While there is growing sentiment that Obama isn't the genius as many previously supposed (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), or that he may be too smart for the job (see HERE and HERE and HERE), there is also mounting suspicion that the Obamcare debacle is a part of a brilliant, though disturbing to many people, plan to transition the U.S. to full-on socialized medicine. In other words, not a few people are becoming more convinced that Obamacare was an intentionally deceptive means to another end. (See HERE)
I am not sure how exactly a resounding political catastrophe may be a brilliant means to an allegedly better end, particularly when the President, himself, recently admitted it wasn't very smart? (See HERE and HERE)
Perhaps its is considered a variation of the "tactic of defeat" used by the military and chess players in which intentional loses are used to lull opponents into a false sense of security and unwittingly lure them into a position of ultimate surrender, often by way of exhaustion. In the case of Obamacare, the assumption may be that people will get so tired of the political wrangling, and so feed up with Obamacare, that they may become readily open and supportive of a more socialistic alternative.
Be that as it may, the evidence is piling up that Obamacare was intended to move the U.S. ultimately towards socialistic health care systems like those in Canada or England--in a way similar to slowly heating up a frog until it boils, where little by little Americans become used to more and more socialization until they are fully socialized. As Norman Thomas, Socialist presidential candidate, has said: The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." (See HERE)
Even as early as the run for the Democrat nominee for President in 2007, "[Hillary}Clinton charged that Obama’s position has shifted on health care, from favoring a single-payer, universal system when he was a Senate candidate to the plan he favors now, which has no requirement. Obama denied that he had ever said he would work to get a single-payer plan, saying, 'I never said that we should try to get single-payer. I said that if I were starting from scratch, I would probably go with a single-payer system.' But Obama’s denial doesn’t hold up. In a speech in June 2003, Obama said: 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the US cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.'" (See HERE as quoted HERE)
Kate Pickert of Time suggests: "It’s already apparent [in 2010], however, that protecting the current system of private job-based insurance was not a mission of the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, promises about keeping your plan notwithstanding." as quoted HERE)
Fox News reported in an article titled, "First Comes Obamacare, Then Something Else?": after listing several problems with Obamcare, the reporter said: "This will leave health insurance exchanges with too many sick people and too few healthy ones. This will drive up premiums further, compel more businesses and individuals to forgo insurance, and create enormous political pressure to increase federal insurance subsidies for low and middle income individuals and families....The burden to find solutions will take Congress to places that Republicans are very reluctant to go." (See HERE)
Rush Linbaugh has argued: "I mentioned Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emanuel. He was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He said the individual insurance market is going away. Meaning, it's okay that Obamacare has made it impossible for insurance companies to continue to provide coverage for individuals, 'cause they're drying up anyway....So what is Obamacare doing? It's destroying the only kind of plans people without insurance ever get. And nobody seems to be noticing except the people who are being canceled and then can't find a replacement because it's too expensive. Now, all of this is by design, but it's a disaster, and they're trying to blame all of this, they're trying to slough all of this off on the insurance companies." (See HERE)
More to the point, "As recently as August 12 of this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid openly confirmed Steyn's prediction that ObamaCare is but a stepping stone toward achieving the ultimate goal of the progressive left: a single-payer system." (See HERE)
This is confirmed by Forbes. (See HERE)
Emily Miller, at the Washington Times, editorialized: "Obamacare may have crashed sooner than the White House wanted, but it was always intended to end in failure. The Affordable Care Act could not simply provide coverage for the uninsured while letting the rest of Americans keep their own health care at the same price. President Obama made a lot of promises to get the law passed and enacted in order to push toward his ultimate goal: the whole country on a single-payer, government-run health care system." (See HERE)
Miller went on to lay out a compelling case.
Andrew C. McCarthy states: "The point of showing that Obama is carrying out a massive scheme to defraud — one that certainly would be prosecuted if committed in the private sector — is not to agitate for a prosecution that is never going to happen. It is to demonstrate that there is logic to the lies. There is an objective that the fraud aims to achieve. The scheme is the framework within which the myriad deceptions are peddled. Once you understand the scheme, once you can put the lies in a rational context, you understand why fraud was the president’s only option — and why “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” barely scratches the surface of Obamacare’s deceit. In 2003, when he was an ambitious Illinois state senator from a hyper-statist district, Obama declared: 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. . . . Everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.' That is the Obamacare scheme. It is a Fabian plan to move an unwilling nation, rooted in free enterprise, into Washington-controlled, fully socialized medicine." (see HERE)
Brian Cates, a contributor to Brietbart.com, declared: "In all the discussion about ObamaCare, many people are missing the point about the true purpose of the law. Supposedly, the purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to lower health insurance costs and provide better health insurance plans for people to purchase. Far from it. The actual purpose of the ACA is to prepare the ground for a single payer system to come later. ObamaCare was designed to 'fix' the problem of a country in which most had health insurance coverage and were happy with the status quo. Progressives realized they were never going to get this backwards country to a single payer system as long as 85% of Americans had coverage and the majority of them were satisfied with the health insurance plan they had. The top leadership of the Democratic Party rightly recognized this situation as a huge obstacle to ever getting a single payer system implemented on the entire country from Washington DC. The goal of ObamaCare is a national transformation from a country where 85% had health insurance & of those 87% were happy with their plan, to one where almost no one will be happy with what they have been forced to take. (See HERE)
Here are additional citations in support of the belief that the end game of Obamacare was single payer system or some other form of socialized medicine. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
[update 07/12/2016: the predicted end game begins to materialize: Obamacare 2.0: Obama calls for revisiting public option]
The unintended consequence (Leftist LUNC) here is that all though liberals had gushed for years about the remarkable intelligence of Obama, and had exuberantly extolled the supposed virtues of Obamacare, both have been called into serious question. However, this doesn't matter since apparently Obomacare was an expendable means to the hidden agenda of socialized medicine.
For an explanation as to why these Leftist LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization