Goal: 68 Million New Voters, Healthcare be Damned | Rob Cunningham USARob Cunningham USA

• John Vandivier

<a href="http://robcunninghamusa.com/2013/10/31/goal-68-million-new-voters-healthcare-be-damned/">Goal: 68 Million New Voters, Healthcare be Damned | Rob Cunningham USARob Cunningham USA

John's Notes: This article claims that the real motive behind the creation of Obamacare is not a desire to improve healthcare, but a desire to win votes for Democrats.

The article points out that every Obamacare exchange applicant will automatically receive a voter registration card in the mail, regardless of citizenship. This could result in up to 68 million new voters, many of them illegal immigrants and like Democratic voters.

The article cites a number of sources including the Breitbart article <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/30/Election-Integrity-Activists-Obamacare-Biggest-Voter-Registration-Fraud-Scheme-in-History">Election Integrity Activists: ObamaCare is "Biggest Voter Registration Fraud Scheme in History."

The facts of the article are interesting enough to warrant mention, but there is a more fundamental concept of interest here as well. The author proposes an explanation for Obama's actions which I expect Obama would reject. Obama claims he is acting in the interest of health care and the author claims Obama is acting to accrue Democratic voters. How do we tell who is lying?

First, I would say that it could be the case that both statements are true. Maybe Obama is acting to accrue votes and health care improvements are icing on the cake, as well as the decidedly better talking point. Second, I would say that it could be that there is a difference between Obama's reasons that the bill is passed and the whole-system political reasons that a bill is passed. Maybe Obama personally wants to help out with health care, but the whole political system passed the bill for other reasons.

Lastly, I would say that actions speak louder than words. While I am not saying that Obama lied, I would say that I trust a person's actions to reveal their true preference better than I trust a person's words to do so, ceteris paribus.

The point is even stronger when one explanation fits the data better: Which explanation is more consistent with the observed actions?