cover drivers responsible for pre-existing crashes?

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.