The deadline date to sign up for Obamacare has come and passed again, and, big surprise, the deadline has been extended (in California at least). Why does the deadline for signups keep getting extended? Well, the direct answer is to allow more people to sign up. But this in itself reveals a problem. The deadline has to be extended in order to reach the goal of 7 million people. The turnout for the national healthcare program has been lackluster thus far. So much so that they’ve had to change the goal to 6 million people.
Well, perhaps they were unsure as to the turnout they would receive, so they can’t be faulted for guessing at a goal that was too high. Except that isn’t true. In order to implement a program of this size, they should have had a more reasonable expectation of the applicant turnout, as it is necessary for the operation of the program. Private businesses always use a combination of statistics and surveys to determine what the size of their demographic is going to be. This is a necessary part of selling a product or service on a large scale, because the data reveals if selling the new product/service is profitable. A business must know beforehand if selling something is profitable, or they run the risk of selling a flop and going out of business. A demographic prediction is never 100% accurate, but is usually within the same order of magnitude as the real world outcome.
However, a federal program has some big differences with a private business that allow it to get away with a poor implementation job. A federal program doesn’t need to predict how many people will sign up for it. If the program is “mandatory”, legislators will assume that enough people will sign up for it because they have to. If you don’t like the product a business sells, you don’t have to buy it. That gives the business lots of incentive to find out if their product will sell. But a federal program doesn’t have this incentive since you have to “buy” it anyway.
Also, a federal program doesn’t have to worry if it will be profitable. Since it is federally-funded, the program can still operate even if it isn’t profitable; it can simply take more tax money to make up the difference in losses (see the fixing of the healthcare.gov as example). So there’s little incentive to find out how many people want the program since it’s going to be paid for anyway.
The fact that the deadline for Obamacare keeps getting extensions reveals that legislators really do not understand how much people do not want to be apart of this program.
"There are two sides to every issue: one is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."—John Galt, Atlas Shrugged
There is truth in this. A position cannot be right and wrong if one takes those terms as meaning correct and incorrect. Those terms are contradictions of each other and cannot be both true at the same time. Therefore, an issue must have correct positions and incorrect positions that are incompatible.
However, correct and incorrect are not necessarily morally-loaded qualities. One can find the “correct” way to cheat people out of money, or the incorrect way to cure cancer. The qualities are morally neutral insofar as they refer to the effective way to perform an action.
The morality of this example comes from attempt to make a compromise between the correct and the incorrect. One cannot reconcile a contradiction, and the attempt to do so is an attempt to get away with something not possible, ie something incorrect.
Taking an incorrect position may be due to a mistake from imperfect information on the subject, but choosing the “middle” is always intentionally choosing the incorrect, at least partially so. To pretend that the incorrect is the correct, that the wrong is the right, is the true evil.