ObamaCare continues to fail in ever more imaginative ways

Universities will someday have courses on ObamaCare. It will be an example of arrogance, overreach & ignorance inflicting a truly horrible policy on a massive scale. The latest news is that only 1/3 of those who signed up were previously uninsured. So Obama pushed people off insurance they had and gave them higher cost alternatives. Not much of a benefit.

ObamaCare is really working out to be a cluster-F. The best thing that could have happened to Obama would have been if Republicans had succeeded in stopping his program. In that case, he and his followers could have claimed forever that it was a good idea stopped by the narrow minded right.

Now ObamaCare is playing out, with one debacle after another. Soon it will become clear that the whole system is unsustainable. Then Obama will call for a bail-out. He is very clever and some of his more credulous fans will join him in blaming "greedy" insurance companies for doing what Obama made them do.

But the more intelligent and even the average folks have had a lesson in what big government cannot do. It seems to be a lesson each generation needs to learn. My generation learned it watching the collapse of the great society and all the misery it brought in its wake. My children's generation will have the ObamaCare lesson.

I think the problem is a mismatch between aspirations and practicalities. Do we aspire to eliminate poverty? Yes. Is government able to do it? No. Do we aspire to give everybody access to quality health care? Yes. Can government provide it? No. The inexperienced, and this includes Obama, only hear the first question in these pairs and that is their failure.

Posted by Christine & John at January 18, 2014 6:53 PM
Comment #375725

What a strange criticism of Obamacare. The fact that 1/3 of the enrollees are new to the individual insurance market would seem to me to be a positive outcome. A third of the enrollees were previously uninsured. That’s good. Now they have insurance.

It was always understood that the majority of enrollees would be persons previously insured through the individual market or transferring from employer insurance to individual. That is how the exchange markets were supposed to work. It is a new major market for individual insurance. It is a one stop shopping center. You don’t have to go to individual insurance companies for offerings, you can go to one site, see and compare a number of offerings.

Criticizing Obama for implementing the same program as your candidate in the last election implemented in MA is nonsensical. It is a subsidized market place for individual insurance. What is your criticism of that fundamental approach?

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2014 10:35 PM
Comment #375727
The fact that 1/3 of the enrollees are new to the individual insurance market would seem to me to be a positive outcome. A third of the enrollees were previously uninsured. That’s good. Now they have insurance

At what cost? Do you honestly believe that the cost to make that happen was the most effective way to do so?

It is a new major market for individual insurance. It is a one stop shopping center. You don’t have to go to individual insurance companies for offerings, you can go to one site, see and compare a number of offerings.

No, if that is all that it was, those solutions could have and already have been implemented outside of the federal government getting involved. Look at http://www.healthmarkets.com/ and http://www.healthsherpa.com/. If there was a need for those things, the market provides them. If there is not a need, it doesn’t. And to try to boil ACA down to that is ignoring all of the other things that it did, the things that the majority of people are actually not in favor of and don’t approve of.

Criticizing Obama for implementing the same program as your candidate in the last election implemented in MA is nonsensical.

Actually that argument has been nonsensical since the day it was trotted out by the DDDC.

1) Not everyone opposed to Obamacare (oh wait, I’m supposed to say ACA now since apparently the word Obamacare is racist) supported Romney, in fact it is probably why he didn’t win the election in 2012. Many voters were wanting someone to be an alternative to ACA to run for president, when that distinction was lost many either didn’t show up to vote or voted 3rd party.

2) ‘Romenycare’ was not the same thing as Obamacare ACA in many important regards, those areas being things that, for political expediency, progressives seem to want to ignore in order to continue making this inane deflection to any and all criticism.

3) IF it were based on ‘Romneycare’, shouldn’t the complete and total failure of that program have been a reason for anyone who might have thought it a good idea as some kind of compromise to come to there senses and realize they were wrong?

4) In the 2008 election YOUR candidate was for DOMA and reigning in the President’s unconstitutional powers to send military assets into armed conflict without congressional approval. The fact that he changes his mind on those ideas should have meant apparently that you would have voted against him in 2012. But you didn’t. Hypocrite much?

Debate on the law on its merits or lack of merits, but continuing to use this talking point as a deflection doesn’t do anyone any good.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 19, 2014 2:09 AM
Comment #375729


They expected much higher than that. If all you have done is chase people off insurance that they liked into the official system, all you have done is reduce freedom and increase cost. At best, you have done nothing useful at a higher cost.

Re my candidate and insurance - What works in one state may not be appropriate for the whole country.

One of the pathologies infecting our country is the disease of equality We used to understand that we needed true diversity, i.e. different outcomes based on different circumstances and behaviors. Now we demand everyone get the same. It is pernicious.

Mark Twain said that German music was better than it sounded. A strong commitment to equality is something that sounds better than it is.


I didn’t know ObamaCare was a racist term. Of course, we have to stand up to these things. Racism is no longer a major force in the U.S. There are racists, of course, like Eric Holder. But the U.S. is not a racist society.

Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2014 6:20 AM
Comment #375731
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered new assurances to gay athletes and fans attending the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics next month. Yet he defended Russia’s anti-gay law by equating gays with pedophiles and said Russia needs to “cleanse” itself of homosexuality if it wants to increase its birth rate.

AP - 1/19/2014

Posted by: DSP2195 at January 19, 2014 12:34 PM
Comment #375735
The EU’s reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.


Posted by: DSP2195 at January 19, 2014 8:44 PM
Comment #375736

The impetus of my very first blog post back in 2009 was because of my strong personal belief that President Obama simply isn’t ‘presidential’ in many ways.

As each month passed, this realization came to fruition time and time again, IMHO. Thus my main disappointment with the president was two-fold — he lacked leadership ability that generally comes from real-life experiences — and his political agenda was bereft of ‘what’s good for the entire republic.’

Here’s another example of Obama’s ‘unpresidential’ view of society.

I had to share this article because it is indicative of what I deem shocking. Obamacare is a great example of poor policy — policy that crowded out the most compelling problem that faced America since the Great Depression — the financial crisis and its long-term effects it has played with our economy in general and joblessness specifically.

The opportunity cost (of Obamacare)simply outweighed the benefits it provides in a major way.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 19, 2014 8:53 PM
Comment #375737


Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 19, 2014 8:56 PM
Comment #375738

RE: As for Rich’s ‘straw man’ argument (Romneycare vs. ACA), Romney’s plan was a ‘state’s rights’ issue. That is the greatness of the 10th Amendment - that the states are incubators of ideas (as long as those ideas don’t collide with federal powers enumerated therein).

Btw, I’ve never understood why Romney didn’t articulate the vast difference between one state’s experiment — Massachusetts — and the ‘ACA’s’ all-encompassing plan. Even if the former had its problems, the latter plan is disastrous, as CJ opined.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 19, 2014 9:47 PM
Comment #375739

“The meal was terrible! And such small portions!”

So, according to the author of the linked article, not enough uninsured people are being covered by Obamacare, and therefore, we should repeal all of it.

Uh huh.

First of all, I really dislike articles from fake ‘think tanks’ like the Manhattan Project, a phony organization funded by the Koch Brothers, Scaife, and other far right wing people who are, quite simply, terrible human beings who make the world a worse place to live, solely in order to further enrich themselves. The author of this particular article, a certain Avik Roy, is nothing more than Romney’s shill on the subject of health care. He previously worked at Bain Capitol, among other places, and claims to have been a health care advisor for the unlovable loser of 2012.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2014 10:46 PM
Comment #375741

And I would urge those who actually believe all the conservative lies about Obamacare to put their money where their mouth is. Short sell the stocks of the companies that would be affected the most. According to the linked article, those would be Aetna (AET), Humana (HUM), and Cigna (CI). A quick review of the 5 year charts shows the stocks of private health insurers reflect a broad assumption by markets that Obamacare will succeed. AET is at @ 70, an all time high. Same with CI, now @ 90. Short selling these companies at a time when everyone else believes Obamacare will work would make a lot of money.

Personally, I think conservatives are lying through their teeth about health care reform. Apparently, so does the stock market. So prove me wrong, and make lots of money at the same time.

Go for it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2014 2:02 AM
Comment #375742


The problem with too few people signing up is that they don’t have enough people paying premiums. It look like most of the people who signed up are those who will consume a lot of service relative to what they pay. This is a logical choice, but ruins the master plan. To extend your metaphor, we all cannot eat free at the expense of each other.

The other problem is that if ObamaCare just cannibalizes existing insurance, it is doing nothing but move people from what they had and liked into something that is not as good - from their perspective if not Obama’s. These are the people who liked their insurance but didn’t get to keep it, as Obama repeatedly promised.

Re think tanks - I don’t think there is such a thing as a “fake” think tank. Some you may think are biased, but they produce the product. Beyond that, ad-hominem arguments are invalid, as you learned in elementary logic.

Re selling short the firms - we expect that Obama will advocate a government bailout of the insurance industry. Those firms will not really bear the cost of this mistake; it will be thrust back on taxpayers. Obama and the industry will be happy, even while they call each other names and complain loudly. That is how the Obama version of crony capitalism works.

Posted by: CJ at January 20, 2014 5:24 AM
Comment #375743

The idea of a government bailout for the insurance industry is ludicrous. Those firms are very profitable and pay dividends. The stocks are hitting all time highs, and have been in a steady uptrend along with the rest of the markets for five years.

The willful misunderstanding of Obamacare continues among conservatives. First, the estimates for ACA signups range between 4.5 million and 6.4 million. The higher number is more likely to be accurate. Second, for people moving to insurance that is “not as good,” that is flatly wrong. Health care reform required insurance meet a minimum standard for quality, a higher standard. The idea that some people liked their inferior insurance better is silly. Even given the extreme fear of change a few people might exhibit, millions of people have already benefited from the changes, and most of them know it.

You have already benefited from health care reform in terms of your son. The ACA let him be covered by your insurance policy until he was 26. In addition, if he loses his current coverage, his policy will now be portable, and if he chooses a different insurer, no one can refuse him for pre-existing conditions. Given a few comments you have made in the past, that could be a huge consideration.

The GOP is already in the process of giving up its opposition to health care reform. Instead, they will supposedly concentrate on spending and the budget.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2014 12:24 PM
Comment #375744

As far as my insurance is concerned, I was paying $1300 a month for STATE coverage and my husband was paying $625, due to previous conditions. Now my husband and I are paying $1050 a month for basically the same coverage. Who do you think I am grateful too?

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at January 20, 2014 12:44 PM
Comment #375745
The idea of a government bailout for the insurance industry is ludicrous. Those firms are very profitable and pay dividends. The stocks are hitting all time highs, and have been in a steady uptrend along with the rest of the markets for five years.

The same could be said of many banks and other lending institutions in 2006… Ludicrous?

The profit margins of those companies are very low when compared to most businesses, especially banking. Any small deviation can cause them to start hemorrhaging money. Especially considering that they will not be able to change anything in their business practice to adjust because of federal laws.

And we are starting to see those numbers now, Humana released information last week.


First, the estimates for ACA signups range between 4.5 million and 6.4 million.

1) Estimates? All of this information is digitized, why would we be dealing with estimates?


2) Do you have any proof of this? Where are you getting this information from? Are you talking signups or people who have just put a plan into a cart to get a cost and never completed or paid for their plan? How about people who signed up for Medicaid? Let’s define those things before we start waving around estimates that you accept without question. The fact is that the number you tout cannot be just Obamacare signups, they include Medicare signups or people who thought they were insured but aren’t…

“In the most detailed accounting of what began as a public relations disaster in October, officials told reporters that nearly 2.2 million people had completed the sign-up process through Dec. 28.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they are covered. Since Jan. 1, thousands of people across the country trying to use their new insurance have been told by caregivers that they are not covered. Many had to spend hours on hold with their insurer trying to clear up the confusion.

It was impossible to know Monday how many people fell into this or other problematic categories.”


BTW, many of the latest estimates are that less than 1/3 and possibly as low as 11% of all Obamacare signups were previously uninsured. The rest are people who had insurance but it was dropped due to Obamacare regulations.

Second, for people moving to insurance that is “not as good,” that is flatly wrong.

Again, your OPINION is that those plans are better. THEIR opinion is that it wasn’t, at least not for them, or they would have already had those plans. All that the ACA has done is made those plans that they did have no longer an option. You continue to make the same mistake you have always made, you think you know better for people and are willing to force them to do what you want them to do.

The idea that some people liked their inferior insurance better is silly.

TO YOU. To them it isn’t silly. But you don’t care about their needs, desires, thoughts, hope or dreams, do you? You know what they need better than they do, right? If someone decided to only pay cash for all health care and carry only a catastrophic plan that they hope to never need, they may love that plan. But you’ve told them they can’t do that. Because you think you know better.

Are you seeing the theme here?

You have already benefited from health care reform in terms of your son. The ACA let him be covered by your insurance policy until he was 26. In addition, if he loses his current coverage, his policy will now be portable, and if he chooses a different insurer, no one can refuse him for pre-existing conditions

Was CJ in one of the 35 states that already dictated these to their citizens? All that the ACA did was extend what was already in practice in 35 states to the other 15… Something the voters in those states could have done for themselves if they wanted it. But, of course, you know better…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 20, 2014 12:50 PM
Comment #375746
Who do you think I am grateful too?

Hopefully you are grateful to all of the healthy people, mostly young people, who are paying more now at a time when they can least afford it so that you can pay less than the market value for your coverage. They are the ones having to work harder so you can have it easier…

It’s a shame that we are doing that to our country’s young people, but hey, as long as you are better off, screw them, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 20, 2014 12:57 PM
Comment #375747

My daughter is 24 and healthy. She was uninsured. Now she has excellent and affordable insurance that fits her needs, for only $167/month.

Who do you think she is grateful to?

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2014 1:52 PM
Comment #375748

Not sure, why was she uninsured? Lazy? Wasn’t made to by law?

I know people her age that had insurance at lower rates than 167/month previously, but without any information it’s hard to guess.

It would seem that she should have had health insurance before this year if it was something she would be grateful for having.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 20, 2014 2:51 PM
Comment #375749

I had Humana. I was cancelled. There is no plan available for me. I have to use medicare. That is 80/20 coverage.
I am taking chemotherapy for my leukemia. The cost for each chemo treatment is nearly $50k. That is $10k oout of my pocket for each treatment. There will be 6 treatments up front. That is $60k out of my pocket.

Take your obama care and stick it where the sun cannot nor will it ever shine. My Humana had a cost factor much less than the “great stiff” Obama care has foisted upon me.

Yes I am only one, but I would venture to say my situation has been and will continue to be ACA, which is interpreted as Another Con Allowed.

My suggestion to phx8 is get a job foisting the abomination on the public and maybe you will see the corrupted crap that is being forced on the people of the country. You can have all the opinions you want about this crime being performed on Americans, but don’t shovel your BS that you call fact.

Posted by: tom humes at January 20, 2014 3:35 PM
Comment #375750

Tom humes,

Forget Humana and obtain a policy with another insurer under Obamacare standards. You cannot be refused for your pre-existing condition. There will be a cap on the cost of your treatments, so if this were under my policy, the annual cost in premiums would be @ $7200 for two adult non-smokers aged 56, and the out-of-pocket cost would be a total of $6250. You may be able to do better than Medicare, given your personal situation. Presumably you are older than me, but in any case, it is time to make some phone calls. The difference to your pocket book could be life changing.

Georgia does not have a health care exchange, so you will need to contact the federal exchange, www.healthcare.gov
You may be eligible for Medicaid, depending on income.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2014 4:15 PM
Comment #375751


Re bailout - let’s see. This is a big crap shoot. ObamaCare is reorganizing a big slice of the economy. So far, the roll out has been very bad. They are not attracting the numbers of people and the ones they are attracting are older and sicker. There are two possibilities. Either Obama allowed the firms to vastly profit or if they priced based on Obama estimates, they will lose lots of money. Of course, maybe there is a third option. Obama was lying. Everybody knew it and adjusted accordingly.

Re my son - indeed, I personally benefited. We kept him on the insurance at no additional cost to us. Presumably, however, somebody paid more.

There are parts of ObamaCare that will probably work. It is just that the comprehensive nature of the system is seriously flawed. It will need to be redone.

Re your daughter - please see below about being grateful. I would add, however, that in the brief time when my kids were uncovered, my son paid $85 a month for insurance on the open market.


“Who do you think I am grateful to?” - you should be grateful to young and healthy people who are paying for you and maybe those who are not getting subsidies.

In your case, ObamaCare simply robbed somebody else to pay for you. It did not lower the cost.

You may recall the old rhyme - “Don’t tax you; don’t tax me; tax the follow behind the tree.” But this forgotten man paying the bills has a way of being us.


I know I repeated some of what you said, but it doesn’t hurt to tell them twice.

I think this points to a moral hazard of government. Some people probably are grateful to Obama. He has bribed them with money coerced from others and sometimes even with their own money and now they are his voters.

Posted by: CJ at January 20, 2014 5:09 PM
Comment #375752

From phx8, “…the annual cost in premiums would be @ $7200 for two adult non-smokers aged 56…”

Isn’t it interesting…no matter your health, no matter how obese, no matter anything; the non-smoker gets preference over the smoker. Bullshit~

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2014 7:08 PM
Comment #375753

Isn’t it interesting that every time there is a money shortage the left talks about suspending Social Security payments, but never talks about suspending welfare.

SS recipients paid premiums…what have the welfare recipient paid for their benefit?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2014 7:11 PM
Comment #375754

Isn’t it interesting to listen to Biden talk about bringing millions who are here illegally “out of the shadows”.

Why are they in the shadows…they are breaking our laws. Silly ass.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2014 7:13 PM
Comment #375755

Isn’t it interesting that the guv of NY believes that anyone not a leftie or moderate should leave NY. Silly ass.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 20, 2014 7:46 PM
Comment #375756

I have to laugh at old liberals who think they are getting a bargain on H.C. coverage. They fail to see that their HEALTYY children and grand children are the ones paying the higher premiums for their sick old A**s.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 20, 2014 10:22 PM
Comment #375757

I’m getting t pay double for my insurance so some lazy idiot that won’t work can get better health care than I do.
Tell me again how great Obamacare is.

Posted by: RB at January 21, 2014 10:05 AM
Comment #375758

“I had Humana. I was cancelled. There is no plan available for me. I have to use medicare.”


Medicare has a number of options, including Medigap supplements and Medicare Advantage plans run by private insurance programs, that would reduce the out of pocket expenses of Original Medicare. Insurance companies operating Medicare Advantage programs cannot drop you for preexisting conditions and if you are applying for Medicare for the first time supplemental plans cannot refuse coverage due to preexisting conditions.

I doubt that you could get a better deal than Medicare and its options on the private individual insurance market before or after Obamacare.

Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2014 8:21 PM
Comment #375759

We’ve heard about Christy for 2 weeks, now let’s see if the democrats call for de Blasio’s impeachment???

It really is a tale of two cities — this time with the tony Upper East Side getting the shaft!

Huge swaths of the city’s wealthiest neighborhood had been not been plowed by early Tuesday evening, leaving 1-percenters out in the cold, according to the city’s own map of snow-plower activity.

“He is trying to get us back. He is very divisive and political,” said writer and life-long Upper East Side mom Molly Jong Fast of Mayor de Blasio.

“By not plowing the Upper East Side, he is saying, ‘I’m not one of them.’ But we have everyone in this area on the Upper East Side. We have rich people, middle class people, and housing projects. We have it all.”

There appeared to be no snow plowing between East 59th and 79th Streets and between Second and Fifth Avenues.


Posted by: DSP2195 at January 21, 2014 8:21 PM
Comment #375760

“I have to laugh at old liberals who think they are getting a bargain on H.C. coverage. They fail to see that their HEALTYY children and grand children are the ones paying the higher premiums for their sick old A**s”

Old liberals are not so naïve.

The concept of a pool or community rating is not something unique to Obamacare. It is the backbone of employer group insurance where the majority of Americans get their insurance. Think about it! Do younger workers in a company pay lower health care premiums than older employees? Do older employees pay higher premiums with larger deductibles and out of pocket? No. The risk is spread across the employee pool.

So, why is this such a shock when applied to the individual insurance market? Sure, younger insured will pay a higher premium than their actual risk rating in order to reduce the cost of the older and sicker. If you think this unfair, consider the simple fact that everybody ages, everybody eventually gets sick. That’s our human condition. Higher premiums at a younger age are nothing more than a down payment on premiums for the future. It is simply spreading across a person’s lifespan.

Conservative alternatives which would allow insurance without community ratings come with a clear and obvious caveat: they must be supplemented with government funded high risk pools. The net result is that the young and healthy get cheaper insurance and the old and sick get unaffordable insurance with the taxpayer picking up the eventual tab. The only winners in that scenario are insurance companies. The losers are the older, sicker and the taxpayer.

Health insurance isn’t like other insurance for the simple reason that the risk cannot be avoided. It is just about 100% for everybody. You can adjust for lifestyle, e.g., weight, high risk behaviors, etc. But, the fact of the matter is that we are mortal beings. We age, we get sick and we die.

We forget why Medicare came into being in the first place. It was because nobody would insure a person beyond a certain age without enormous premiums. So, we started paying for Medicare at a young working age to pay for the future. We spread the risk premiums across our working lifetime.

Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2014 9:04 PM
Comment #375761

Rich, If the younger people DO NOT sign up for Obamacare then the whole thing will go bust. That’s a known fact. But to think that because some old liberal is going to get a bargain rate for H.C. coverage with pre existing conditions is pure stupidity, even H.C. coverage through an employer was non existent for someone with pre existing conditions. So to think that as some have said that they are getting a bargain rate, someone else will have to pay and that is the younger healthier people will be paying higher premiums for their old sick A**. who probably wouldn’t carry H.C. coverage other then being forced to by law. By the way H.C. coverage was NOT forced upon the individual by the employer.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 21, 2014 10:19 PM
Comment #375762
”All in a day’s work” according to Obama who took advice and training from Saul Alinsky.

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare –
Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty –
Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt –
Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control –
Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare –
Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education –
Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion –
Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare –
Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Posted by: DSP2195 at January 21, 2014 11:20 PM
Comment #375763

“even H.C. coverage through an employer was non existent for someone with pre existing conditions.”

Your wrong, Rich Kap. Since the passage of HIPPA in 1996, there has been very significant limitations on the ability of an employer to exclude coverage for a pre-existing condition, particularly if the person had prior group coverage before taking a new job. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fshipaa.html


The ACA only extends the benefits the type of protections already existing in principal to those on the individual insurance market.

Posted by: Rich at January 21, 2014 11:48 PM
Comment #375764

That’s a big if Rich. How many healthy young people get H.C. coverage prior to ACA??? Very few I know I didn’t when I was young, healthy and single. It wasn’t until after I got married that I worried about H.C. coverage. HIPPA law didn’t pertain to someone who gets H.C. coverage for the first time with pre existing conditions. Now we have older people signing up who have pre existing conditions at bargain rates because ACA is hopeful healthy young people will sign up at rates higher then previously for a healthy young person. So lets just quit with the BS someone has to pay for those with preexisting conditions. We are robbing our kids, grandkids and great grandkids with the National debt, now we are robbing them with ACA.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 22, 2014 12:31 AM
Comment #375765

“HIPPA law didn’t pertain to someone who gets H.C. coverage for the first time with pre existing conditions.”

Rich KAP,

Yes, it did Rich. Read the links that I provided. If you got a job and the employer offered health insurance, you had protections. The difference is that limitations on pre-existing condition exclusions only applied to employer group coverage. The ACA extends such protections to the individual insurance market.

“So lets just quit with the BS someone has to pay for those with preexisting conditions.”

I don’t think anyone has said differently. The ACA design is to spread risk across the entire individual insured pool, a concept inherent in employer group coverage. It also employs subsidies, another concept inherent in employer group coverage (ESI is the largest tax subsidy of the federal government). So, the more in the pool and the more young and healthy, the better the cost spreading. No denying that.

You may object to paying a slightly higher premium if you are young and healthy. But, life isn’t static. You age and you get sick. Better in my opinion to pay a little more when young to assure that an affordable policy is available in a few short years.

Posted by: Rich at January 22, 2014 10:07 AM
Comment #375766
Don’t believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.


Posted by: DSP2195 at January 22, 2014 7:18 PM
Comment #375767

“How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky”

DSP2195, stop believing everything that you see in your email.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 22, 2014 8:06 PM
Comment #375768

Here is a five year chart for the price of gold:


A person investing in gold since the beginning of the Obama administration would have managed the difficult trick of losing money, even as the stock market has set all time highs. A person investing on the theory that inflation is really higher than reported would have had their head handed to them on a platter.

The “real” unemployment rate is 6.7%


The number to watch- probably the most closely watched economic statistic in the world- is the monthly non-farm payroll. There are issues with unemployment, to be sure, especially the offshoring of manufacturing that hurt us so badly during the Bush administration, but the bottom line is simple: the employment situation has improved and it is highly likely to continue improving. To suggest a conspiracy exists surrounding the Federal Reserve and various statistics is misleading people in the worse way. It just encourages them to do stupid things, like buy gold.

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2014 9:54 PM
Comment #375769
The “real” unemployment rate is 6.7%


That’s the funny thing with numbers like that, if you don’t understand what they are based on, they are meaningless…

If we calculated unemployment today like we did in 1990, it wouldn’t be 6.7%. But you don’t like to hear that do you? The same with inflation. Shortly after Social Security and other government payments were linked to inflation, government statisticians began changing the way inflation is calculated.

We changed the rules for measuring these numbers for political reasons so we get numbers that help politically, and if you want to use them, fine. But if you are going to compare today’s unemployment and inflation numbers with anything historical, you need to use the old calculation criteria or you are just comparing apples and oranges. Don’t try to act superior by thinking you have the carved in stone only number that could possibly exist either… Not if you want to be taken seriously at least.


The CPI chart on the home page reflects our estimate of inflation for today as if it were calculated the same way it was in 1990. The CPI on the Alternate Data Series tab here reflects the CPI as if it were calculated using the methodologies in place in 1980. In general terms, methodological shifts in government reporting have depressed reported inflation, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living.


Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year.

Calculating unemployment as Reagan and Bush I had to do, we would be at 23%. We can either retro back their stats or use the one that they used now if we are going to compare historics… And if we are going to understand what they mean, it is important to know what they are measuring, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 22, 2014 10:21 PM
Comment #375770
Marxist leftists have prepared a nightmarish blueprint for American socialism in a new revolutionary “book of imagination.”

The new book, “Imagine Living in a Socialist USA,” was edited by Frances Goldin who praises “life-enhancing socialism” in the preface. The 281 page manifesto showcases 31 utopian essays written by dangerous criminals, prominent liberals, and self-described communists - all for just $10.11.

It imagines a “free” and “enlightened” socialist United States, promoting radical notions such as eliminating prisons and creating mandatory worker-owned businesses. More dangerously, it details “how to get from where we are to where we want to be,” and the authors seem determined to destroy “rapacious” and “cancerous” capitalism, by revolution if necessary.

The new book is stocked with pieces featuring Bill Ayers, Michael Moore and even Mumia Abu Jamal. It’s a perfect fit for Karl Marx’s library and brought together calls for establishment of grade and competition-free schools and the greatest hits of terrible Occupy Wall Street demands into a strident call for “the Third American Revolution.”

Here, are some of the most extreme and famous among this group of radicals and liberal journalists:

Joel Kovel Demands Revolution to Kill Capitalist ‘Cancer’

Joel Kovel’s piece makes no pretense about its radical aims, complete with a Marxist slogan in the first paragraph: “working men of all countries unite!”

The author and anti-Israel firebrand invoke environmental hysteria over issues such as climate change, asserting that “our obligation is to remake society from the ground up in the service of life. If this be read as a demand for revolution, so be it.”

Socialism, he claims, would foster a society where humans will organize their economy in accordance with environmental demands. Kovel certainly rejected capitalism calling it “a kind of metastasizing cancer, a disease that demands radical treatment - revolutionary change.”

Cop-Killer and Former Fugitive Advocate the End of Prisons

Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer, and Angela Davis, former leader of the Communist Party U.S.A, worked together to pen a bizarre essay on crime. It begins by asserting “The concept of ‘crime,’ like much that we today take for granted, is a sociopolitical construct.”

The authors’ objections to prisons fit well into their colorful biographies. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 of shooting Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in the back. His case became a hot-button political issue for radical liberals, including this book’s editor who described a life goal as “to free Mumia Abu-Jamal from the bars that constrain him.” Free Mumia T-shirts have long been fixtures of the protest landscape.

Davis, for her part, was implicated in a 1970 courtroom shootout, though she was found not-guilty after spending three months on the run. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev awarded her the Lenin Peace Price in 1979.

These two radicals advocate nothing less than the complete dismantling of the prison system. They argued that a socialist United States would “end mass incarceration by prison abolition.” While you may be wondering what they think would suffice to stop crime, they advocate a system which “brings the offender and the victim together to talk to each other.”

Yes, let’s force victims to engage in dialogue with their attackers.

Bill Ayers Claims American Nationalized Schooling a Failure of Capitalism

No socialist treatise would be complete without the violent terrorist and self-described “communist” Bill Ayers. In his essay, Ayers advocates a radical change to the education system which would eliminate “the laborious programs of sorting the crowd into winners and losers through testing and punishing, grading, assessing, and judging.”

For Ayers, education has become a capitalist organization which has less to offer “an inquiring mind” than the “city dump” or “a street corner.” The problem, he says, is that capitalism encourages us to “think of education as a product like a car or a refrigerator.” He supported completely dismantling the education system, in favor of a poorly defined system without grades that instead focus on “full human development, enlightenment, and freedom.”

He never addresses the fact that public education in the United States is run by the government, though he blamed “a merry band of billionaires” for pushing public schooling reforms.

Bill Ayers was a founding member of the openly communist and revolutionary Weather Underground in 1969. Ayers has admitted to facilitating a series of anti-war bombings while a member of this organization.

Paul Le Blanc Explains How America is Ready for Revolution

Le Blanc, a historian at La Roche College, examines how a contemporary socialist revolution would fit into the revolutionary history of the United States. He views both the American Revolution and the “Second American Revolution” (Civil War) as times when progressive forces destroyed unjust power structures in America.

He promotes another revolution, saying “Many U.S. socialists have argued that we must undertake a third American revolution that would end the economic dictatorship of capitalism and establish rule by the people over our economy.”

He proceeds to explain how the American working class has become dissatisfied with the status quo and how socialist activists can begin to prepare for a revolutionary movement. According to Le Blanc, now is a particularly fruitful time for revolution, as the inequality of wealth provides “fantastic potential for socialist transformation today.”

Michael Moore Hopes for an Unstoppable Occupy Wall Street … In 2011

Michael Moore, the prominent lefty filmmaker, did not write on original article for this book. Instead, Goldin selected a 2011 article, which Moore wrote to promote the then newly formed Occupy Wall Street movement. Moore promotes the typical OWS slogans, alternating between platitudes about “a truly free, democratic and just society” and hard-line leftist legislation, like carbon reduction, confiscatory taxes, and a massive welfare state.

Almost sadly, he ends this proposal with an optimistic call to arms, stating “Occupy Wall Street enjoys the support of millions. It is a movement that cannot be stopped.”

How did that work out for him?

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cop-killer-communist-terrorist-pen-nightmarish-blueprint-socialist-usa#sthash.dVvL9Mda.K0rp3nHN.dpuf Posted by: DSP2195 at January 23, 2014 1:14 PM
Comment #375771

DSP, you may get a laugh from this…

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment rolls that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how they get it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for re-election.

ABBOTT: Absolutely!

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Congress.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 1:27 PM
Comment #375774

The Republicans talk so damn much about everybody else’s failures. Reverse hype, really. They will trash the way other people do things until they get all the way back in power. And then what?

They will Repeat what happened with the Bush Administration, really.

It’s not really commented upon, but what have Republicans done to even things up? Well, they’ve sent this country into what you could term a mental Great Depression. They haven’t convinced people that big business and small government are better. They’ve just undermined people’s faith in America’s institutions in general. Perhaps that is good for them, so far as people don’t seem eager anymore, right now, to reform things.

Ah, but are things so simple? No, they are not. People can become convinced that what they resigned themselves to leaving alone really couldn’t or shouldn’t be left alone after all. What’s more, nobody’s really satisfied. They’re not looking at things and thinking, oh, nothing could be better. No, they’re looking at things and thinking that this is simply the lot of Americans in modern America.

Put another way, they’ve convinced people that things in America are crap, and they should just get used to it.

No more dream of space. No, there’s nothing you can do to deal with climate change. We’re not going to be the leaders in anything, or solve any of our big problems. The GOP has become America’s PITY PARTY. The Party of despair and enforced stagnation.

Isn’t it wonderful that the richest people don’t have to pay more taxes? Won’t it be wonderful to let the people who we’ve lost trust in take more risks and have more freedom?

It’s all a colossal JOKE.

America came back from a similar such decline, and broke out of this Great Depression of the national spirit. It started the ball rolling on technological revolutions and didn’t find America taking second place in anything to be an acceptable outcome.

Republicans need a country that’s in fear and despair to find their policies acceptable. Therefore, people like the authors here need to be relentlessly negative, and support obstruction at all costs. If things start to work again, if efforts to revive America’s spirits and it’s national unity succeed, then the Republicans will find the next few elections to be a season of defeat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 23, 2014 3:33 PM
Comment #375775

Many thanks Daugherty for your political opinion. What a revelation. I didn’t realize that Constitutional Conservatives were such an irresponsible lot. I think I got it now after reading your well researched and informative piece. When can we expect the next installment?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 4:09 PM
Comment #375776

The PPACA is picking up steam (Utah just agreed to the Medicaid expansion under PPACA). I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank President Obama for accomplishing something that has been in the making for decades. There will continue to be bumps and measures will need to be taken to improve this law but it took President Obama and our Democratic leaders to bring this to a beginning point. My heart felt thanks goes out to them.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 23, 2014 5:06 PM
Comment #375777

lol…Speak…you crack me up with your jokes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 5:18 PM
Comment #375778

NY Times’ Jill Abramson: ‘This Is The Most Secretive White House…I Have Ever Dealt With’

“It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering…I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.”


Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 6:06 PM
Comment #375779

Well said, Speak4All. We see a lot of voices of negativity on this site. They hated Obama from the moment he took office, and they have reflexively opposed literally everything he and the Democrats have done to make this a better country.

The unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 6.7% and they cry ‘conspiracy’!

Inflation remains low. ‘Conspiracy’!

Housing prices rose 13% last year.

The price of gold is down. The stock market has hit all time highs, one of the biggest bull markets in the entire history of the United States!

The stocks of health care insurers such as Cigna and Humana have also hit all time highs. About 11.9 million people (for all types of enrollments) have signed up for Obamacare, including, according to the latest Gallup poll, somewhere between 2 and 3 million young people. Incredibly, the haters actually continue hoping health care reform will fail! It is not because they have an alternative. They are negative. They have nothing to offer. All they want is to tear it down.

These are the same conservatives whose policies brought this country to its knees during the disastrous Bush years. They are still out there, and they will do everything possible to keep tearing down the country and Obama.

But the fact is, Obamacare has worked. On a personal basis, it has already made a big improvement in my life already, and I am thankful. This morning I went in for blood testing. When I was uninsured, it cost $225 (or $450- I forget). Now it is considered preventative, and the service is free.

Consider the example provided earlier in this thread by tom humes. He says his leukemia treatment is costing him $50,000 out-of-pocket. With my current insurance under Obamacare, there is a limit on out-of-pocket costs. If I suffered the same illness, it would cost my annual premium for myself and my wife ($606 x 12 = $7272) + deductible ($6250). And that is it.

So life has become much better for most Americans under Obama, and I am thankful too.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2014 6:23 PM
Comment #375780

X8 wrote; “This morning I went in for blood testing. When I was uninsured, it cost $225 (or $450- I forget). Now it is considered preventative, and the service is free.”

That is certainly a liberal position. If they don’t pay for a service it must be free.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 6:36 PM
Comment #375781

Royal Flush,
My Obamacare policy costs less than the insurance cost prior to health care reform (assuming I could get it in the first place- like many people, I had a pre-existing condition). An Obamacare policy also costs less than a COBRA policy.

What do you have to say about tom hume? Conservatives seem to be awfully quiet about that situation.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2014 6:57 PM
Comment #375782

I believe Tom Hume speaks well enough for himself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 7:01 PM
Comment #375783

From what I read it seems that phx8 is obsessed with saving himself money at the expense of someone else. Or…is it really “free”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 7:09 PM
Comment #375784

obama is not only the first half-white president but the only one who has publicly declared that if congress fails to enact legislation to further his goals he will act without congress and do what all tyrants do…make their own laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 7:14 PM
Comment #375785

Prior to Obamacare my preventative lab work was covered by my H.C. coverage. So phx8 thinks he’s getting something special from Obama, what a laugh. What R.F. said about T.H.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 23, 2014 7:15 PM
Comment #375786

We no longer underwrite health insurance for risk. Should we do the same with life insurance, home insurance, auto insurance?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 7:23 PM
Comment #375787

obamathink - Those who have must pay for those who have not.

obamathink - 55 million abortions in the US since Roe v Wade is not excessive.

obamathink - If I don’t like the law I discard it.

obamathink - We can spend out way out of debt.

I invite other examples.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2014 7:35 PM
Comment #375788
The PPACA is picking up steam (Utah just agreed to the Medicaid expansion under PPACA). I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank President Obama for accomplishing something that has been in the making for decades. There will continue to be bumps and measures will need to be taken to improve this law but it took President Obama and our Democratic leaders to bring this to a beginning point. My heart felt thanks goes out to them.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 23, 2014 5:06 PM

But here is a dose of reality:

Moody’s slashes outlook on insurers, cites Obamacare ‘uncertainty’

Credit ratings firm Moody’s Investors Service on Thursday lowered its outlook for health insurers to “negative” from “stable,” citing “uncertainty” swirling around the rollout of President Obama’s health care law.

In a new report, the agency said that the outlook for insurance companies is no longer clear because the law’s insurance exchanges haven’t been attracting enough younger individuals. In addition, Moody’s analysts were concerned that the Obama administration has been changing regulations after insurers had already set prices for the year.

“While we’ve had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while, the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change,” Stephen Zaharuk, author of the report, said in a statement. “The past few months have seen new regulations and announcements that impose operational changes well after product and pricing decisions were finalized.”

The release noted, “Uncertainty over the demographics of those enrolling in individual products through the exchanges is a key factor in Moody’s outlook change. … Enrollment statistics show that only 24 percent of enrollees so far are between 18 and 34, a critical age group in ensuring that lower claim costs subsidize the higher claim costs of less healthy, older individuals. This is well short of the original 40 percent target based on the proportion of eligible people in this cohort.”

Moody’s also said it was “unclear” whether the impact of the new tax on health insurance policies was properly accounted for by insurers in their 2014 forecasts.


Posted by: DSP2195 at January 23, 2014 9:19 PM
Comment #375789
obama is not only the first half-white president but the only one who has publicly declared that if congress fails to enact legislation to further his goals he will act without congress and do what all tyrants do…make their own laws.

Royal time to pull your head out of your ass. You just didn’t think it was a big deal when Reagan issue three times as many as Obama or when Bush signed almost twice as many executive orders. Really pull your head out and think for yourself.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2014 11:42 PM
Comment #375791

Of course we all know Wikipedia can be 100% trusted.
I’m surprised that Obama hasn’t issued an executive order suspending the Constitution and declaring himself king. But then his term isn’t up yet.

Posted by: RB at January 24, 2014 12:42 AM
Comment #375793

Thanks phx8. I just don’t understand completely why some commenters here fixate on their gloom and doom prognostications. I did not vote for Bush but even in my darkest hours of his two terms in office I held a belief that this man was the President of the United States of America and by that alone deserved respect. Not that I agreed with all of his decisions or policies but even when the drums of war were being beaten and the calls for invasion of foreign countries was considered normal, I still held the belief in this country and knew that over 200 years of survival could not be undone by a single President. I knew that this country was greater than that. This country survived those 200 plus years with a mostly adversarial political process that was inherent in my beliefs of what was wrong. I believe in our adversarial political process and do not expect everyone to agree with what is now happening and in fact welcome the adverse points that are made. This will make this country stronger and better. But respect does not seem to be anything that the adversaries of this President are willing to give. It must be a terrible way to go through life thinking that one President is capable of destroying the greatness of this nation however I do believe that this is conflated by some people and this clouds their ability to see this country for what it is. Diverse, adverse, exceptional and imperfect at times but far greater than any one of us or any group of us.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 24, 2014 10:02 AM
Comment #375794
Of course we all know Wikipedia can be 100% trusted.

RB prove the list of executive orders wrong then. You seem to be caught up in the conservative hysteria if your response is as weak as this. The simple fact is executive orders have been around and used by presidents for years, whether you believe factual information or not.

I’m surprised that Obama hasn’t issued an executive order suspending the Constitution and declaring himself king. But then his term isn’t up yet.

Then it is you with the problem, executive orders have been issued since the founding of the nation. Your fear and hatred probably stem from to much conservative propaganda and the inability to discern misinformation, half truths, and outright lies from factual information. DSP and Royal seems to be inflicted with the same “much ado about nothing” fear. The making of “mountains out of molehills” exaggerations we see from the conservative propaganda machine so often should cause the thinking person to ignore the BS, yet like “moths to a flame” they pass it along in emails and such as if it were somehow the truth.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2014 10:25 AM
Comment #375795


President Obamas lack of experience, far-left record, divisiveness and very own writings, are why people have disliked him from the beginning. All which have been validated many times over since he took office.

Stripping away every individuals freedom of choice, dividing Americans amongst themselves, and intentionally lying to forward an agenda, are not what makes us a better country.

Unemployment: Even the really far-left loons can understand something is not right. Of course, they blame some stupid evil 1% and corporations conspiracy, but at least they are willing to accept actual facts and hold the Presidents feet to the fire, as he asked.

The stock market: I’m not trying to put its rise down or anything, but it really doesn’t mean anything to those unable to take advantage of it. You know, those you all pretend to care about.

“Incredibly, the haters actually continue hoping health care reform will fail!”

Of course people want the ACA to fail and to tear it down, it takes away choice, will cost more, will raise taxes, and gives the government too much control over the lives of all.
Those things are what is helping to tear down the country.

“On a personal basis, it has already made a big improvement in my life already, and I am thankful.”

It is also wrecking the lives of tens of millions, and we are not thankful. Not just because our premiums are rising or being cancelled. Not just because we were lied to and can no longer keep our doctor. Not just because one lost their insurance so that another could have insurance. Not just because we understand that subsidy does not mean free.
It is wrecking our lives because we know government should not be given this much control over our lives. We know what is next.

“So life has become much better for most Americans under Obama, and I am thankful too”

No, you think life has become better for most Americans because you think you know what is best for every American. You don’t. Tens of millions of us are not willing to throw away what we have just so that some can save a few bucks.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2014 10:32 AM
Comment #375796
obamathink - Those who have must pay for those who have not.

Conservativethink- The delusion that everyone having insurance somehow adds up to the haves paying for the havenots. Especially when the previous scheme of the havenots going to emergency rooms, without the money to pay for the service, for healthcare. The failure in logic that comes from not realizing that when we all pay for insurance we all pay not just some of us.

One would think WB is the circus seeings we hear from so many clowns.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2014 10:41 AM
Comment #375797

This ^^^^^^ is exactly the attitude of defeatism that I believe is causing all of the angst and bother about what is happening in our country. Get over yourself, other people don’t think like you or want what you want. I did not have anything stripped away, I do not feel divided and I haven’t been lied to. Please get a grip and realize we all make up this country not just the people you approve of.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 24, 2014 10:46 AM
Comment #375798

Sorry j2t2 didn’t mean to point to your post but the post above yours.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 24, 2014 10:50 AM
Comment #375801

Masking Totalitarianism

Walter E. Williams | Nov 27, 2013


” What the positive rights tyrants want but won’t articulate is the power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. After all, if one person does not have the money to purchase food, housing or medicine and if Congress provides the money, where does it get the money? It takes it from some other American, forcibly using that person to serve the purposes of another. Such a practice differs only in degree, but not kind, from slavery.

Under natural law, we all have certain unalienable rights. The rights we possess we have authority to delegate. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Because we possess that right, we can delegate it to government, in effect saying, “We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we delegate to you the authority to defend us.” By contrast, I don’t possess the right to take your earnings to give to another. Seeing as I have no such right, I cannot delegate it.

The idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another has served as the foundation of mankind’s ugliest and most brutal regimes. Do we want that for America?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2014 1:18 PM
Comment #375802

An Old ‘New’ Program

Thomas Sowell | Nov 05, 2013


“Insurance is an institution for dealing with risks. It is a costly and counterproductive way to pay for things that are not risks — such as annual checkups, which are known in advance to occur every year.

Your annual checkup does not cost any less because it is covered by insurance. In fact it costs more, because the person who is insured must pay premiums that cover not only the cost of the checkup itself, but also the costs of insurance company paperwork.

If automobile insurance covered the cost of paying for your oil changes, would that make oil changes cheaper or more expensive? Obviously more expensive, since additional people would have to be paid to become involved in handling the transaction, instead of your simply paying directly out of your own pocket to the people who changed your oil.

Different people have different risks and different willingness to take care of risks themselves, instead of paying to have them transferred to an insurance company. But politicians in state after state have mandated what must be covered by insurance, regardless of what policy-holders and insurance companies might agree on if left free to make their own choices.

That has made it impossible to get less expensive insurance that covers only costly but rare medical problems.

Politicians love to play Santa Claus by handing out favors to voters, while depicting insurance companies as Scrooge when they raise insurance premiums to cover the costs of government mandates.”

” Municipal transit used to be privately owned and run, but politicians would not allow the fares to be raised to a level that would cover costs. The net result was that private companies were driven out of business and local governments took over, saddling the taxpayers with the costs that fares don’t cover.

That is what “single payer” means in any context — a government monopoly that virtually guarantees worse service. Why would anyone want that for something as crucial as medical care?

One reason, of course, is the ever seductive illusion of something for nothing, an illusion spread by glib politicians, posing as saviors of the public against villains in the private sector.

Yet another way in which ObamaCare is an old political story is that it began as supposedly a way to deal with the problem of a segment of the population — those without health insurance.

But, instead of directly helping those particular people to get insurance, the “solution” was to expand the government’s power over everybody, including people who already had health insurance that they wanted to keep.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2014 1:31 PM
Comment #375807

The article willfully misunderstands the benefits of preventative care.

It also willfully ignores a basic fact: everyone needs health care. Everyone.

If everyone paid for everyone regularly changing their oil, we would have the benefit of cleaner air and less frequent need to replace vehicles, just for starters, so it is not “obviously” more expensive. I’m not suggesting we go that route. Not everyone needs a car, or one that burns oil in the first place. But the author of this article has “obviously” not thought things through.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2014 4:21 PM
Comment #375808

X8, you missed the point entirely, perhaps on purpose so you could defend something else.

Not everyone needs health care today…perhaps not for decades. Some die without ever having to see a doctor or spend time in a hospital. Some pay for their own health care when they need it and invest the premium they would have been paying.

Do you see a pattern here? We don’t need government telling us what we need, how much, what color, and when. Our government practices tyranny in the name of compassion.

Would you support obamacare for our life insurance? Everyone dies eventually. How about obamafoodcare. Everyone need to eat.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2014 4:43 PM
Comment #375809

Ah, but we need health care the moment we are born, and women need it when they give birth. We need the community of others from the moment we appear on this earth.

Everyone who drives is required by the government to own car insurance. People who do not own cars or have driver licenses do not need it.

Life insurance goes to other people after a person dies. Too many people do not have an estate in the first place, or anyone to leave it to, so the idea of government mandated life insurance is silly.

However, it is not tyranny to want to see people fed. No one should starve to death, especially in a society as wealthy as ours. A country which chooses to let its citizens starve to death when starvation could easily be prevented is an obscenity.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2014 5:11 PM
Comment #375810

Many women give birth at home. The “community of others” is free…not to be confused with government.

Those who don’t drive or own a car have a choice…not a government mandate shoved down their throats.

Life insurance IS for the living to help families survive death. Despite the fact that everyone dies, government should stay out of life ins.

Everyone needs food…why not obamafoodcare? Why should some eat like kings and others survive on food stamps? Explain how that is fair.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2014 5:28 PM
Comment #375811

How about obamaparentcare to provide every child with a mom and dad who really loves and cares for them.

How about obamalovecare to provide every citizen with the love and human caring that the medical community agrees is necessary for survival.

How about obamavacationcare to provide the under privileged with time away from their poverty.

How about obamaguncare to provide every citizen with the means to defend themselves.

How about obamapsychocare to provide every citizen the opportunity to be psychoanalyzed to improve their lives and self image.

How about obamaobesitycare to provide liposuction and no effort weight loss to tens of millions of Americans.

I’m sure X8 can add to my list.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 24, 2014 5:51 PM
Comment #375818


Remember that guy with his eyes closed on Third Rock From The Sun?

He must have been a Democratic. They all sound like him.

It’s not the place of the federal government to do any of this. The stuff it’s supposed to do it forfiets to a private corporation, ie. the currency.

The present progressive form of federal government is a complete failure and it convinces people like phx8 to keep it around by bribing them with other people’s money.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 24, 2014 6:59 PM
Post a comment