The question and the desire to engage in either/or thinking is prompted by this Marco Rubio Fox News editorial. Rubio opines:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is in Tampa today, Monday, January 13, for an ObamaCare outreach event, and she owes Floridians an answer. Why should taxpayers have to bail out health insurance companies in the increasingly likely event that ObamaCare leaves them with financial losses?
The answer should be simple. Whatever larger differences we have about ObamaCare, we should completely eliminate any chance of a taxpayer-funded bailout for health insurers.
Unfortunately, this possibility exists and is growing more likely by the day.Seriously? It has just dawned on Rubio that the Affordable Care Act could be renamed the Insurance Company Protection Act? When this legislation was originally passed, it never occured to Rubio et al that the country was weary of bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, and an insurance company (AIG) bailout? Instead of using a timely argument, they chose to have Sarah Palin swoop in on her broomstick, shriek "Death Panels" and fly off to Iowa to fail as a Presidential candidate. Did they seriously believe anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun was going to buy that argument?
Now, years after the fact and years after most of the bailout money has been repaid, they decide it's time to warn about insurance company bailouts. It does leave me wondering whether Obamacare is just a political issue not a real policy concern. I don't want to have hard evidence that national leaders are that politically inept.