Zip:
The hits just keep on coming.
Via National Journal:
Opponents of President Obama’s health care law overwhelmingly believe the Affordable Care Act will worsen the quality of their care, and even a plurality of the law’s supporters don’t think it will improve their health care, though they think it will benefit the poor and uninsured.
These findings from this week’s United Technologies/National JournalCongressional Connection Poll underscore why the law has become so politically precarious for the White House. Its primary goal was to expand access to millions of uninsured Americans, but voters are registering the most intense opposition out of fear it will adversely affect the quality of their care in the process. And even the law’s boosters are skeptical of its impact on their care.
Those who disapprove of the measure feel more strongly than those who approve. In a new CBS News poll released Wednesday, the majority of respondents, 54 percent, said they disapprove of the health care law, while only 36 percent approved. But the poll also explored the intensity of those feelings: Only 15 percent “strongly approve,” 21 percent “somewhat approve,” 18 percent “somewhat disapprove,” and 36 percent “strongly disapprove.”
Sure, those gullible ones who hear the constant lies from the right about Obamacare not realizing it will probably save the life of a loved one or prevent them from having to sell their house to pay for medical bills will buy anything-until it hit’s home. And it will. Obamacare is here until Hillary implements single payer.
Get the facts and stop spreading lies to those who could suffer;
Wont the poor and uninsured have to pay fines next year if they can’t sign-up for healthcare at the exchanges because they don’t have a photo ID, (assuming the exchanges are even open and operating)? If there isn’t an exchange in their state, are these citizens going to be fined by the IRS? What if they can’t afford to pay the fines, wont they be charged, arrested and incarcerated for violating Federal law? How are the poor, uninsured and unemployed going to be able to afford to pay the hundreds to thousands of dollars that they don’t have for healthcare?
When this all hits home, will the amnestied immigrants votes (along with the dead vote,) be able to make up for all the voters who will turn against the Democratic party because of the Obamacare train wreck that the majority of Americans didn’t want in the first place? And if those who turn away from Democrats vote for Republicans, will that make up for all the Republican voters who will either walk away or primary against GOP incumbents who voted for Amnesty?
Obamacare is going to be so great that the federal employees tasked with making sure it is implemented want out:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-employee-union-we-dont-want-obamacare/article/2533520
@This one:
Wow. You really are the epitome of leftist propaganda troll, who doesn’t even bother to read your tripe to see the glaring flaws in leftist ideology that are there. For example, from the obamacare link you posted:
Does ObamaCare Require Me To Purchase Health Insurance?
By 2014 all non-exempt Americans will have to have health insurance or will face a tax penalty. If you already have health insurance you can keep it. For many low to middle income Americans insurance will become more affordable, however those making above 400% of the federal poverty line may find themselves paying more.
From this website, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm you can see the 2013 federal poverty levels defined by income and number of family members. Using that data, a single person making $3750 a month before taxes will get the privilege of paying more for health insurance. A family of four making $7600/month before taxes gets to pay more for insurance under obamacare. The taxes on such income, including federal withholding tax, social security and medicare taxes are going to equal between 13 and 15% for the family of four if they claim all 4 deductions, or roughly $1140/month in taxes. That cuts down the family income to $6460. Now you want to take out MORE in taxes for a government monopoly on health care?
And even more glaring that you either don’t read the propaganda you put out…or that you don’t understand what is there if you do read it, you smugly express your glee at the possibility of Hitlery imposing a government monopoly on health care in this country…but from your obamacare propaganda site:
No system is perfect, but Obama Care Health Care Reform aims to reform the American healthcare system towards the favor of the people and away from the monopoly of the healthcare industry.
So in the leftist delusional worldview, having multiple private health insurance companies, which is mischaracterized as a monopoly, is bad…but giving the government an actual monopoly via single payer is considered a good thing? Do you even understand your hypocrisy, lack of integrity and absence of common sense?
“Get the facts and stop spreading lies to those who could suffer;”
Teh stoopid is strong with this one…
I think Greg and This One are the same fool. I say this knowing we should hear from Greg soon.
@Pete: Despite the sea of misinformation from Republicans, the pricing from health insurance exchanges continues to prove much lower than expected. We’ve just learned that Maryland’s exchanges will be “among the lowest of the 12 states that have available proposed or approved rates for comparison.” Connecticut exchange announced “the average cost for an individual dropped by 36 percent” thanks to a new insurer lowering its projected premiums.
What’s becoming noticeable is that states that are participating are seeing the reality of the benefits while those choosing not to are simply inflicting higher cost and suffering on their constituents. What’s becoming even more noticeable is that for the GOP, facts and reality are irreverent and it’s purely a partisan fight. We saw this loud and clear in SC where Rep. Kris Crawford (also an ER doctor) supported the expansion with an admission that it would greatly benefit the seniors and poor of his state yet he voted it down. His logic was that “The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party”. And that, along with an allegiance to the health care industry (who would love to return to the practice of denying people at will with per-existing conditions, etc) is what’s really driving the opposition. And with the clock ticking, their arguments falling flat, and an awareness of the need and benefits of ACA, it’s no wonder of the all out panic of the GOP.
Oh, and about them poll numbers. They once again ignore the fact that 16% dislike the bill because its “not liberal enough”. That reality changes the dynamics of the argument, assuming you’d consider entertaining reality.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Wow…you aren’t really reading what you are posting, are you? From your link regarding Maryland Obamacare PROJECTED rates:
BALTIMORE (July 26, 2013) Health insurance premiums for individual plans offered through Maryland Health Connection, the state-based health insurance marketplace, will be among the lowest of 12 states that have proposed or approved rates, including New York and California.
Three out of four individuals and families expected to enroll for coverage through Maryland Health Connection will qualify for tax credits to reduce their effective rates; and Maryland’s Insurance Commissioner reduced the proposed premium rates by every insurance carrier in the individual market in Maryland, including reducing proposed increases for a majority of carriers by more than 50%
So in other words, all Maryland has done with the laughably mislabelled ‘affordable care’ socialist takeover is bully insurance companies into lowering the INCREASES in health insurance costs by 50% – which means those insurance premiums are actually going up in price….and that 75% of the people who enroll in this socialist scam will get taxpayers to pay for their premiums. Here is a much more honest description of what is happening to health insurance premiums in Maryland:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/313885-obamacare-premiums-lower-than-expected-in-maryland
Premiums are actually going UP in Maryland by 25% under Obamacare. Tell me again why you think that is a good thing? All you have done is show us yet again why leftists are blatantly deceitful in their mad quest to impose their collectivism on the rest of us.
And your bogus Connecticut link clearly states that those are PROPOSED AVERAGE rates, but you conveniently gloss over the parts that talk about rates ranging up to $1080/month based on individual circumstances. That piece is nothing more than cheerleading propaganda for obamacare.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/flashback-obama-promised-lower-health-care-insurance-premium
For a dose of reality, from that link:
Conservative author Avik Roy at Forbes reported Thursday that ” for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.” Roy cited data on eHealthInsurance.com showing that the median cost of the five cheapest health care plans in California was only $92 for young people, while under the ObamaCare exchanges the cheapest plan will cost an average of $184 a month.
Wait, didn’t Obama promise us that his socialist plan would LOWER health care premiums? Didn’t he swear to us that if you make less than $250,000/year your taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime? Wait…here is a quote from Obama ….
“My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less,” Obama said in his May 2007 speech unveiling his health care plan.
Wait…so was Obama lying through his teeth? Or was he just that economically illiterate?
Either way, why on earth should we believe ANYTHING this leftist hack says about his socialist power grab now?
@Ronald J. Ward: I don’t buy it. You sound like a “sea of misinformation” yourself.
Obama and the Dems made this a partisan fight when they rammed it through congress without any GOP support. Historically, whenever one party steamrolls another in Congress on something big like this, there’s hell to pay. The Dems took an opportunity and did something that any sane person would know to spark a long and serious battle. I’d expect the Dems to fight back if the GOP steamrolled them in Congress, too.
Obama’s Admin set the stage right away: we don’t care about the GOP and the people (about half the country) they represent.
Obamacare is not what it was touted and is/will cause problems, no matter how hard you thump your chest and posture otherwise. The facts are clear enough, but thanks for the “these aren’t the droids you are looking for” style B.S.
If the WH really cared, they’d sit down right now and find a compromise that echoes the wishes of the people, ALL of them, not just the liberal zealots. Instead, they are using this to generate more hate and division.
Deplorable.
@Pete:
Well, yes, but let’s back up from your “leftist/socialist” rant and add to that cherry picked statement with the fact that increases are far lower than what insurance companies would have otherwise been able to charge, that Marylanders will pay much lower than the Congressional Budget Office expected, that you’re comparing this to the bare-bones/minimum plans that would otherwise be available verses a choice of nine insurance carriers, and that 75% of people purchasing coverage through the exchange will qualify for tax credits, further reducing the cost of coverage.
You’re also ignoring the fact that, according to Rebecca Pearce, Executive Director of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange: “Historically, insurance carriers have been allowed to turn down people with pre-existing conditions and allow only the healthiest individuals into their plans” In 2014″. ACA will allow around 750,000 Marylanders into the system with out of pocket rates ranging from $93 to $260 per month.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Great! So a family of four whose taxable income is $72,000/yr that is now having to pay out $1000/mo on health insurance to adhere to DoH mandates, will see a reduction of their taxes from around $16,450 to $12,450. How does a reduction in income taxes by $4,000.00 make up for the $12,000.00 cost in health care premiums? That family is still out $667/month they would not have been except for the socialized medicine the left wants to force on all of us. Only someone who has totally accepted the Obama lie campaign would buy into that.
@Ronald J. Ward:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.
In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.
Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.
A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-obama-spins-health-075952912.html
@retire05: I’m not sure if you fully understand the ramifications of your argument from what many on the right refer to as economically advantageous.
OK, those that pay their premiums out of pocket receive a subsidy, a win for them. Employers that pay those premiums for their employees receive that subsidies, also a win. So, this is somewhat like a big tax break for employers which allows them to retain more of their profits which then allows them to do all those great things that profit making companies get to do, like, uh, create more jobs and such. That should come back as a win/win for employers and employees. Or, do you defy the very logic of the tax breaks for employers?
If anything, the more this issue is debated, the more attractive it gets. And that attraction comes from the uninsured, the insured, and those doing the insuring. The madness of the GOP’s nonsensical push to kill this before the public understands it becomes more understandable. They’ve truly backed themselves into a corner.
@retire05: To your # 11 comment, considering you used hypothetical numbers in a hypothetical situation of a family of four in a tax bracket from your imagination with an unknown insurance plan of your liking with a premium of your choosing and receives a subsidy which you determined then, well then you throw in “socialized medicine” and “Obama lie” (which I suppose in your world gives credence to your manufactured reality theatrics), well, it’s just somewhat hard to give an educated response.
@Ronald J. Ward:
If a check for around $100 a year makes that big a difference in your life, then you better reevaluate your life.
Their not “subsidies,” they are rebates from insurance companies who don’t march lockstep with the Marxist in the Oval Office. But left wingers are not smart enough to know that when you reduce the profit margin of a publically held company, as most insurance companies are, you also reduce the dividends that investors receive. You know, investors like police officers, fire fighters, teachers, who’s retirement plans invest in those insurance companies.
Why do you want to cheat police officers, fire fighters and teachers?
In 2010, AT & T estimated that company sponsored health insurance cost $10,600/yr per employee. That did not cover the cost for health insurance for dependents. So that puny $100.00 is NOT going to make a hill of beans difference. It would take 600 rebate checks to pay for one additional employee.
Do you know the difference between a tax break and a rebate?
And do all you left wingers suffer from Anal Cranial Disorder?
@retire05:
Well I have to admit you got me there. You’re correct that they’re rebates and not subsidies which are different things. I’m not sure how that changes the argument but I’ll stand corrected. By the way, it’s “they’re” or “they are”, not “their”.
Wow, just when I thought specious arguments couldn’t hit a new low, wham! So, now it’s all about insurer’s profits and the profits of stockholders. So, mom and dad come home from the doctor, gathers the kids around for a family meeting and dad explains. “Kids, mom has cancer and the doctor says she has 3 months to live. She could survive with treatment but Blue Cross has denied treatment because it’s really really expensive and they have this loophole thing called “pre-existing conditions” that allows them to save a ton of money, despite the fact we’ve been paying for years. But you know kids, this really is the right thing to do because Blue Cross needs to make a profit. And if you really look deep down, making them lose money by making mommy well would mean taking money away from investors like policemen and firefighters and teachers. So if you really think mommy should live, why do you want to cheat police officers, fire fighters and teachers?”
“Do you know the difference between a tax break and a rebate?” At the end of the day, it all amounts to “net profit” or the bottom line, which is the very argument of the need for tax breaks. Your arguments are specious, sophomoric, and insulting to anyone of reasonable intellect.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Haha! You noticed? I actually feel dirty following every exchange with this 50 person. It’s almost as if the exchange itself cannot be adequately buffered and the cross-currents bring back a piece of her corruption every time.
Some well-expressed arguments, by the way. It says something that you can remain respectful to people whose first instinct is personal attack. This is even more impressive considering these are people who would gladly see health care for millions of people fail to prove a political point, and are actively rooting for it to fail, in fact.
@Ronald J. Ward:
So what are you? The new FA typo/spelling police? When I need you, I’ll dial LOL.
So once again, you show that you don’t know sh!t from Shinola. Those police officers, fire fighters and teachers have retirement plans. The money in those plans are not just cash shoved into some file cabinet drawer, waiting for them to retire. The plans invest that money in companies like insurance companies. The dividends paid to the retirement plans help those retirement plans earn the money to pay the police officers, fire fighters and teachers their retirement money.
Your scenario doesn’t work. If “mom” was just diagnosed with cancer, but had been with Blue Cross for “years”, it would not be a “pre-existing” condition. Pre-existing conditions are those you have PRIOR to signing on with an insurance plan. You obviously don’t know much about business OR finances.
Absolutely Blue Cross needs to make money. That is how they pay their investors the dividends that go into retirement plans or 401(k) plans. If they are not making money, they will go out of business, and all the money daddy and mommy paid into that play for “years” is just flat gone and mommy will have NO insurance.
Your Anal Cranial Disorder is worse that I first though. You know squat about how money is earned for those who invest in retirement plans. And you seem to think that businesses, like the health care insurance companies, exist simply to cater to the likes of you without being paid for that service. No business can survive if it doesn’t make a profit.
Absolutely amazing. Since this law was signed into effect, my insurance premiums have gone way up when we were told they would go way down. My current health plan that we were told we’d keep is going away after the first of the year. All compliments of Obamacare. I know several others in the same predicament. Yet we still have people coming here saying this reality isn’t so. A big lie they say. This gives some real insight as to how Jim Jones was able to get his flock of sheep to drink that koolaid.
April 10, 2013: The $5 billion fund set up by ObamaCare to cover new high-risk insurance pools in each state from pre-existing conditions is already running out of money — a full year before projections.
ObamaCare funded the PCIP with $5 billion to cover patients with pre-existing conditions from 2010 to 2014. Less than a third of the people HHS projected would enroll in the plan actually signed up for the coverage.
Yet despite the low enrollment, the plan is broke.
It busted its budget a full year ahead of projections.
In a 2012 report, HHS conceded that it had miscalculated (though not until page 11 of its 15-page report): “On average, the PCIP program has experienced claims costs 2.5 times higher than anticipated.”
Now it’s cutting off coverage.
“I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me,” a 61-year-old Virginian with breast cancer complained to the Washington Post.
Controlling this massive new entitlement will require government-mandated rationing of medical services!!!!!!
In its first decade, ObamaCare will cost twice as much — more than $2 trillion — than first projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041013-651429-pcip-bankruptcy-bad-omen-for-rest-of-obamacare.htm#ixzz2aOzzxqua
@Nan G:
The CWA negotiated with AT & T for retiree health care benefits to be included in their contracts. As of 2013, those retirees, who still have retirement provided health care as their primary insurance provider, are now being billed for their insurance. If they have Medicare as their primary carrier, they have to pay a lesser fee to keep the retiree insurance as their secondary insurance. Also their co-pays on prescription drugs has increased 10-25%, depending on the drug. Never before did retirees pay health care insurance premiums, but they do now. AT&T is now talking of dropping retiree drug coverage completely.
Let us not forget that the CWA backed Obamacare with gusto. Now, because of it, CWA members in right-to-work states are dropping out because they feel like they were sold out. And they were. The unions that pushed for this abomination are now wanting out of it.
Remember also that Obama wanted a single payer system, much like Medicare. And who has the worst record for declining benefits and claims? MEDICARE.
@retire05:
Having duck hunted in CA for years I was confused at first.
Why would the CWA – California Waterfowl Association make a deal with AT&T?
Hehe.
So there’s another CWA in CA.
It must be they: the Communications Workers of America.
I bet that we could find multiple stories like that one, retor05.
@retire05: @ #18, you again ignore the actual argument while inventing your own. You seem rather naive of the exploitation of the health insurance industry with dropping coverage at will. You want to simply pretend the problem isn’t there because I suppose, it just doesn’t suit your agenda.
I recall left blogs and several news outlets giving example after after example of legitimate cases of premium paying people being sent home to die because of either being dropped because of a per-existing illness (often questionably fabricated by the insurer) or of cases where they couldn’t pick up coverage because of a job change. You, like it or not, actually endorse such practices because of the need of the insurer to make a profit. You childishly imply that anyone that doesn’t advocate such practices has a hatred of teachers, policemen, and firefighters. From any realistic perspective, you are an argumentative fraud.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I ignore nothing. And I present you with actual facts that you obviously, cannot dispute so you make silly statements like the one above.
.
It is you who is naïve. You seem to not understand that when you purchase health insurance, you are entering into contractual law. When you purchase a health insurance plan, you are provided with a written policy. As required by law, that policy outlines your coverage, what it covers, what it doesn’t. If you don’t like the coverage, you are free to purchase another policy that better suits your needs. If you fail to read the contract (policy) that is your fault, not the fault of the insurance provider.
That’s really funny, Ronald. You’re one of the most agenda driven people on this forum and you accuse others of having an agenda. My only agenda is truth through facts; yours is to promote you progressive philosophies.
Since you “recall” those left wing blogs and several news outlets, you should be able to provide a link for them. But to do that would subject them to scrutiny. Those people that you claim were “sent home to die”, is it possible that they were terminal and there was no reason to keep them in a hospital setting while they die if they can be kept comfortable at home? Would you rather die in a hospital, or at home with your loved ones?
And yes, often when you change jobs (a personal choice) you lose the insurance of your former company and have a waiting period before you are insured with the new company. If that is a problem, then the person has the option of paying for their former insurance for a few months until the new insurance kicks in. It’s called COBRA. As to pre-existing conditions with a new insurer, most of the time those pre-existing conditions are covered through new employer based health insurance.
If you feel like your insurance provider has violated the term of your contract with them, you have a recourse. You can, for free, contact your state insurance agency and file a complaint. All states have an agency that deals with allowing insurance companies to operate in their state. If the insurance company violates the rules/guidelines set out by the state, they can lose their license to sell insurance in that state. Because the state grants licenses to insurance companies to sell in their state, the state has tremendous clout.
Tell me, Ronald. Do you have a job? Have you ever had a job? Why did you work? Was it to earn money? Or did you figure out what your work related expenses were and accepted a salary that only covered those work related expenses? No, you didn’t. You traded your labor for a salary that covered more than just your work related expenses. You, in fact, made a profit from your labor. Yet you, like all Marxists, feel that companies should not be able to do the same. Anything beyond your work related expenses was, in fact,
profit.
Having insurance, like having health care, is not a right. You are not entitled to the services of others based simply on your need. It is a privilege that you have to pay for. A privilege that you CAN pay for because of the profit you make from working.
I merely pointed out that those police officers, fire fighters and teachers benefit from investing in insurance companies and earn a return on their investments which provide them with money in their retirement years. It is not my fault your cognitive abilities are weak.
How so? You have yet to dispute even ONE point I have made. Now, I understand that left wingers such as yourself have problems debating an issue if you are required to abandon the talking points you have been fed and present a rational argument on your own.
You seem to want to ignore that Socialism, which Obamacare is, never works. It has failed in every nation it was ever tried in. You seem to be one of these who believe it will work in the United States now because Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is in charge of it. It will not. The only thing Socialism has ever achieved was massive amounts of dead bodies.
@retire05: Slice it, dice it, and serve it up with fries but at the end of the day, you contradict pretty much moral decency as well as your own party and most decent people’s opinion in the the name of corporate interests. As I’ve argued before, look at the very own poll of the republican take on health care reform. According to a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll, 57% of Republicans support “providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance” along with 67 %t of independent. 54% of them favor “requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers”, backed by 75 % of independents 52% favor “allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26” which 69% of independents agree with. 78% of Republicans support “banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.” Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
And you are actually here advocating repealing all of these based on a quite arrogant concept that the need of moral decency and a contractual obligation of the health industry should be trumped in the name of profits AND that anyone that has fallen victim to these practices or even challenges that argument is guilty of some hatred you manufactured. You maintain that this is fine considering policy holders failed to understand the fine print. You defend your asinine argument with an audacious question of asking “Why do you want to cheat police officers, fire fighters and teachers?”.
You end your continued rant by questioning my work ethics both past and present, as if that has merit to anything. This only amplifies your abject failure of rationalizing your hate fest-hoping to belittle me to save face from your nonsensical rhetoric. You really have no argument at all, simply hatred and bigotry that fail the smell test of scrutiny. Once again, you are a fraud.
@Ronald J. Ward:
As to your “poll,” once again you provide no link. Sure people want employer based health insurance. We have turned into a nation that seems to want something for nothing. But why not give people the increase in wages, and let them shop for their own health insurance? Or is that concept beyond your statist mind?
As to a young adult of 26 being on his/her parent’s health insurance; hell, at that age, they shouldn’t even be living with their parents and if they are still in college, because they can’t find a lucrative job in the Obama economy, they need to apply at McDonald’s and pay for their own MA/PhD courses. And if you want employer provided health insurance, negotiate for it before you accept the job, but don’t expect me to pay taxes to provide it for you.
There is an old adage “Buyer beware.” It is not my responsibility to read your health care insurance policy. It is yours. And if you don’t like it, get another provider. I am sick to damn death of people like you who advocate irresponsibility. Police officers, fire fighters and teachers build their retirement funds by investing in PROFIT making companies, including health insurance companies. You would deny them that ability.
How you gleaned that from what I said is beyond all comprehension. But if you want to talk about moral decency, it begins with you, not your neighbor. YOU are responsible for your own moral decency and not for someone else’s. You seem to think you can force charity. New flash; forced “charity” is called “taxes.”
How does asking you ” did you figure out what your work related expenses were and accepted a salary that only covered those work related expenses?” question your work ethic? Really, you do have a creative mind, but your creation is no Michael Angelo.
You have nothing to offer but more progressive blathering. You do not dispute anything I point out, only hurl slurs and insults.