Even Obama Doesn’t Believe in Obamacare

On Monday President Obama finally admitted that Obamacare is not the right answer to the healthcare problem. Nancy and Harry must be fuming after the political capital (including Nancy’s position) that was spent to put that magnanimous piece of garbage through Congress.

Obama held a call with state Governors in an effort to calm the waters.. or something. His push to socialize America’s health care sector has put him in a precarious position and now.. he has to get re-elected.

Hosting governors of both parties on his own turf, Obama offered them what they often request: more flexibility as they cope with painful budget dilemmas. Declaring that he would “go to bat for whatever works,” Obama supported letting states propose their own health care plans by 2014 — three years faster than the current law allows. [1]

A constitutionalist’s concern would be that the executive branch even thinks that it has the ability to “go to bat for whatever works” despite the provision already signed into law. Secondly, what kind of leader decides to throw up his hands and tell everyone else to come up with something and if it works, he’ll be behind it?

Perhaps there is more to this statement that it appears. Even though Obamacare came too fast and too easy. It was obviously a product of years (if not decades) of progressive think tanks trying to figure out how to take over the American health care system. Why the balk, blink, flinch? Why is he now trying to walk it all back? Not because he’s suddenly become intelligent enough to understand the mistake. Is it because he knows his re-election is in danger or is it something else? Barack H. Obama is still on the campaign trail or there is an ulterior motive.

I’d like to enter into evidence.. Ulterior motive:

..a source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.[2]

There it is. It might just be about finally accomplishing what he, Nancy and Harry failed to get done in 2010. President Obama wants a public option, or worse, a single payer system – socialized medicine –  and he wants it now.

This is not Obama’s curtsy to the autonomy of the states. He is no lover of State’s rights or individual liberties. Obama may have just realized that he is in a great hurry to get single-payer into place considering the upheaval in 2010 and that which is destined to come in 2012.

[1] “Obama: Flexibility OK, but health care law remains” https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_governors
[2] “On call, officials stress public options in health care shift” https://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/On_call_officials_stress_public_options_in_health_care_shift.html

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Rich Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the editor-in-chief of Conservative Daily News and the president of Bald Eagle Media, LLC. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Bald Eagle Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

Related Articles


  1. Three words Rich; Single Payer System.

    The holy grail of the liberal socialistic ideology.

    Democrats have no solutions to the mess thay have created. They never do as is shown in all of history. Liberals get into power, screw up America, then sit back and scream at the Republicans to fix it.
    The only time these idiots “appear” to have a decent solution for anything today, is when it is something proposed by Republicans first and they just try to claim it as a new idea of their own.

  2. The term ‘single-payer’ is misleading, There should be more and less expensive single-payer options. ‘Single-Provider’ is what the Socialists really want. Only the government should provide health care insurance, NOT private insurance companies. SINGLE-PROVIDER!

    1. I get where you’re going, but in the health care industry there are three major parties involved in the incident of care:

      Patient : The person being treated
      Provider: Doctor, Hospital, Dentist, etc – the entity giving care to the patient
      Payer: Entity providing any payment to the provider on behalf of the patient

      So a single-provider system would mean one entity that provides care, kind of like if we just had U.S. Government Hospitals and all doctors, nurses and technicians were government employees (as if we need any more government employees – but I digress).

      A single-payer system means there would be no insurance companies other than the government. We would all only have a U.S. Health Insurance Plan, probably deducted straight from our paycheck and would more than likely be stuck with whatever the government chose to offer us – Medicare is a rough guide to what it would look like. There are no Medicare hospitals, just providers that offer care that the Medicare single-payer system will reimburse.

      I think you may have been alluding to something deeper, so I thought I would clear up the confusion around terminology so you could present the comment I thought you might really be considering.

Back to top button