"The Obamacare implosion is worse than you think"

[Amelia]

lol

 

[Amelia]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ts-extension-of-obamacare-canceled-plans.html

 

[Amelia]

Daniel Henninger: Worse Than ObamaCare - WSJ.com


That title is misleading. What Obama has done with the economy isn't worse than Obamacare -- it is part of Obamacare. Instead of making sure the stimulus was going where it could help, he let it be wasted and in case that wasn't enough of a drag on the economy, he instituted Obamacare to smother it further.

The ObamaCare train wreck is plowing through the White House in super slow-mo on screens everywhere, splintering reputations and presidential approval ratings. Audiences watch popeyed as Democrats in distress like Senators Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor decide whether to cling to the driverless train or jump toward the tall weeds. The heartless compilers of the Washington Post/ABC poll asked people to pick a head-to-head matchup now between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Mitt won. This is the most amazing spectacle of mayhem and meltdown anyone has seen in politics since Watergate.

No question, it's tough on Barack Obama. But what about the rest of us? For many Americans, the Obama leadership meltdown began five years ago.

In fall 2008, the U.S. suffered its worst financial crisis since the Depression. That wasn't Barack Obama's fault. But five years on, in the fall of 2013, the country's economy is still sick.

Unemployed middle-aged men look in the mirror and see someone who may never work again. Young married couples who should be on the way up are living in their parents' basement. Many young black men (official unemployment rate 28%; unofficial rate off the charts) have no prospect of work.

....

n February 2009, he got $831 billion of stimulus spending. Not even seismographs can detect the results. Every speech he outputs about "middle-class folks" offers them the same solutions: more public spending on education, on public infrastructure projects and, even now, on alternative energy. As he tirelessly repeats what remain promises, the Labor Department's monthly unemployment-rate announcement on Friday mornings has become a day of dread.

A normal post-recession growth rate of at least 4% would have made it possible for Mr. Obama and his progressive allies to chase virtually any pie-in-the-sky policy they wanted. Instead, the U.S. has fallen far off its normal 3.3% growth rate.

A U.S. president, faced with such devastating labor-market problems and persistently weak growth, should do anything—anything—that will give the American workplace more lift. Instead, he's willing to entertain just one idea: more federal spending.

....

Barack Obama has the U.S. economy on lockdown. It's the worst thing this president has done. American resilience, and elections, mean it won't stay this way forever. But for a lot of poor and middle-class folks, living with mom in the basement is getting old.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Daniel Henninger: Worse Than ObamaCare - WSJ.com


That title is misleading. What Obama has done with the economy isn't worse than Obamacare -- it is part of Obamacare. Instead of making sure the stimulus was going where it could help, he let it be wasted and in case that wasn't enough of a drag on the economy, he instituted Obamacare to smother it further.

The ObamaCare train wreck is plowing through the White House in super slow-mo on screens everywhere, splintering reputations and presidential approval ratings. Audiences watch popeyed as Democrats in distress like Senators Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor decide whether to cling to the driverless train or jump toward the tall weeds. The heartless compilers of the Washington Post/ABC poll asked people to pick a head-to-head matchup now between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Mitt won. This is the most amazing spectacle of mayhem and meltdown anyone has seen in politics since Watergate.

No question, it's tough on Barack Obama. But what about the rest of us? For many Americans, the Obama leadership meltdown began five years ago.

In fall 2008, the U.S. suffered its worst financial crisis since the Depression. That wasn't Barack Obama's fault. But five years on, in the fall of 2013, the country's economy is still sick.

Unemployed middle-aged men look in the mirror and see someone who may never work again. Young married couples who should be on the way up are living in their parents' basement. Many young black men (official unemployment rate 28%; unofficial rate off the charts) have no prospect of work.

....

n February 2009, he got $831 billion of stimulus spending. Not even seismographs can detect the results. Every speech he outputs about "middle-class folks" offers them the same solutions: more public spending on education, on public infrastructure projects and, even now, on alternative energy. As he tirelessly repeats what remain promises, the Labor Department's monthly unemployment-rate announcement on Friday mornings has become a day of dread.

A normal post-recession growth rate of at least 4% would have made it possible for Mr. Obama and his progressive allies to chase virtually any pie-in-the-sky policy they wanted. Instead, the U.S. has fallen far off its normal 3.3% growth rate.

A U.S. president, faced with such devastating labor-market problems and persistently weak growth, should do anything—anything—that will give the American workplace more lift. Instead, he's willing to entertain just one idea: more federal spending.

....

Barack Obama has the U.S. economy on lockdown. It's the worst thing this president has done. American resilience, and elections, mean it won't stay this way forever. But for a lot of poor and middle-class folks, living with mom in the basement is getting old.

False. He has not, does not, can not, is incapable of: leading. It is totally and completely beyond his pay grade.

 

[Amelia]

Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas

Not just fails to lower -- actually increases.

That article is a month old but it's important.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Get ready to be blindsided by a barrage of new taxes. $1 trillion worth...

They'll be coming courtesy of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

And they won't just be affecting those who make over $250,000. The bulk of these taxes will be passed on directly to the middle class.

That's because while a majority of these "stealth taxes" were designed to be taxes on businesses, they're actually transferred directly to ordinary citizens.

They include the investment income surtax, a Medicare payroll tax, even a "tanning tax" on those who utilize indoor tanning services.

"Many of those [hidden] taxes, especially those on hospitals, insurers and medical device manufacturers, will ultimately be passed on through higher health costs," said Michael Tanner an expert on the healthcare law.

In fact, analysts estimate Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.

Money Morning

 

[Amelia]

From October 1:

Court Cases Challenge the Legality of Federal Exchanges Subsides - Health Insurance Exchange

Last year the nation awaited the fate of the Affordable Care Act as the U.S. Supreme Court considered National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Today, two lesser-known federal cases threaten to undermine not just the individual mandate but possibly the entire ACA structure for expanding health care coverage for all Americans.

The ACA requires the creation of a health insurance exchange in each state that will serve as a competitive marketplace where individuals and small businesses can purchase private health insurance. If a state refuses to establish an exchange then the federal government is taking over the implementation.

Section 1401 of the ACA provides that premium assistance is available to taxpayers who are enrolled in coverage through an exchange established by the state under Section 1311 of the ACA. Nonetheless, the Internal Revenue Service promulgated a regulation that bases eligibility for premium assistance subsidies on enrollment in coverage through any exchange, including a federally-established exchange. Specifically, the regulation states that subsidies shall be available to anyone “enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an exchange,” and subsequently defines an exchange to mean “a state exchange, regional exchange, subsidiary exchange and federally-facilitated exchange.”

Two ongoing court cases, Pruitt v. Sebelius (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma) and Halbig v. Sebelius (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), challenge the IRS regulation expanding the availability of premium subsidies to individuals enrolled in a federally-operated exchange. The plaintiffs claim that the issuance of the subsidies to individuals enrolled in a federal exchange is contrary to the specific provisions of ACA and injures them in several ways, including forcing individuals to either pay a penalty or purchase insurance and subjecting employers to the play-or-pay penalties under the employer mandate from which they would otherwise be exempt due to the unavailability of subsidies to individuals in their respective state.

Potential Impact

Since a majority of the states, 34 to be exact, have refused to establish a state exchange, a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Pruitt or Halbig could seriously jeopardize the future of the ACA since the subsidies are key to the operation of other parts of the law, including the calculation and collection of the individual and employer mandate penalties. First, a vast number of lower-income Americans will not be able to afford coverage in the absence of the premium assistance subsidy.

....

 

[Amelia]

A brief refresher of some ObamaLies.

Remembering Stanley Ann Dunham Obama | RealClearPolitics

This one seems good to highlight for the benefit of @$$hole liberals who claim that criminally abusive insurance companies justified Obama's lies:

In a 2010 radio address, Obama said one carrier was "systematically dropping the coverage of women diagnosed with breast cancer." The CEO of WellPoint, which had reason to believe the president was referring to her company, responded that they had provided coverage in the previous year to 200,000 breast cancer patients and had canceled just four policies for fraud or misrepresentation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are liberals still defending obamacare? ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN A LIE.

 

[william the wie]

Why are liberals still defending obamacare? ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN A LIE.

It's their chosen role in life?

 

[Rebelitarian]

The good news is that eventually the bad news will get out. It's probably too late to do much good. Jobs, income and insurance policies are already lost -- even if there is a delay Blue Cross Blue Shield won't be able to say, "Come back to us at your old rates and deductions". Nor will employers be able to say, "Come back to work for us at your old hourly level for one more year before we have to let you go again". But at least the news will eventually be told. I hope.

Marc Thiessen: The Obamacare implosion is worse than you think - The Washington Post

All part of the economic implosion coming up...........

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc]John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"Extended Interview 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why are liberals still defending obamacare? ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN A LIE.

Because "obama!" They will not allow him to fail. No. Matter. What. True story.

 

[Amelia]

Young invincibles aren't buying into Obamacare | Washington Times Communities

After President Obama’s backpeddle on the cancellation of individual insurance policies, the administration has regrouped with guns blazing. According to Thursday’s Politico, Obama held an “off-the-record” meeting with liberal reporters and bloggers including MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, and Fox News contributor Juan Williams.

Williams appeared on the Fox News program “The Five” and said he couldn’t reveal the president’s remarks, but would give the context of the meeting. The goal of the meeting was to discuss how to get control of the messaging on the Affordable Care Act. Williams described the administration to be in “full fight mode”.

Earlier this year, Obama had taken full ownership of the “Obamacare” brand and used it freely when discussing the ACA. Now when Obama and the Democrats talk about the law, the “Obamacare” label has been replaced with the law’s actual name.

One of the rules of successful branding is that you change the name to reform the image, but a poorly drafted law by any other name still stinks to high heaven. Those cancelled insurance policies cannot be reinstated, the president and his administration still lied about it, and insurance companies are still going to charge more in order to comply with the provisions of Obamacare and try to keep their industry afloat.

“Blame the Republicans” is one of the strategies making a comeback. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post must have received the memo, because he penned a piece on Tuesday doing just that. Milbank accuses Republicans of using a “scary-movie strategy” to keep the young and healthy from signing up on the exchanges.

....

It _is_ like a scary movie. The criminal White House leaving the criminally insecure website online and penalizing people who choose not to hand over their personal information to a dishonest, incompetent bureaucracy which just wants to use them to finance their dishonest agenda, while giving marching orders to the "journalists" who've done the most faithfully ideological reporting for the administration in the past.

Not the best plot, but definitely scary.

 

[Amelia]

Sticker shock hits health exchange shoppers -- USA Today

Sweeping differences in health care exchange pricing among states and counties is leading to sticker shock for some middle-class consumers and others who aren't eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

The average prices for the most popular plans are twice as high in the most expensive states as those with the lowest average prices, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data for 34 states using the federal health insurance exchange.

PPOs, the most popular type of health care plan, carry monthly premiums that range from an average of $819 a month in the most expensive state to $437 in the least expensive. Plans on the federal and state exchanges are grouped into four categories that cover 60% to 90% of out-of-pocket costs. USA TODAY looked at the pricing of PPOs and HMOs across these bronze, silver, gold and platinum categories.

The premiums for bronze-level plans are generally the least expensive, but "the deductibles are simply not affordable," says Laura Stack, a former financial analyst looking for full-time work and using her 401k to pay for health insurance. "Many will not be able to afford the per person deductibles before insurance begins to pay. What are you really paying for?"

About 4.4 million people in the individual insurance market are not eligible for the subsidies and tax credits that can help cover premiums and out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles.

....

 

[william the wie]

Sticker shock hits health exchange shoppers -- USA Today

Sweeping differences in health care exchange pricing among states and counties is leading to sticker shock for some middle-class consumers and others who aren't eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

The average prices for the most popular plans are twice as high in the most expensive states as those with the lowest average prices, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data for 34 states using the federal health insurance exchange.

PPOs, the most popular type of health care plan, carry monthly premiums that range from an average of $819 a month in the most expensive state to $437 in the least expensive. Plans on the federal and state exchanges are grouped into four categories that cover 60% to 90% of out-of-pocket costs. USA TODAY looked at the pricing of PPOs and HMOs across these bronze, silver, gold and platinum categories.

The premiums for bronze-level plans are generally the least expensive, but "the deductibles are simply not affordable," says Laura Stack, a former financial analyst looking for full-time work and using her 401k to pay for health insurance. "Many will not be able to afford the per person deductibles before insurance begins to pay. What are you really paying for?"

About 4.4 million people in the individual insurance market are not eligible for the subsidies and tax credits that can help cover premiums and out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles.

....

What kind of non-subsidy eligible idiot goes anywhere near the exchanges? I am expecting a spam avalanche next November when my insurance is cancelled.

 

[Amelia]

Most people probably don't know whether they're eligible for subsidies. I thought they didn't let you know until after you turned over all your information.

And how many people are savvy enough about insurance to know how to find the best insurance options if they've had their policy cancelled?

 

[william the wie]

Most people probably don't know whether they're eligible for subsidies. I thought they didn't let you know until after you turned over all your information.

And how many people are savvy enough about insurance to know how to find the best insurance options if they've had their policy cancelled?

That I can't tell you but my wife is home recovering from back surgery and it sounds like the powder room tom-tom is putting out the word from what I gather when she asks me to remind her of something. (I sometimes have to remind her of when Danielle was born and I thought that experience was supposed to be highly memorable.)

 

[Antares]

Most insurance agents can figure someone's subsidy.

 

[Vox]

Woman cited by President as Obamacare success story frustrated by sign up process -- CNN Political Ticker

Wow. As of this point she cannot get insurance. Contradicting their first estimates, the Washington state exchange now says she qualifies for no subsidies and she says cannot afford any of the plans available.

But she still supports obama

 

[Katzndogz]

The insurance is useless. In some cases not only have the premiums gone up for coverage a person neither needs nor wants, but the deductible is so high that the policy is actually worse than major medical/hospitalization. That was the cheapest policy. For someone young it was $50.00 a month. Pay out of pocket for doctor visits but you're covered from day one in the hospital. Under obamacare, premiums have tripled or quadrupled. If you go to the hospital the deductble is up to $13,000.

Democrats say major medical was a rip off. If anything bankruptcies for medical bills can only increase as people can't pay high premiums and the kind of deductibles this insurance has.

The public should have figured this out long ago. It's disappointing that they are currently still slow in catching on. But, they are catching on. That's at least something.