One of the tools used by the President in convincing the public that Obamacare was all good was the extensive use of timing in the law and, since the law has passed.
Eager to smugly insist that the critics were "wrong," "alarmist," and snickering at how wonderful Obamacare was, the public's ignorance of the law and how it's been implemented allowed Obama to glide into a second term asserting the delusional fabrications of Obamacare, saving money, keeping our plans, blah, blah, blah.
In fact, the Administration, which still tries but for most people no longer convinces that Obamacare is awesome, was able to stave off criticism till the experience of Obamacare took hold, after his second election, at the end of 2013 when the law of 2010's draconian provisions began to become effective.
There were provisions in the Affordable Care Act that didn't take effect until after Obama's re-election such as the individual mandate which became effective for benefits year 2014. Then there were governmental delays in implementing the law contrary to how the law was written in terms of effective dates, like the employer mandate which was supposed to take effect in year 2014 but was put off.
There were also very questionable timing initiatives that further gave us an, "Uh-oh," recognition of the enormous powers granted the Federal government under Obamacare such as the provision requiring employer verification as part and parcel of determining eligibility for premium assistance payments under the Act, which was delayed while still allowing the federal government to pay out premium assistance based. Naturally, this resulted in the government overpaying premium assistance for many individuals who were unverified. Then, the government naturally excused those individuals deciding not to reclaim those misspent funds, instead "forgiving" the overpayments.
Obama's TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) campaign seems to me to be another "timing" game, with the pro-Clinton media and Hillary Clinton largely ignoring Obama's presidential shenanigans campaigning FOR the TPP. After all, Hillary Clinton originally supported the TPP and only in an attempt to woo Bernie Sanders voters in her own party decided to come out against the deal. However, wouldn't it be convenient if the TPP went through before Clinton's predicted win, therefore allowing her to have her cake and eat it too, getting the policy she supported while declining responsibility because after all it would have been part of the Obama coattails she's hung so eagerly onto?
As THE NEW YORK TIMES reports, "Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership," already reveals that "Although the administration’s push will begin in September, no vote on the accord will occur before the election," hoping that after getting the votes in the bag, the person actually in the Oval Office will not undo the deal making, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/business/international/trans-pacific-partnership-obama.html.
Its signature Obama, going against what Americans want and devising untrue strategies to do it. As THE TIMES states,"… a big focus will be on national security. Mr. Obama has emphasized that the pact would expand American influence in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterweight to China, which is not part of the pact," http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/business/international/trans-pacific-partnership-obama.html.
As for Hillary Clinton, she's already created her escape hatch for supporting TPP asserting, "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." While fact-checking (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fact-check.html) noted that Hillary Clinton has been a consistent fan of the deal and didn't share that aspect of her conduct, I think it's also worth noting that Clinton's statement leaves her an out to again support the TPP, "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages," ah, so if she deems that the TPP WON'T kill jobs or hold down wages, since, after all, the new Democrats are nothing if not delusional, then she leaves herself room to support it.
Can't you hear it now? Unfortunately I can--"I was opposed to it, but now it's fixed, it no longer threatens jobs or threatens to hold down wages, instead it will boost both!" After all, why else would our salesman in chief be wheeling and dealing and pushing the deal during his last days in office?
