Obama's stink bomb

  It's pretty obvious at this point that Obama knew what a mess the Obamacare website was but refused to change the Oct. 1 launch date simply out of political stubbornness.
  How smart is that.
  Mr. Brilliant decided to moon the nation by launching the most malfunctioning website in the universe that wouldn't even pass a web 1.0 high school programmers' project just out of spite because he wanted to "win" an argument.
  A truly canny politician would have said, "Hey, I'm a compromiser and I want to work for the American people with the other side so I'm going to agree to move the launch date of the web site." 
  The media would have gushed and blabbered what a statesman he is, how mean the Republicans are and how lucky Americans are to have such a great negotiator. 
  Rumors might have spread about the truth that the website wasn't ready to launch but they would just have been rumors spread by those mean Republicans.
  Instead we have an intractable problem that has embarrassed this administration not just nationally but internationally as the world wonders what and who determines makes decisions in this White House.
  Consequently even the MSM is acknowledging the inferiority of Obama's position by playing far tinier violins than usual, while some claim Obama "does not believe he lied" even though he "apologized" to people for losing their health coverage, or that they misunderstood what he was saying. Or something.
  Leftists have been scrambling to place blame elsewhere, claiming it was really the Heritage Foundation's plan, or Massachusetts' plan or the Republican plan. Or maybe if the Republicans hadn't fought them on the mess they passed so we could see what's in it then the mess would have turned out better than it did.
  Or maybe it's Americans' fault for not supporting Mr. Brilliant's ideas or train of thought.
  Here's a deliciously self pitying, blame shifting rationalization of a column over at Vanity Fair, where a sympathetic writer says "Behind Obama’s lie, our own immaturity: We can't handle the truth."
  In addition to the implication that we are to blame for the panderer-in-chief's lie, we learn that if only we as a nation would understand that really good health care requires all of us who work and/or have some sort of income stream not generated from their neighbors to pay for Sandra Fluke's contraceptives, we'd be "mature" enough to handle the unfortunate "reality" of the Obama government's plan to take over 1/6 of our economy:

With high premiums, higher deductibles and poor benefit options, these plans often could barely be considered insurance — and weren’t available to those with preexisting conditions. That these Americans would not be able to keep their plans was not a bug of Obamacare; it was the point.

But, of course, this means that some Americans would not only lose their plans and access to their doctor, but in the case of particularly healthy individuals, reform could yield higher premiums. Beyond that, reforming such a huge chunk of the U.S. economy necessarily leads to often unanticipated changes for millions of Americans.

Acknowledging that reality would have been the honest thing to do. So would asking healthier and wealthier Americans to sacrifice for the greater good of ensuring every American have health-care coverage.

But doing so would have opened Obama and his democratic allies up to the charge that Obamacare would lead to widespread dislocations — and made the path to reform that much politically harder to traverse.

Indeed, this is precisely the argument that was made by Republicans who regularly — and untruthfully — charged Obama with seeking a government takeover of health care, among other ills.

  Oh, so that requirement that all insurance policies cover maternity, Cialis and birth control ISN"T a government takeover of health care, in case you were thinking it was. Republicans who charged that were "untruthful."
  Obama's solution to at least 5 million people losing their insurance is to throw yet more money at the problem, subsidizing even more people to quiet the panic people feel and get past the coming elections.
  I was in a doctor's office the other day, talking to the people taking my information about the new requirements. I said I shouldn't have to pay for others to have maternity benefits; each person is an individual and to require everyone to pay for others' birth control should not be my obligation.
  Immediately one of the workers parroted the Harkin line that has been put forth this week as justification for so-called insurance"inequities," saying, "Paying others' maternity benefits is just like paying property taxes. It should be just like supporting children in the local school district. We all need to do it."
  Of course, I argued. It was amusing how quickly an awkward silence ensued.  
  A few years ago I would have done nothing of the kind.
  This stink bomb is just beginning to smell up the place.
  It's about time we start pointing it out. In public.