Obamacare Won’t ‘Solve’ Uninsured Problem, Either

Yuval Levin at National Review Online reviews some of the practical effects of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision:

Combined, these two rather arbitrary acts of revision mean that if the CBO reassesses the law’s effect on the number of Americans without insurance (which it certainly will do) using the same methods it used originally, it is likely to find a much smaller reduction in the uninsured.

Obama vs. Obama

Today’s recommended reading comes from National Review Online.  Rich Lowry and John Lott compare what President (not candidate) Obama said not long ago to what he’s saying now (he doesn’t compare favorably…), while Michael Barone discusses how the voters feel about that (angry).  Read the whole thing (all three), but here are some excerpts:

Lott, “Obama’s Revisionism” (“He predicted a strong economy, but blames his failure on Bush”):

In March 2009, when some economists, such as Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, questioned whether the stimulus would produce the promised benefits, Obama supporter Paul Krugman attacked their honesty. In one blog post at the New York Times entitled “Roots of evil,” Krugman accused Mankiw of “more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness” and claimed that “we can expect fast growth.”

Obamacare Already Breaking Promises to Reduce Costs, Insure Everyone

…and it hasn’t even been fully implemented yet.

At National Review Online, Avik Roy offers an thorough but concise overview of all that has happened in the last year relating to Obamacare, with copious links to his sources.  A few excerpts:

Massachusetts continued to give us a preview of what Obamacare would do to the country. In May, studies found that, contrary to what was promised, the new health-care regime increased emergency-room crowding, and increased already-long wait times for doctors’ appointments.