Is Obamacare a giant redistribution? Depends on when you ask

Okay, class:  In the field of economics, what's the definition of "redistribution"?

If you said "Government takes money from certain groups of citizens and gives it to members of favored groups," you win a big prize:  You get to keep your health insurance.  Period."

Just kidding!  You can't keep your insurance no matter what.  But moving right along....

Since he first ran for office as a state senator from Chicago, Barack Hussein Obama has been on the record as being in favor or redistributing wealth in the U.S.  But interestingly, as more of the public have started to realize the huge "redistribution" baked into Obamacare, the president has stopped using the term.

In fact the last time the New York Tims has him using the term was 18 months ago during his re-election campaign in Elyria, Ohio.  “Understand this [Obamacare] is not a redistribution argument,” the president told his audience then. “This is not about taking from rich people to give to poor people. This is about us together making investments in our country so everybody’s got a fair shot.” 

See, citizen, you just don't understand government finance:  You thought making you pay 100% or 80% higher premiums for health insurance--which we will now force you to buy, whether you want it or not--so the government could give poor people free health insurance was some sort of redistribution scheme.  Hahahaha!  Stupid voter!  It was really "us together making investments in our country."

I can't believe you missed that one!

Never fear, Democrats: the NY Times will cover for ya.

for those nervous about potential changes, the president promised stability. “If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance,” Mr. Obama said the day he signed the legislation in March 2010, a promise he made repeatedly as the Oct. 1 opening day of the online health insurance marketplaces approached. 

Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge — visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view. 

Having obscured much of that vulnerability before [oh that is SO much smoother than "lied", eh?], Mr. Obama has responded to recent political heat by apologizing ["I'm sorry you were too dumb to hear what I really meant all along"]— and expanding the scope of his discredited “you can keep it” promise.  [Again, "discredited promise" is so much less candid than "lie."]

Mr. Gruber of M.I.T. called redistribution a convenient tool for Republican opponents who would fight the law anyway.

Wait a second:  Isn't that the same Jonathan Gruber who was cited earlier in the story as having advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed Obamacare?  The same one who said “You cannot have [free health care for some people] without some redistribution away from a small number of people.” 

Yet the Times propagandist rehabilitated Mr. Gruber by including his trivialization of redistribution as nothing more than a "convenient tool for Republican opponents."  So on balance, 

• Redistribution is trivial;
• It only affects a "small number of people"--certainly no more than 5 million so far; and
• Health-care 'experts' (like Gruber) knew it was a vital part of Obamacare all along.

Interesting, Times.  So did you media guys never figure out that Obamacare was just another way to redistribute wealth before now?  Or are you gonna claim smaht folks--you--knew all along but for some odd reason you media guys decided not to mention it to your readers?

That sounds like it could be a tough decision!  Just kidding:  The media simply won't answer the question.  How dare you question US?

Here's a prediction--and remember, you heard it here first:  Obama will continue to unilaterally delay the start date of costly, politically-damaging phases of Obamacare until nothing kicks in before next year's elections.  Democrats will be totally relieved to not have to defend their party against another 40 million cancelled policies and raised premiums.  And Republicans won't do anything about it.