The ad campaign, with the companys charismatic president acting as pitchman, is a smashing success. The competing companies lose so much business that they declare bankruptcy or are acquired by BHO. But BHOs policies are more expensive, and they include comprehensive coverage most customers neither need nor want. Take it or leave it, the company says, reneging on its guarantee in the knowledge that state law requires cars to be insured before they can be driven on public streets. Youd call that a bait-and-switch. The legal term is fraud. Perhaps the president-pitchman could escape criminal charges by claiming he was just a figurehead--that subordinates developed and executed the fraud without his knowledge. But certainly the company would face at least civil liability, and its president could be held responsible for negligence. It seems to us that morally speaking, ObamaCare is the rough equivalent of our fictional scenario. The most salient difference is a way in which ObamaCare is worse than BHO Insurance Co.: The ObamaCare fraud was conducted irrespective of the volition of the customers. Obama and his compatriots were able to carry out their scam merely by twisting arms in Congresss back rooms.
Posted on: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:20:04 +0000