Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019

As Republicans form a circular firing squad, nervous Democrats continue to believe that this is a depressing time when the future of Obamacare is on the line.

There is some reason for worry: the Koch brothers are spending millions trying to get young people to “opt out” of seeking health insurance at the state level, which could wreck the risk pool essential for the program’s success.

But young people, who as a group support President Obama, aren’t likely to buy Koch lies. And Hollywood progressives are about to unveil a strange-bedfellows alliance with insurance companies that will spend tens of millions of dollars telling Americans the truth — that they are better off with Obamacare being fully implemented.

Meanwhile, the chances of the Affordable Care Act being defunded in Washington are between zero and none, as many Republicans are now acknowledging. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) doesn’t have the votes for his strategy of threatening a government shutdown over Obamacare, and everyone but Cruz knows it. Karl Rove wrote an impassioned plea to Republicans not to use this “ill-conceived tactic.” Some analysts believe a government shutdown, which would almost certainly be blamed on the GOP,  could even give Democrats an outside shot at winning back the House in 2014.

So why the jitters on the left? At least part of the explanation lies in polls on Obamacare that have been misunderstood or stripped of context. Over and over, Americans have been told that the public doesn’t support the president’s signature achievement. This is true in only the most literal sense of the word. It turns out that the idea behind the new law — universal coverage — is backed by a strong majority.

To get a sense of how the media are misreporting the story, consider a September 15 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. As David Weigel has noted in Slate, this is one of the most reliable polls around.  It found public widespread ignorance about the law, which will be implemented beginning October 1, and a high level of skepticism about Obamacare’s ability to improve people’s lives The poll reported that 30 percent of respondents thought it would have a negative impact on their families and only 12 percent were convinced it would be positive. More than half felt — accurately — that it would have no impact on their families.

But those weren’t the results that made headlines. It was the overall figure — 43 percent support Obamacare and 54 percent oppose it — that received wide coverage, just as similar poll numbers have in the past.

This is a classic example of something being accurate without being true.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 686

163 responses to “When Obamacare Polls Are Accurate Without Being True”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    The reason the “Reds” oppose the Affordable Care Act is not because it is a socialist program, or because they don’t want millions of fellow Americans to have access to medical care, or because the reduction in premiums announced by insurance companies for those who join the ACA exchanges are not true. The real reason is because the REDS prefer the FREE communist services provided at Emergency Rooms since former President Reagan signed legislation to fund such services.
    The same people who refuse to pay enough taxes to pay for the services we benefit from, the same people who complain about our government borrowing to cover the obligations we incur to pay for the things we need and demand, are the same ones who refuse to pay insurance premiums, not matter how affordable they may be, because they rather get them at OUR expense. Behind all the smoke and mirrors, what Is at stake for them is the need to preserve a status quo that benefits the hospital industry and those whose idea of fiscal responsibility starts and ends with how much money they have in their pockets to buy the latest gadget.
    ACA remains unpopular, in part, because of an effective demonization campaign, because of the administration’s failure to advertise its benefits in a way that everyone can understand, and because of the irresponsibility of many of our fellow citizens.

    • Chris Ambrose says:

      That is right. The Republicans who
      Just want handouts are the real problem. They want everyone else to pay for their healthcare.

    • itsfun says:

      What tax rate should all these evil people that work and earn for their families be paying for services?

      • Andrew T. Armstrong says:

        The same tax rate that everyone else pays. That is fair enough.

        • itsfun says:

          Anyone know the percentage of people paying no tax.

          • Andrew T. Armstrong says:

            49 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes. The vast majority
            are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families
            with children, the unemployed, and homeless. That is at the federal level. Even a homeless man picking up change pays taxes at the state level when he buys a coke. Everyone pays taxes.

          • 788eddie says:

            Paying taxes helps to pay for the things we need and love to have (police protection, STOP signs, fire and ambulance services, forest fire fighters, etc.).

            Nobody should have any issue with the taxes they pay, including the wealthiest, who’s tax rates have gone way down since the Reagan administration.

          • itsfun says:

            Why should I be forced to pay for public radio or public tv? I don’t watch or listen to them. Why should I be forced to pay arts when I couldn’t care less about them? Why should I be forced to pay for a football stadium when the NFL blacks out my games. Everyone should have issues with taxes they pay. Paying taxes also means spending the payers money on things they don’t want.

          • Mortalc01l says:

            Do you have paved roads near your house? Do you have an infrastructure to bring you electricity and water? What happens if I don’t feel like MY taxes should pay for YOUR roads and water? Or for the fire department, or Cops in your city?

            This is a democracy where we vote in a party to govern; that party then makes the rules for a while. We pay taxes based on some of those rules we set. Under Reagan, I paid 68% on my income… FAAAAAR more than I pay right now. I assume YOU have paid taxes all your life and are probably paying less than at any time in your life (unless your income has risen substantially, in which case your tax rate will have as well).

            Those taxes that you have ALWAYS paid, have gone to exactly the things you are whining about right now; there’s no difference in where your taxes go now, vs. under Reagan or Bush 1 or 2.

            Reality is something you need to get a grip on son.

          • itsfun says:

            I doubt if anyone gripes about paying taxes for needed services such as police, fire, water, etc. I am sick and tired of paying for housing, food, medical care, etc for able bodied people that won’t work because they are given a free ride. I don’t like giving free services to illegal aliens like housing, education, police, fire , water, etc. If you like paying for those go ahead and pay with a smile, I am not smiling.

          • Andrew T. Armstrong says:

            Well, then maybe you will be spared those “free services”. And if that does not happen, feel free to not apply for those “free services”.

          • itsfun says:

            I can just feel free to pay for them.

          • 788eddie says:

            I think you’ve bought into the Conservative/Fox News a bit too much, itsfun.

            Do you know anybody on welfare or Food Stamps? I’ve seen a few “up close.” Their lives are not pretty, and I would do everything in my power to avoid getting into their situation. Funny thing; they’re trying just about everything in their power to get out of their respective situations. I also do know of somebody who received public assistance and food stamps for a while (after a nasty divorce), and is now back on her feet with a steady job to help pay the bills for her and her kids. That was a good investment of my tax dollars, and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone else who needed a helping hand; my religious upbringing taught me that it’s the right thing to do.

            Something you ought to think about.

          • Independent1 says:

            itsfun with some kind of religious notions? Wow! I’d like to see that!! Would be interesting! From the posts I’ve seen from him, he’s one of the most self-centered, hypocritical and egotistical bigots I’ve ever encountered.

          • Come on Inde – itsfun’s not that bad, but without knowing I have assumed him to be religious.

          • itsfun says:

            Yes I know and have known people on food stamps. I agree food stamps are needed in many cases. You point out a fine example of a good use for them. My complaint is about people that make living on food stamps and welfare a career. When some need more money, they just make another child. Those are the ones I am talking about. We need to fix the welfare career path some want to live on.

          • 788eddie says:

            Then the proper thing to do is to adjust the system to prevent abuses. We could start by not defunding these programs, since cutting funds makes it more difficult to have the needed personnel to help prevent abuses.

          • 788eddie says:

            Some “just make another child” maybe because they can’t afford birth control. It’s not always available to the poor.

            Or maybe sex should only be for the wealthy, too.

          • itsfun says:

            Oh come on. How much do rubbers cost? You don’t have to be wealthy to keep you legs closed.

          • 788eddie says:

            Kind of what I expected form you, itsfun.

          • itsfun says:

            So you believe that anybody that cannot afford children should have as many as they please and then expect taxpayers to pay for them.

          • I can believe you are not smiling, itsfun. Cheats and criminals also have to live so that they can spend and contribute. WHEN they are discovered, they can be locked up, even in a forced labour camp, but society must be seen as civilized. Tolerating the unknown cheats along with sick, useless, and otherwise in-effective is part of being civilized.

          • Mortalc01l says:

            I would agree with you if not for the fact that you are forgetting that the VAST majority of these people are old, retired, children, those with pre-existing conditions, or the working poor.

            In a civilized society, we do not punish children and those who have worked their entire lives for the sins of a few rotten apples. So there’s a small percentage of deadbeats and layabouts; who cares! I would rather not see starving children or have old people eating cat food due to poverty and lack of healthcare.

            When your healthcare plan is “we hope sick people just die quickly” or the E.R. (the most expensive version of healthcare possible), you don’t have a leg to stand on and you have lost your humanity.

          • itsfun says:

            I have said over and over and over, we need to have plans for people with existing conditions and the uninsured. I suggested making them eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. I have seen the ER reasoning also. With the subsidy’s being given for the obamacaretax, do you think you and I will save any money as compared to the ER solution?

          • Mortalc01l says:

            I think the USA will save money as a whole and hopefully our Government will spend less and be less wasteful.

            Remember, we are getting MORE choices here; I am no longer bound irrevocably to my employer for my healthcare, I can move jobs without fear of losing my insurance or having to pay the obscene COBRA rates, so it means people have more freedom to choose whether they want to move to a new job.

            The fact that the insurance companies are now mandated to spend 85% of their take on actual healthcare, as opposed to middlemen, paperwork and excessive CEO and executive bonuses, means we ALL benefit.

            The addition of 35 million more paying customers will keep the insurance companies profitable and yet will also help spread the load across a larger pool of healthy and non-healthy individuals.

            With more people getting care, the USA will become more productive and more profitable due to fewer sick days lost.

            If implemented correctly, this is a win all around for everyone AND businesses.

          • Inthenameofliberty says:

            You must be well aware that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

            ‘A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating on dinner.
            A Republic is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.’

            Surely you have run across they two points previously?

          • Mortalc01l says:

            Oh, THAt tired old potato. The USA is a Republic, our political system is a DEMOCRATIC representation of that Republic.

            If you didn’t know this already, a Republic and a Democracy are identical, other than one fact. In a TRUE Republic, sovereignty lies with the individual, whereas in a Democracy, sovereignty lies with the group. The USA in NOT a true Republic, in that we jointly vote for a President and even though our individual votes are counted, we have a political process that basically ignores our individual votes and instead uses the electoral college as the method by which we elect a President.

            So, we are in fact a functional democracy, given that our political system uses the electoral college, rather than the popular vote to elect a President.

            Glad you brought the point up though, as some people seem to think that somehow because we are a Republic, it means we can ignore the will of the people (in their collective sense) just because a minority element disagrees with our elected Government and President .

          • Inthenameofliberty says:

            Old potato, eh? Interesting viewpoint.
            I suppose the ‘minority’ 57 million people that voted for Romney and the 1million people that voted for Gary Johnson don’t get a say in your mind.

            So, about 58 million people don’t want what is being shoved down their throats……..I guess you don’t care about that.
            And the foolish estimated 93 million that did not vote – well, since they did not vote I suppose who cares what they think.
            I seriously do not think that one can call 58 million people a ‘minority element’. Kind of an exaggeration.

          • Mortalc01l says:

            The majority of the POPULAR vote went to Obama by more than 3 million; that’s a fact that anyone, even YOU are capable of looking up. So Obama won the Electoral AND the popular vote. You LOST BOTH VOTES in BOTH elections, therefore Obama has a mandate. Remember, Obama won BOTH his elections by more than Bush won EITHER and you people said HE had a mandate.

            You guys are mentally ill, you really are.

          • Inthenameofliberty says:

            I never said he did not do those things.
            I am objecting to being called a minority. When the wishes of that many millions of individuals are ignored, how can you feel good about the ACA?
            I have a brilliant idea – why don’t the people that want the ACA fund it and run it and prove to me that I can’t live without it? Then I will happily let you say “We told you so” and eat crow and sign up for it.
            Until then, all I see is favoritism and behind door deals. Obama is not permitted to determine who he gives favoritism to. That is against the law. Why do you give him a free pass on this? Would you have been as forgiving to Bush if he was doing this (changing a law without Congressional approval?)
            No way. You’d be screaming at the top of your lungs that it was unconstitutional.
            There should be NO exemptions. NO ‘let’s give corporations a year to comply’. That is not how a law works. He is NOT allowed to do that.
            Oh. Wait a minute. He already did.
            And you line up behind him with your full support because you’ll forgive him for breaking the law because – why, exactly?
            Can this man do no wrong in your book, even when he breaks the law?

          • Mortalc01l says:

            You are literally and factually crazy.! This is THE LAW as determined by the highest court in the land.

            If you don’t like it, try to win an election next time and THEN change whatever laws you like, based upon the fact that your party got voted in DEMOCRATICALLY.! Until then, you ARE a minority.

            The chances of the Republican party winning a general election as long as they are aligned with the Tea Party are zero; remember, I voted for Reagan, but this bunch have no clue; they have to be the most uneducated people on the planet when they are willing to crash the whole World’s economy to reverse an already decided issue.

            You don’t like the way the last two elections turned out and now you’re having a tantrum, like an infant and you’re literally holding your collective breaths until Obama gives you what you want. It’s EXTORTION.

          • Mortalc01l says:

            What is it that you don’t understand about the way this works? The party that wins the election gets their agenda implemented; that’s just the way it works. Any other way would not be democracy would it?

            Stop yer whining and win an election; THAT’S how you change things.

          • Inthenameofliberty says:

            Wow. Yet we are still not a Democracy……we are a Republic.
            I loose my health care policy as of 2014. Got my little letter of explanation from Aetna just the other day. You see, Aetna’s current policy’ does not comply with the ACA’.
            Guess Obama lied when he said I could keep my policy that I pay for.
            He can take his ‘change’ and shove it.
            You don’t like living in a Republic? Too bad. You have to deal with those around you that understand what the Constitution is. You don’t like the Constitution? Let’s see you change it.
            A law is not permitted to be changed unless Congress changes it. So Obama changing the ACA is what, exactly? Devine intervention?

          • BillP says:

            Mortalc01 trying to reason with itsfun. Is a complete waste of your time. He is a bitter and negative old man who only complains about taxes and people on welfare. He never offers anything positive and doesn’t have a live so he spends a lot of time on this website offering inane and nonprovable facts.

          • 788eddie says:

            Your argument is mostly spurious, itsfun; the cost of public radio or public TV is tiny compared with the cost of essential services (police protection, STOP signs, fire and ambulance services, forest fire fighters, etc.). And, yes, public TV and radio SHOULD be paid for by EVERYONE, because it’s good to have an alternative broadcast system that is not owned by a private company.

            I do agree that large sports stadiums should not be supported by public funds, but rather by the people who attend the events for which the stadium was built. That is something that needs to be seriously looked at and corrected.

            Regarding paying taxes in this country for all of the privileges and security we enjoy (RE: check other parts of the world), my feeling is this: Stop Whining, itsfun! Shut up and pay your share!

          • itsfun says:

            You mean security like at the airports with employees feeling people up? Why should I pay for anything I don’t use? If you like public radio and tv so much, just write them a check, don’t expect me to pay for your listening pleasure. I won’t shut up for a jerk like you ever.

          • 788eddie says:

            I do not listen to public radio. And certainly, if I did, it probably wouldn’t be for pleasure. I am suggesting that in times of emergencies, an alternative to privately-owned radio and TV stations is in the best interest of all citizens.

            My guess is that odds are that you’ve never had to call the fire department. But it’s also good that they’re available just in case . . .

          • ” Why should I pay for anything I don’t use? ” Because you are part of a society – which means a lot of people with different needs that cannot be met or paid for by individuals.

            Would you feel happy or safe to opt out of all systems that provide stuff you don’t use … at the moment? Do you use education at all itsfun??………

          • itsfun says:

            I have said over and over, I support the fire departments, police departments, air traffic controllers, etc. I don’t like paying for things like the free medical care, education, housing, food for ILLEGAL immigrants. That may sound mean spirited, but what about ILLEGAL don’t people understand. I don’t like sending billions to countries that hate us. No matter how much we send to some countries, they are still going to hate us and always will. Every time there is any kind of disaster in the world, we can’t wait to send money and food, and medical care, while we have people here without homes, food and medical care. I don’t like helping terrorists groups that are cannibals and were part of 9/11. These are examples of the types of things I don’t use and don’t want to pay for.

          • I am sure you don’t need friends itsfun, but America does. What would be the use of helping only friends? Home or abroad.

          • idamag says:

            The elderly pay income tax. They also pay medical premiums for their health insurance.

          • itsfun says:

            Yep, I pay $96 a month out of my social security check and have paid for medicare for years out of my paycheck. Now I can watch my medicare coverage lowered by the obamacaretax, but my premiums are not going down.

          • Priscilla Smith says:

            Hello. Obama doesn’t.

          • TheGorf says:

            ZERO %. Even those who benefit from paying no INCOME tax — you know, all those free-loaders — even they pay taxes. Gasoline tax, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., etc. NOBODY pays NO taxes at all.

          • itsfun says:

            So how much should my income tax percentage be if I am forced to pay for as you say free-loaders?

          • There are ‘free-loaders’, and also criminals in every society. The difficulty is in knowing who is what without an enormous policing operation (AKA dictatorship). You must be ‘forced’ to pay taxes because you are ignorant of how society works, itsfun.

          • itsfun says:

            Are you sure we don’t have a dictator or a want a be dictator now.

          • An easy one. YES i am sure. Have you ever been to a non-democratic country itsfun??

          • itsfun says:

            yepper, I have

          • Israel doesn’t count…

          • Priscilla Smith says:

            Who payed for Obamanation’s 100 million dollar vacation? I’ll give you a hint if you really need one. I bet no President pays for any taxes.

          • Bill says:

            I’m retired, turn 65 next year, live on a fixed income, and I pay income taxes every year on my retirement. My tax rate is 15%, which is more than Romney and I have to listen to people like you talk about someone not paying income taxes and how unfair that is to you. What an ass you are!!!

          • itsfun says:

            If you like paying taxes so much, why don’t you just write a check to the feds and give them more of your money.

          • My father, and I later on, paid taxes readily to buy the infrastructure and services that did not produce profit directly. ‘Liking’ to pay did not come into it. Many people do things that are not a pleasure, per se. You are sad itsfun.

          • itsfun says:

            Like I said, if you like paying taxes so much, just cut a check to the government, and save the rest of us.

          • tax payer says:

            I pay no income taxes, so why do you pay any? Social Security is not taxed up to a certain amount, so you must be getting the maximum and that’s good, and bad. Good you have a good income coming in and Bad you have to pay taxes on that money.

          • RTRBTX says:

            You need a better tax accountant. I pay less then Romney “on my investments” through the legal means available to me without cheating. If you can’t do that, to bad, so sad.

          • Priscilla Smith says:

            1% The Elite. And Obama, Congress, and some businesses are exempt. What the f*** does that tell you about this Bill.

          • itsfun says:

            Tells me it is a terrible law. Tells me Obama believes he is royalty. Tells me the Congress thinks they are better than the rest of us. Tells me money talks, just look at who Obama illegally exempted.

          • itsfun says:

            These are the “evil” people that the left has been saying will suffer and get their just punishment for their sins. How dare the insurance companies actually make a profit. This kinda sticks it to the left where the sun doesn’t shine.

          • Priscilla Smith says:

            Have already spent millions if not billions so far and nothing to show for it, but a broken website and a load of angry americans who didn’t get to keep their plans and got crappier ones instead. It would have been cheaper for the government to say “Send us your bills and we will pay” but they don’t really care about the people.

          • itsfun says:

            Right you are!

          • Priscilla Smith says:

            Helping the people? No. They are helping themselves. Fuck government! YOU WANT TO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO CAN’T AFFORD IT?!?! How about stop funding Obama’s 100 MILLION dollar vacations?!?! How about the 2.3 TRILLION dollars of tax payer money the PENTAGON couldn’t account for before 9/11 (AND STILL HAS YET TO BE ‘FOUND’?! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

          • itsfun says:

            Not going to happen. According to the left the King can do no wrong. He illegally changed the obamacare tax when he exempted his friends and contributors. Haven’t seen a word from the left wing media about that. The Congress passed a law without ever reading it. Isn’t that the definition of malfeasance in office? Haven’t seen a word or print in the left wing media about that. We should put a bill in there giving us a couple of million apiece. If they don’t bother to read that, we could be rich.

      • From each of these evil people according to his (her) ability?

    • Allan Richardson says:

      Actually, the Reds want to abolish even the humanitarian ethical mandate to treat indigent people in the ER. They would prefer just to LET THEM DIE (remember the applause at the QUESTION when it was asked at the primary debate in the Reagan Library last year?) … UNLESS it applied to themselves or someone they love. But of course you do not BECOME a TP’er unless you believe there is NO WAY you could have such bad luck unless you were LAZY, right?

      Here is one reason we get less care for more money than any other nation. Rather than a poor person being diagnosed with a heart condition by his/her own doctor, for example, and the taxpayers (or ratepayers) paying for regular visits and drugs to manage the condition, so that person can get to work and PAY taxes, we spend several times as much for the first ER visit, when the heart condition is advanced, a referral to a physician that is ignored because this patient is not insured and CANNOT go to one, then an ER visit every few months, and the last one the patient DIES while they are trying to save him.

      Because they cannot get regular checkups and preventive care, about 45 thousand people a year die BECAUSE they are uninsured (i.e. if they had insurance all along, their diseases could have been managed without ER visits, or even prevented). Compare that to terrorism: the equivalent of 15 attacks like 9/11 every year! A substantial number of those people are among those who are brainwashed into supporting the Tea Party. They never imagine that THEY could be among the “lazy takers.”

    • Ewade says:

      You might be the stupidest person on the planet, Dominick.

    • robert murray says:

      Hospitals don’t really want to keep the status quo because they don’t get paid for many indigent patients. The hospitals have a financial incentive to support the ACA because indigent people will be signed up under the medicaid provisions. It’s true that hospitals benefit from ER visits that result in admissions but much of the care provided ends up being uncompensated.

  2. itsfun says:

    Obamacaretax is not so wonderful for all. This article written by Jim Angle:

    Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just
    the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently
    got a nasty surprise in the mail.

    “When I saw the letter when I came home from work,” Andy said,
    describing the large red wording on the envelope from his insurance
    carrier, “(it said) ‘your action required,benefit changes, act now.’ Of
    course I opened it immediately.”

    It had stunning news. Insurance for the Mangiones and their two
    boys,which they bought on the individual market, was going to almost
    triple in 2014 — from $333 a month to $965.

    The insurance carrier made it clear the increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law.

    “This isn’t a Cadillac plan, this isn’t even a silver plan,” Mangione
    said, referring to higher levels of coverage under ObamaCare.

    “This is a high deductible plan where I’m assuming a lot of risk for
    my health insurance for my family. And nothing has changed, our boys are
    healthy– they’re young –my wife is healthy. I’m healthy, nothing in
    our medical history has changed to warrant a tripling of our premiums.

    “Well I’m the one that does the budget,” said his wife. “Eventually
    I’ve got that coming down the pike that I gotta figure out what we’re
    gonna cut what we’re gonna do, to afford a $1,000 a month premium.”

    Their insurance company, Humana, declined to comment, but the notice to the Mangiones carried this paragraph:

    ” If your policy premium increased, you should know this isn’t unique
    to Humana — premium increases generally will occur industry-wide.

    “Increases aren’t based on your individual claims or changes in
    health status,” it continued. “Many other factors go in to your premium
    including: ACA compliance, including the addition of new essential
    health benefits.”

    ACA, of course, is the abbreviation for the President’s new law, the
    Affordable Care Act — which for the Mangiones will be anything but
    affordable because the law adds a new tax on every insurance policy and
    requires a list of additional benefits the Mangiones didn’t want to pay

    Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for American Health Insurance Plans,
    which represents insurers,explained that “for people who currently
    choose to purchase a high deductible, low premium policy that’s more
    affordable for them, they are now being required to add all these new
    benefits to their policy.

    That,” he says, “is also going to add to the cost of their health insurance premiums.”

    This comes amid a huge debate over whether ObamaCare will raise or lower insurance rates.

    For the Mangiones, that answer is abundantly clear.

    • Bill Thompson says:

      $333 a month unbelievable. Where I live for a family of four the cost has been over $1400 a month for the last five years. Plans that include drugs eye glasses and dental are going for $2000 a month. I can’t imagine what was being covered for a family of four for $333 per month.

      • gmccpa says:

        I’ve been purchasing insurance on my own for the past 25 years. There is no way anyone – anywhere – purchased health insurance for a family of four for $333 per month.

        There is a lie in this story somewhere.

    • stcroixcarp says:

      What is the source of this anecdote? Did you research what kind of tax credits these people will get? What kind of coverage did they have for $333 per month? This story stinks of fish to me.

      • itsfun says:

        I gave the source in the first sentence.

        • awakenaustin says:

          Who the hell is Jim Angle?
          Wait, I know. He is a FOX reporter/news personality/journalist(?). Clearly an impeccable source. When you want really reliable reporting on anything President Obama has ever done or supported you get it for sure from FOX “news”. When you need facts you should go to FOX.
          What the hell does the Congressional Budgeting Office know?
          What next a reference to an unbiased article from the WorldNetDaily on President Obama’s Kenyan – socialist – Muslim upbringing?

          This is clearly just a put up job by FOX. It is some over sold deal or just plain fabrication. It smells not only like fish but like BS.

    • drdroad says:

      Of course any American who can read will see this as hokum! Duh, think us be dumb? Try again.

      • itsfun says:

        Why; anything you don’t like will just be called a lie. You think you are the judge of all that is printed. Guess what – you’re not in charge of deciding what can be read and what can’t.

        • nirodha says:

          Hey, funnie, just because it’s printed means it’s true? You are correct; anyone can read anything they want to. Do you believe everything you read?

        • idamag says:

          Because, the ACA has not gone into effect, yet. It will not be fully implemented until 2014. The only changes that have been made is that you cannot be dropped because of a cap on your benefits and because of a per-existing condition. The only other thing took effect this year was that generics had to be made available when they came into being. That is why the example is a blatant lie.

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      Well, in 7 days, they should look at the exchanges available in their state and sign up for a new plan. Depending on their yearly income, they may qualify for a subsidy. Once millions of people sign up for insurance, including relatively healthy young people, insurance premiums should start to stabilize and even go down. You know, competition. Insurance companies will be competing against others for customers.

      • charleo1 says:

        You bring up a very important element in the ACA. Namely, for the
        first time in many years, the free market principal of competition will
        be reintroduced into the healthcare insurance marketplace. Right Wingers, and staunch promoters of Capitalism should be celebrating!
        No longer will a pre-existing condition tie millions of Americans to the only Co. that will insure them. No longer will insurance Cos. be able
        to raise rates,not on the basis of cost. But, on the basis of what they decide the monopolized market, and amount of money in people’s pockets will bare. One of the main actors, and contributors to the stagnant wages of America’s workforce, has been the health in-surance cartels. Never has the realities of a closed shop, combined with a powerless American public, ever been so sweet as the last 20 years have been for these giant health insurance Cos. Who’s only rival is the oil cartel.

      • itsfun says:

        Didn’t Obama promise all American people that if they liked their current plan, they would be able to keep it? I guess he just forgot to say his new tax on healthcare may make it impossible to keep your current plan. Must not have been on his teleprompter.

        • Allan Richardson says:

          He said that nothing IN THE LAW would force you to change your plan, and that is true. However, there is nothing to stop your insurance company (or your employer, who is the actual PURCHASER of your plan) from acting like a greedy horse’s butt and dropping the plan, especially BEFORE the law goes into effect to stop them. That was true all the time. And insurers and employers have raised employee costs in the past many times. The only difference is now they can lie and say it’s because of Obamacare.

        • charleo1 says:

          The fact of the matter is, the large percentage of those
          receiving their health coverage thru their employers will
          not change. I have had to change doctors, long before
          ACA came along, as my individual policy was sold to
          another co. that didn’t include my doctor as a participating
          member. So, what would have been more correct is, as
          far as ACA reform is concerned, none of that would
          necessarily change the availability. But, insurance cos. can, and do effect the plans, as well as the doctors who participate. Maybe the government should have really took control of the insurance cartels? But, you ignored the part about how the exchanges promote competition, which according to free marketeers, function as a check on rising prices. What the GOP is doing is intentionally protecting a closed monopolistic market. Where the insurance cos. charge what they want, cover who they please, and payout as little as possible to increase profits. But this tax thing is being played up, since the Supreme Court allowed ACA
          requirements for businesses, and individuals to get insurance
          by calling the penalty a tax, and not a fee.

        • 788eddie says:

          My health insurance plan (family coverage) costs north of $23,000/year. Fortunately, my employer pays a big chunk of that. I guess I’m in an income bracket where I really shouldn’t complain, but I live on Long Island and everything here seems to cost more.

          ObamaCare will be a boon to many who live here and can’t afford “affordable” health insurance.

        • nirodha says:

          You like Humana, they’re leaving your state, and you’re all bent out of shape, so you blame Obama. The ACA allows you to have COMPARABLE coverage to that you had before. There is no guarantee that you can keep your former company, only your former coverage. If you could read the plan and do some analysis, you would comprehend. But no, it’s easier to listen to what the demented whackos in the TPotty spout than to think for yourself.

        • Wilson De Lancy says:

          meaning you don’t feel he can speak without a teleprompter right? jnsgraphic got it right when they posted, “The #1 reason Republicans don’t like Obamacare is because they can’t stand anything the President does that will be a success and prove them wrong. If they thought it was going to fail they wouldn’t be trying so hard to stop it.” In other words, they HATE that Kenyan, Socialist, Communist, Black dude in the White House. He could pass a law giving them free money and they would find a way to oppose that. lol

    • charleo1 says:

      This story is being promoted to scare the bejesus out of KY residents. In my
      research I found at least a couple of very interesting things. One is the Humana letter is misleading. It advises people to sign up now to lock in their
      new rate. Implying the increased premium was due to the cost of complying
      with the many requirements/ regulations of the ACA law. Only mentioning
      as a footnote the insurance exchanges, for which KY has not yet released
      prices. Secondly, there is absolutely no way to justify tripling rates. As the
      rates in Arkansas’ exchanges, came in at 25% less than current prices,
      10% lower than had been anticipated. While offering a similar plan with lower rates, but higher deductibles in the $350 range for a family of four. Before
      any tax credits, or subsidies they may qualify for. By the way, of the several
      articles written on the Mangione family, Fox News was the only one to fail
      to mention these essential, and pertinent facts.

      • nirodha says:

        I’ve just heard on NPR that the KY insurance regulators have declared that Humana’s letter must be withdrawn because it is not factual in its descriptions. They are pressuring current enrollees who are healthy to sign up by an artificial deadline or risk losing their coverage.

        • charleo1 says:

          Well, thank you very much for taking the time to inform.
          I admit I don’t listen to Fox very often, and they were all
          over this story. As were all the Right Wing media outlets.
          But it failed the smell test right off. It made no sense that
          a policy of this nature, (bare bones coverage,) would
          triple in cost. Especially when other similar products,
          in neighboring States of similar populations, and economies
          to KY’s, were offering premiums for the same product, 2/3 lower than the Humana letter.

    • Justin Napolitano says:

      First, the insurance they have if it costs $333.00 a month must not cover much.
      They should look into the exchanges and shop around. That is the whole idea, competition. I can assure you that, even without knowing their circumstances, they will be able to do better shopping in the exchange.

      • itsfun says:

        Yep; just another lie or broken promise by Obama when he told us we could keep our current insurance if we liked it. He just didn’t say his new tax may make it impossible to keep your current insurance.

        • Justin Napolitano says:

          BS, you made up he story and are being called out. if companies drop their insurance programs they are risking losing their most valuable asset: their employees. I wouldn’t worry too much about that because companies that think all people are interchangeable will soon be out of business.

          • itsfun says:

            The author of the article is listed on line 1 of my post. Why would companies keep paying insurance when employees have access to the wonderful obamacaretax.

          • idamag says:

            That is not a credible source. I subscribe to two news magazines and two newspapers. I didn’t see any of that in those newspapers. It would be easy for some Kentuckians to misread stuff.

          • itsfun says:

            I didn’t realize you are the one who gets to decide what is a credible source and what is not. Should all of us get your permission before posting anything?

    • Justin Napolitano says:

      I just now looked at the poster saying that a families health insurance premium is going to triple and realized it is someone that goes by the name “itsfun” I wouldn’t believe one thing this guy posts.

    • nirodha says:

      Nice story, fun. A word to the wise-consider the source.

    • idamag says:

      The ACA hasn’t gone into effect yet. I think someone lied to you.

      • itsfun says:

        The post is an article I read today. Just another side of the debate on the obamacaretax.

        • idamag says:

          Why don’t you read a few other articles by other people.

          • itsfun says:

            I do, I try to read both the liberal and conservative side of issues. I read the National Memo don’t I. I usually post the conservative side of the issue because most folks here is reading the liberal side. That way all can see both sides.

  3. Helen North Ga Mountains says:

    The Supreme Court said Obamacare is a tax so that settles the legalities of the bill for now but I don’t think anybody really knows what is going to happen with Obamacare. It is a huge transformation of our health care industry that was unfortunately passed solely by Democrats without any GOP support. (Medicare which was a Democratic initiative was passed with GOP support) It will take 5 – 10 years to see it’s full effect on the overall economy, on individuals, on business, and on the federal budget. For better or for worse it is here to stay. I am keeping an open mind on it. One thing I don’t like about Obamacre that has affected people is the Flex Spending cap at $2500.. Many people who had higher balance FSA accounts are losing them and I know that they were able to pay for special needs medications, care etc with the higher balance FSA’s. Maybe Obamacare replaces it with something better but I don’t know.

    • charleo1 says:

      I think there is no doubt ObamaCare, will continue to be a work in progress.
      Many have mentioned these high deductible policies. And insurance exchanges, or many of them are offering these. But as a percentage, these
      plans were never a big piece of the health insurance market to begin with.
      The major downfall of our current system, is the lack of younger healthier
      people. As many of the jobs they work tend to be low wage, with few if any
      benefits. The bulk of policyholders then is the older demographic. As far as
      the politics, the GOP has not been supportive of any of the legislation since
      the election of Obama. Not supportive of the stimulus, even though,
      Conservative, and Left Wing economists endorsed it as absolutely necessary. And, the economic numbers bear that out. Of course the GOP was not in favor of financial reform. Even after it was clearly proven out, that too much deregulation of the banks contributed significantly to the crisis. As to ACA being this huge transformation of the health care industry. I would say, not so much as some would lead you to believe. First, it’s not a government takeover. As the insurance to cover healthcare costs are purchased thru private, for profit, insurance cos. Providers such as drug cos., and hospitals, are not being purchased by the government. And,
      remain as they are now. What ACA does do is remove some of the most
      egregious practices of the health insurance industry. Of which everyone
      who has had a major health event, insured by these cos. can attest to.

    • Independent1 says:

      The only reason ACA had to be passed without GOP support is because of the determination of the GOP to see that Obama would be a one-term president.

      Here’s a little excerpt about how much the GOP LOVED the individual mandate before Obama was elected:

      In 2007, a year after the Massachusetts reform, Senators Bennett and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act, a bill that also featured an individual mandate, and it attracted bipartisan support.[73][82] The Republican co-sponsors who remained in Congress during the 2008 healthcare debate included Senators Grassley, Bennett, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Arlen Specter (R-PA).[83][84]

      Notice that there were 7 fairly influential senators co sponoring the bill, all senators that were part of developing the ACA until they decided that they were opposed to the individual mandate once Democrats were for it. Here’s more:

      Given the history of bipartisan support for the idea of an individual mandate and its perceived success in Massachusetts, by 2008 Democrats were considering using an individual mandate as the basis for comprehensive, national healthcare reform. Experts have pointed out that the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bears many similarities to the 2007 bill[76] and that it was deliberately patterned after Romney’s state healthcare plan.[85] Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the Massachusetts reform who advised the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns on their healthcare proposals, served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and helped Congress draft the ACA.[86]

      Now this:

      However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.[70] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[98

      Of course McConnell decided not to support the bill, he was one of those who had come out and said that it was the GOP’s #1 mission to make Obama a one-term President. And just for your edification, more than 30 bipartisan meetings were held between both Senate and House members in developing the workings of the ACA with more than 169 Republican amendments included in the bill. So when the GOP totally was against it, it wasn’t because it was a bad bill, because it was almost exactly the same bill that Romney, a Republican, had gotten passed in Mass. with lots of fanfare at the time from many GOPers. So when the GOP voted against ACA in 2010 it was FOR ONE REASON ONLY!!! TO TRY AND MAKE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. They didn’t want to give Obama even one piece of legislation that may turn out to be a real positive and might help him get re-elected in 2012!!!

  4. jointerjohn says:

    I believe there is also a substantial number of persons out there who may mistrust the success of ACA, perhaps even view it negatively, but at the same time know that continuing with the same broken system we have had for decades is not viable. When those opposing ACA came forward with absolutely nothing in reform suggestions, they lost any chance of support from that segment. Underneath the rhetoric, just about everybody knows that the escalating costs of recent years was not going to change nor slow down on it’s own. The President should come out publicly with a campaign projecting the “cost of doing nothing”, which is the appropriate name for the Republican plan.

    • Allan Richardson says:

      If the conservatives wanted health care to be affordable for all, they have had ever since they quashed Hillarycare in the 1990’s, and before that, ever since they got Medicare restricted ONLY to seniors in 1965, and before that, ever since they talked down Truman’s proposal in the 1940’s, to propose something realistic. The best they could do was Romneycare in Mass. which is the MODEL for Obamacare. The truth is, they want the purchase of health care to be a casino lottery, with the winners dying or staying just barely alive because they do not have the money to pay full price and cannot find an insurance company that will take them. If they managed to repeal Obamacare, they would replace it with NOTHING, because that is their philosophy of life: we don’t take care of one another (except for immediate family), we just fight to the death for anything we need.

    • Helen North Ga Mountains says:

      I give credit to Pelosi for one of the biggest legislative victories in American history but the cynical nature in the way she passed it will haunt the Democrats one day. The GOP has always wanted universal health care reform before the Democrats passed Obamacare. Go back about 100 years. Even recently whether you like it or not the House GOP gave us Medicare part D in 2003 which is a substantial reform to prescription drugs benefits. Most GOP’ers wanted several components within Obama care they just couldn’t vote for it because of the way it was packaged and rammed down their throats. Once their districts found out they would never let them support it and the Democrats never offered any political concessions to the GOP to lessen the political fallout that it would cause. (the Democrats passed Medicare with GOP political support in 1964 even though it was a largely Democratic initiative). In American politics it is historically good for the majority party to try to bring along a minority of the opposition.

      • itsfun says:

        Congress people that voted to pass a bill they didn’t read and have no idea what is in it are guilty of malfeasance in office and should be removed. Just blindly passing a law is the definition of malfeasance.

        • Independent1 says:

          Wow! Quite a number of legislators from both houses of Congress sat in 30 plus meetings to develop the ACA and copied a great deal of it from RomneyCare in Mass and included more than 169 Republican Amendments and somehow didn’t know what was in the bill?? Sorry, someone is pulling your leg!!!!

          But then again, it really didn’t matter what was in it, because the GOP voted against it not for what was in it but for one special reason: to try and prevent Obama from getting re-elected in 2012. Here’s the final two paragraphs from a response I made to someone else a little earlier:

          However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.[70] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[98

          Of course McConnell decided not to support the bill, he was one of those who had come out and said that it was the GOP’s #1 mission to make Obama a one-term President. And just for your edification, more than 30 bipartisan meetings were held between both Senate and House members in developing the workings of the ACA with more than 169 Republican amendments included in the bill. So when the GOP totally was against it, it wasn’t because it was a bad bill, because it was almost exactly the same bill that Romney, a Republican, had gotten passed in Mass. with lots of fanfare at the time from many GOPers. So when the GOP voted against ACA in 2010 it was FOR ONE REASON ONLY!!! TO TRY AND MAKE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. They didn’t want to give Obama even one piece of legislation that may turn out to be a real positive and might help him get re-elected in 2012!!!

          • itsfun says:

            do you mean when Nancy said they had to pass the bill to find out what was in it – she lied because she knew what was in it. Interpret things anyway you want, but it is malfeasance to pass a bill without knowing what is in it. Malfeasance is reason for recall or impeachment.

          • Independent1 says:

            You’re pretty slow aren’t you itsfun?? When Nancy said they needed to get the bill passed to find out what was in it, it’s because every time she’d bring the bill up for a vote, the GOP would keep demanding an amendment. So ALL SHE MEANT WAS, she wasn’t going to know EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE BILL UNTIL IT GOT PASSED AND THE GOP STOPPED ASKING FOR AMENDMENTS!!!!!!!!!

          • itsfun says:

            and pigs fly

          • Independent1 says:

            You realize do you, itsfun, that during the development and voting process, that the GOP asked for more than 169 amendments to ACA?? I’m saying more, because Obamacare includes 169 GOP requested amendments that were actually approved by what was then a Democrat controlled House. So I’m fairly sure that the Dem controlled House did not approve every amendment the GOP asked for which means that the GOP probably asked for way over 200 amendments. And you’re expecting that with all that going on that ANY LEGISLATOR could really keep track of what had actually been included when they took the final vote?? Keep on dreaming!!!!

          • itsfun says:

            If this is such a wonderful bill, why did Congress get exempted from it? The House sent a budget to the Senate, that said the Congress must be enrolled in the obamacare tax. Harry Reid refused to even read it. Doesn’t this tell you that Harry Reid not only thinks he is better than you and me, but he is also refusing to even try to work out a deal. The House has sent 4 budget proposals to the Senate, Harry Reid refuses to negotiate or even talk at all to the House. He even refuses to go into conference with the House. Obama goes on TV telling us the obamacare tax is funded and the House can’t do anything about that. If that is true, what is the big deal the Senate is making over the budget. Which is true, is the Obamacare tax funded or not. He goes on TV blaming the GOP for the whole problem, when he has a my way or the highway attitude. He talks about it being a law and the House has to do its duty. Why doesn’t he talk about how he illegally changed the law by exempting his friends and contributors for the law? He has not authority whatever to change laws. But he does than, then tries to stand behind the very law he illegally changed.

          • Independent1 says:

            President Obama said it best: I don’t remember his exact words but they were to this effect – Democrats are not going to let ONE FACTION of ONE PARTY in One House of the Government GET ITS WAY but holding America HOSTAGE!!

            A large part of the Republican party IS AGAINST WHAT THE HOUSE IS DOING!! Even the Tea Partiers think that the nitwits in the House are acting like SPOILED CHILDREN.

            And you’re suggesting that a group of sane people should negotiate with a bunch of nutcases!!! I’m sorry, BUT IT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

            And by the way – NO ONE, even in the NM bloggers has ever said that Obamacare is PERFECT, and most of us blogging here would have preferred to see a single payer program, HOWEVER, 2009 WAS NOT the time to implement single-payer!!!

            DESPITE THAT!!

            Obamacare is FAR BETTER than the healthcare system we have now so repealling or defunding it IS NOT THE ANSWER!! The answer is to allow Obamacare to take effect AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGES NEEDED TO MAKE IT BETTER!!

            And here are some recent premium quotes to make it clear

            that in many places IT IS MUCH BETTER!!!

            Rand Corp. Researchers, looking at 10 states, said in an Aug. 29 report that predictions of sharp increases in premiums were overstated. “Our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market,” Christine Eibner, a Rand senior economist, said in a statement with the report.

            The lowest monthly premium for a 40-year-old in the 17 states surveyed by Kaiser would be $146 in Baltimore. If that
            40-year-old had an annual income of $29,000, government subsidies would reduce the monthly cost to $111, according to the report from the nonprofit health-research group.

            Texas has been among the Republican-led states most fiercely opposed to Obamacare, but its monthly rates came in below the national average, HHS said. With 76 plans to choose from in Austin, a 27-year-old would pay $169 per month for the lowest-cost mid-tier one. In Dallas-Fort Worth, that monthly premium was $217, from 43 plans available, the report said.

            Reuters) – Americans will pay an average premium of $328
            monthly for a mid-tier health insurance plan when the Obamacare health exchanges open for enrollment next week, and most will qualify for government subsidies to lower that price, the federal government said on Wednesday.

          • itsfun says:

            By single-payer, you mean complete government control of our health care? By the way, who pays for all these subsidies? The money has to come from somewhere.

          • idamag says:

            The bill isn’t perfect, but it is better than “if you got money, you get healthcare and if you don’t – die.’ system that was already in place.

          • Independent1 says:

            I agree. Eventually I’d like to see us move to single-payer but back in 2009 that really wasn’t an option. In the depths of the Great Recession, the last thing America needed was to signal that it would be working to do away with another sector of it’s corporation base – thereby saying it would be putting thousands/millions more out of work from all the companies involved in providing Americans with health insurance. And also at a time when it was running up huge deficits, it also didn’t need to at that time take on the huge expense of trying to convert from private sector insurance to public sector insurance and all that will eventually entail.

      • idamag says:

        That is why the GOP) came up with such a good healthcare plan, they saw it was needed. I wonder why their plan did not get passed.

    • itsfun says:

      Many people distrust the government .

    • plc97477 says:

      II think he should send the “secretary in charge of explaining stuff” out to tell all.

  5. Andrew T. Armstrong says:

    This is how i see ObamaCare. Years ago Texas passed a law deregulating electric utility companies. When this was being proposed no one really knew what to think or if it would even work. There was plenty of lobbying by the electric utility companies going on in Austin to keep the “old quota moving along” and a big bipartisan push to let people choose who they get there electricity from. So i now have one service company who owns the electric transmission lines to my house, and i am able to chose between over 150 and counting electricity providers. So every year i am looking to see who is selling electricity at the cheapest rate. And every year there is a company that is selling it cheaper and sometimes on of the old established companies offers it even cheaper.

    And i see ObamaCare as about the same thing. You will be going to the same hospital or clinic, that will not change, what will change is that you can change insurance companies simply by looking up who has the best deal thru the state exchanges. I do not see how this can be bad at all. Medical insurance companies have had a monopoly and a stranglehold on the American people for years, it is time to break that stranglehold and force them to only charge what is fair and only competition with the risk of going out of business can make that happen.

    Most of the current medical insurance group’s are lobbying against ObamaCare and lining the pockets of those who oppose it. They want the “old quota moving along” and will charge you what the market will bear.

  6. jnsgraphic says:

    Republicans don’t like Obamacare because Republicans don’t like lower profits for corporations; and being able to drop people with pre-existing conditions also helps keep the insurance companies profitable.
    Republicans don’t like Obamacare because they don’t care if people go into debt after their coverage runs out, it’s not their problem; Americans pay three times the costs of most other countries that have some form or other of nationalized healthcare, and don’t have to go bankrupt to stay alive.
    Republicans don’t like Obamacare because they don’t want people saving money on insurance; and they don’t want young adults on their parent’s policy, they would rather burden them medical bills on top of a high interest student loan.
    Republicans don’t like Obamacare because they don’t want insurance companies to offer preventive measures for women, yet some women still vote republican… go figure.
    The #1 reason Republicans don’t like Obamacare is because they can’t stand anything and President does that will be a success and prove them wrong. If they thought it was going to fail they wouldn’t be trying so hard to stop it.

    • idamag says:

      Republicans don’t like the ACA because it interferes with healthcare’s bottom line on the stock market page of the Wall Street Journal.

  7. silence dogood says:

    People electing an accident only policy will then pay the $90 tax for non compliance. Total annual outlay, depending on age and family members, hundreds of dollars…….not 10k to 15k or more.

    • idamag says:

      Young, healthy people do get cancer and other diseases.

      • silence dogood says:

        That’s why you buy a health policy that will pay health care costs only if those costs result from an accident and not an illness.
        You could also buy a health policy with a very (or very,very) high deductible just in case.

  8. silence dogood says:

    People electing an accident only policy will then pay the $90 tax for non compliance. Total annual outlay, depending on age and family members, hundreds of dollars…….not 10k to 15k or more

    • Ewade says:

      The C)B just said it will cost the average family an ADDITIONAL $7500, instead of $2500 less as Obama spewed. That’s $10,000 in my book

        • Independent1 says:

          Really? Is that why Bloomberg press recently published an article about premiums dropping more than 50% in New York?

          From Bloomberg: (Note someone now paying $1,000 will be able to get better coverage in 2014 for about $308.)

          The state approved plans to be sold by 17 insurers, including UnitedHealth (UNH) Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., the industry’s two biggest carriers, according to a statement today by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The lowered rates mean that starting Oct. 1, a New York City resident who now pays at least $1,000 a month for insurance will be able to buy coverage for as little as $308, according to rates posted by governor’s office.

    • Independent1 says:

      Really!! Not so. Not in New York anyway and many other states that have set up insurance exchanges:

      From Bloomberg Press: (Note that someone in New York City now paying $1,000/mo will be able to get better coverage in 2014 for around $308/mo.)

      The state approved plans to be sold by 17 insurers, including UnitedHealth (UNH) Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., the industry’s two biggest carriers, according to a statement today by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The lowered rates mean that starting Oct. 1, a New York City resident who now pays at least $1,000 a month for insurance will be able to buy coverage for as little as $308, according to rates posted by governor’s office.

      • InsideEye says:

        What does it cover?

        • Independent1 says:

          Bloomberg doesn’t say what the $1,000/mo current policy was covering for a NYC resident, but whatever a NYC resident was paying $1,000/mo for in the way of health insurance, they can get the same coverage for 2014 for almost $700/mo less, PLUS get the following additional benefits: 1) the insurance company can’t refuse them coverage because they claim some procedure that they need is due to a pre-existing condition, 2) they get annual wellness checkups from their doctor co-pay free, 3) if the policy covers family members, it will cover existing children to age 26, 4) the insurance company cannot refuse to cover a medical procedure that their doctor feels is necessary (as many companies do today), and more.

  9. Wilson De Lancy says:

    when is a republican gonna bring up benghazi and death panels?

  10. silence dogood says:

    Young healthy people/families should buy an accident only policy. Pay the $90 fee this year for non compliance.

    • Independent1 says:

      So if they suddenly find out that one of them has cancer or a genetic heart defect suddenly pops up and they have to go to the hospital and run up $500,000 in hospital bills which they can’t pay for, the hospital can just once more build that loss of revenue into its increased pricing which the insurance companies can pass onto all us folks that buy insurance in the form of higher premiums. Makes a lot of sense – NOT!!!!

      • silence dogood says:

        Elsewhere I indicated this could be combined with a high or very high deductible health plan. If it were a 25K deductible 475K of your bill would be paid. Would be pretty easy to negotiate with the hospital on how and how much of the balance to pay.
        If you go 2 years without a claim, your premium savings could amount to 25K in which case you have fully funded you potential liability.
        Anything beyond 2 years and you are accumulating surpluses.

        • Independent1 says:

          That would work, but why not just buy a Bronze level Obamacare policy where I think the max out of pocket is $6,250 which you can get for as low as $111/mo in some states if you qualify for a subsidy. See these prices for Obamacare policies (the average nation wide is $328/mo – See the Reuters article).

          The lowest monthly premium for a 40-year-old in the 17 states surveyed by Kaiser would be $146 in Baltimore. If that
          40-year-old had an annual income of $29,000, government subsidies would reduce the monthly cost to $111, according to the report from the nonprofit health-research group.

          Texas has been among the Republican-led states most fiercely opposed to Obamacare, but its monthly rates came in below the national average, HHS said. With 76 plans to choose from in Austin, a 27-year-old would pay $169 per month for the lowest-cost mid-tier one. In Dallas-Fort Worth, that monthly premium was $217, from 43 plans available, the report said.

          Reuters) – Americans will pay an average premium of $328
          monthly for a mid-tier health insurance plan when the Obamacare health exchanges open for enrollment next week, and most will qualify for government subsidies to lower that price, the federal government said on Wednesday.

          • silence dogood says:

            Because I would rather deal with any one of several insurers who offer these plans and have developed premiums based on claims paying experience,expenses,and investment earnings and not based on numbers which came from ??????.

  11. Eleanor says:

    Jonathan Alter watch your math as one reader pointed out in Charles Blow’s column the resultant 16% of opposition actually saying ACA doesn’t go far enough gives a 52% majority not 59% when added correctly to the other side of the ledger.

  12. Montesquieu says:

    In related YouTube video, we find the liar-in-chief, Hussein Obama, lying to the face of the American people about keeping their insurance and their doctor:

  13. Igor Shafarevich says:

    In a related article we see how Obamacare has viciously raped one young lady’s future:

  14. Igor Shafarevich says:

    Since liberty depends upon morality, liberty cannot survive where majority opinion favours the immoral plunder of some in the names of fairness, progress, and social justice for others.

  15. Chumba Wumba says:

    At least most Americans can finally agree that Obama is the problem.

  16. Chumba Wumba says:

    Natural selection applies to cultures in the sense that those cultures best able to compete and adapt are those that survive and thrive.

  17. Liberalism Is Nonsense says:

    A brief compilation of Obama’s lies about your healthcare:

  18. Liberalism Is Nonsense says:

    While successes such as penicillin’s discovery may be accidental & thus have little merit, many useless failures have been of great merit.

  19. Liberalism is Nonsense says:

    In this related CNN video, liberal hack Piers Morgan calls out Obama for his lies about Obamacare:

  20. Liberalism is Nonsense says:

    Once freedom is confused with power, the word “liberty” can be easily twisted toward centralizing the control that destroys true liberty.

  21. Liberalism Is Nonsense says:

    In a related article we see how Obamacare has viciously raped one young lady’s future:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.