During the online-only portion of Fox News Channelâ€™s â€śSpecial Reportâ€ť on
Wednesday night, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out
his theory on what Obamacareâ€™s real intended purpose is: an instrument to
Krauthammer made that claim in his column last week, but he explained how
it works in practice to host Bret Baier and co-panelists former New Jersey
Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano and The Hill associate editor
That panel was presented with a viewer who asked what would happen if
an individual couldnâ€™t pay an insurance provider in the event of some
medical situation that limited that individualâ€™s ability to pay.
But that might have been part of the plan, Krauthammer said. If an upper-
middle class income earner is making too much to receive Obamacare
subsidies, but winds up in a situation where they lose a significant amount of
their wealth, that is part of the redistribution mechanism.
â€śOK, Iâ€™ve got a solution,â€ť Krauthammer said. â€śYou make [$80,000 a year]
and you donâ€™t have any subsidies. Youâ€™ve got a high premium and you lose
a lot of money and you end up poor. Well then, you go back and reapply.
Now you get a subsidy because youâ€™re poor. So thatâ€™s how it would work in
practice. Look that wasnâ€™t a joke. That was serious. This is a way of
transferring wealth from the upper middle class where you get no subsidies
to the lower middle class who arenâ€™t poor enough to end up in Medicaid.â€ť
Krauthammer and Napolitano continued to play out how this works in theory,
which is that this â€śwealthâ€ť would be moved around through the health care
system via subsidies to those making too making too much to be on Medicaid
, but are earning just little enough to qualify for those subsidies. It was a
theory Stoddard questioned, but Krauthammer stuck to it, arguing this was
something for which the White House had failed to see the political
NAPOLITANO: So the â€™47 percent,â€™ which impaled Romney will go
over 50 percent if this legislation succeeds in moving people below
the poverty level and making them dependent on the government.
And they vote.
KRAUTHAMMER: Which is part of the plan. However, if you were
wealthier and you lose it and you end up on Medicaid, I donâ€™t think
youâ€™ll vote Democratic.
STODDARD: I really donâ€™t think the White House had a fantasy of
this kind of a disaster. I just canâ€™t imagine â€”
KRAUTHAMMER: You misunder â€” itâ€™s a political disaster. But the
geniuses, the economists â€” if you hear Ezekiel Emanuel say on the
â€śFox News Sundayâ€ť this was designed â€” you had to get people out
of the individual insurance market, generally people of some means,
you put them in the exchanges, they overpay and you use the subsidy.
This was not an accident. What they never understood is how
disastrous it would be politically. But economically, thatâ€™s the way they make it work.
BAIER: It is pretty incredible to try to get 5-7 million on the upside by March â€” the amount of money to try to get 7 million people in these exchanges.
NAPOLITANO: It would be less expensive if they just paid the
premiums for the 7 million out of the federal treasury.