The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[4merper4mer]

 

 

That'd be great. Watching him B word to the refs after every bad play, explaining that it was all someone else's fault and the refs have to hold them accountable.

 

It'd be just like having Tom Brady.

 

They both employed questionable spying programs too.

[OCinBuffalo]

I wonder now....who are the "anarchists", exactly?

 

Consider: when a whole lot of people either disobey the law on purpose, ignore the law, and break the law, and other laws, because the law itself creates so many opportunities for it, and no real remedy against it....isn't that the definition of anarchy?

 

What else should we call the conditions Obamacare is bringing about, besides anarchy?

 

So, if you continue to support this crap, aren't YOU the anarchist?

 

And what's worse? We have the birdog's of the left, singing the praises of anarchy, because they think that if they create enough chaos, that will lead us all to single payer, as the only way to restore order.

 

Supporting/creating chaos? That is the definition of anarchist. They admit they are the anarchists here. Anarchists who want full authority? I've never heard of such a thing. It's absolutely illogical. It's a contradictory conclusion only the wacky left can arrive at.

 

As if anyone but them will ever forget who created the mass chaos, and as if anyone but them trusts them to make an even bigger system than Obamacare, that controls every aspect of health care. These Fs can't even do some of it right, and now they want the keys to the whole factory?

 

F you, anarchists.

[B-Man]

I wonder now....who are the "anarchists", exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

I wonder now....who are the "anarchists",

 

F you, anarchists.

 

I think calling names is unproductive. I remember people calling Reagan the anarchist. Making these wild claims never work because even if this law turns into the worst thing ever it helps Obama because at least his supporters can say:

 

See he isn't the anarchist.

 

I can promise you, even if he is, he will never be seen in public with the whole black candles, chanting, and 6 6 6 routine. He would keep that secret.

 

BTW you misspelled it too. I would correct it but I got enough of the heebie jeebies just typing those numbers.

Edited November 16, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[Nanker]

I think calling names is unproductive. I remember people calling Reagan the anarchist. Making these wild claims never work because even if this law turns into the worst thing ever it helps Obama because at least his supporters can say:

 

See he isn't the anarchist.

 

I can promise you, even if he is, he will never be seen in public with the whole black candles, chanting, and 6 6 6 routine. He would keep that secret.

 

BTW you misspelled it too. I would correct but I got enough of the heebie jeebies just typing those numbers.

As well you should, my dear fellow. As well you should.

[B-Man]

Not Establishment Press News: Obamacare Causes Bowie State, Md.’s Oldest Black College, to Drop Student Health Insurance

The student health care plan offered by Bowie State University, Maryland's oldest historically black college, is an example of one of those "substandard" plans President Obama, the Affordable Care Act's architects, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have been determined to extinguish.

 

Well, they've gotten their way. Rather than continue a plan whose costs would have gone from $54 to $900 per semester, an increase of over 1500 percent, the university has dropped the plan. Many students are angry, and have criticized the President directly, as seen in a video at CampusReform.org.

 

News coverage of this calamity has been sparse, to say the least

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/11/16/not-establishment-press-news-obamacare-causes-bowie-state-md-s-oldest-bl#ixzz2ksC6N9Bq

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

Not Establishment Press News: Obamacare Causes Bowie State, Md.’s Oldest Black College, to Drop Student Health Insurance

The student health care plan offered by Bowie State University, Maryland's oldest historically black college, is an example of one of those "substandard" plans President Obama, the Affordable Care Act's architects, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have been determined to extinguish.

 

Well, they've gotten their way. Rather than continue a plan whose costs would have gone from $54 to $900 per semester, an increase of over 1500 percent, the university has dropped the plan. Many students are angry, and have criticized the President directly, as seen in a video at CampusReform.org.

 

News coverage of this calamity has been sparse, to say the least

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...l#ixzz2ksC6N9Bq

Racists!

[boyst]

I think calling names is unproductive. I remember people calling Reagan the anarchist. Making these wild claims never work because even if this law turns into the worst thing ever it helps Obama because at least his supporters can say:

 

See he isn't the anarchist.

 

I can promise you, even if he is, he will never be seen in public with the whole black candles, chanting, and 6 6 6 routine. He would keep that secret.

 

BTW you misspelled it too. I would correct it but I got enough of the heebie jeebies just typing those numbers.

its the mark of the beast! http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/Whitley-County-teen-refuses-to-run-race-because-of-666-number-230580371.html?

[Koko78]

Racists!

 

Crap, beat me to it.

[B-Man]

“Hey, it looks like Senator Ted Cruz was right! Even the venerable Chicago Tribune is calling for outright repeal of Obamacare.”

 

 

 

Obama’s “whatever” approach to Obamacare

 

According to the Washington Post, state insurance regulators across the country were blindsided by President Obama’s insurance “fix”. Obama didn’t see fit to let them know it might be coming or to find out how they will respond.

 

The Obama administration’s lack of courtesy and respect for state commissions is hardly surprising. However, its lack of interest seems extraordinary.

Much depends, after all, on how state commissions respond to Obama’s fix. If no commission consents to the revival of non-compliant plans, there is no fix. If every commission consents, and if insurance companies are on board, then the cancellation problem has been fixed for now. At the same time, though, the “adverse selection” problem has badly been exacerbated.

 

Finally, given some mix of state approvals and disapprovals, perhaps Obama will succeed in significantly decreasing the number of cancellations without doing further structural damage to Obamacare.

 

Why, then, didn’t Obama consult in advance with state commissioners?

 

Probably because their input wouldn’t have mattered to him. The approach he has come up with may be a fix; more likely it’s a band aid; perhaps it’s only a fake band aid. Regardless of which it is, Obama considered it his best political option, and that was all that mattered to him.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

http://www.nationalr...w-</span>stiles

 

Conservatives often argue that the federal government should function more like a private business. Obamacare supporters should be grateful it does not, because otherwise HealthCare.gov would almost certainly run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as of the recently established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Orson Swindle, who served as an FTC commissioner from 1997 to 2005, says there are a number of practices that, if HealthCare.gov were a private entity, would result in its being “taken to the shed and horsewhipped” by government regulators.

 

President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.”

 

Other examples of potentially deceptive practices include the apparently deliberate decision to withhold information from HealthCare.gov visitors as to the actual prices of the policies offered via the exchanges. In fact, users aren’t told how much those policies will cost until after they have created an account, which requires giving a slew of personal and financial information.

Edited November 17, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Lies, Damn Lies and ObamaCare

by Steve Tobak

 

Last week I was informed by the agent who handles my firm’s health-care insurance that, come 2014, our group plan will be cancelled and replaced with an ObamaCare plan.

 

Never mind that President Obama, his spokespeople, and Democratic Congressional leaders all stated over and over that Americans happy with their health-care plans would be able to keep them. Never mind that none of that was true.

 

Now those same leaders – not to mention all sorts of political talking heads – are saying that the only plans being cancelled are subpar plans that don’t meet the minimum requirements of ObamaCare. They’re saying the cancellations will only affect a small percentage of individual plans.

 

None of that is true, either.

 

Our plan is a small business (2-50 employees) group PPO plan with low deductibles, out-of-network coverage, the whole nine yards. Read my lips: it’s not a subpar plan. And you know what it’s being replaced by? An EPO plan – a new designation with no out-of-network coverage at far higher premiums with a fraction of the number of doctors.

 

http://www.foxbusine...tcmp=fbfeatures

 

 

 

 

'Racist' President Says Now You can Keep Your 'Substandard Insurance'

by Clarice Feldman

 

FTA:

Just a few days ago the president's defenders were calling his critics "racists" and claiming ObamaCare was merely allowing us to get rid of our "substandard health insurance" for better plans our betters, the Democrat leadership, thought we should have. Thursday he offered up a purported rollback fix announcing, incredibly "we are discovering that insurance is complicated to buy...."

 

His right-hand gal, the party's own Norma Desmond, Nancy Pelosi, about whom Joshua Sharf says: "I *am* big. It's my caucus that got small," is standing firm, though her caucus is running for the hills as waves of angry voters strike out.

 

The purported "fix" to allow voters to keep the insurance that the administration ordered them to cancel is so unworkable, the insurance commissioners of South Carolina and Washington State both turned the proposition down almost as soon as the president made it.

 

Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz2kuuNtTFo

[DC Tom]

The Obama administration’s lack of courtesy and respect for state commissions is hardly surprising. However, its lack of interest seems extraordinary.

 

Does it really? Can someone point to a single instance of this administration evidencing any sort of concern about states' rights and authority?

[B-Man]

Gee..............I thought that we were trying to "cover" the uninsured and reduce costs.

 

Dem Rep on Obamacare: We’re Trying to Change Country’s ‘Values System’

 

South Carolina Democratic congressman James Clyburn was forthright in laying out the motivation behind Obamacare: “If we were to look at what we were attempting to do with the Affordable Health Care Act [sic], you will know that what we’re trying to do is change a values system in our country.”

 

So the point of Obamacare was never to “work.” The point of it was to change society (“fundamental transformation”). To increase the government sector and decrease the private sector. To bind the citizen more tightly to the federal government.

 

The law has already “worked,” in a sense, simply because it was enacted. Anything else — such as affordable health care — is gravy, a bonus, almost incidental.

 

 

 

 

Gillibrand: ‘We All Knew’ Obama’s Promise Wasn’t True

 

 

 

 

DON’T BUCK THE PARTY LINE, COMRADE: DC Insurance Commission Fired for Questioning Obamacare ‘Fix.’

 

 

 

.

Edited November 17, 2013 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

 

DON’T BUCK THE PARTY LINE, COMRADE: DC Insurance Commission Fired for Questioning Obamacare ‘Fix.’

 

 

Given the way DC works (or doesn't), I'm almost certain the White House didn't get involved.

[OCinBuffalo]

So the point of Obamacare was never to “work.” The point of it was to change society (“fundamental transformation”). To increase the government sector and decrease the private sector. To bind the citizen more tightly to the federal government.

 

The law has already “worked,” in a sense, simply because it was enacted. Anything else — such as affordable health care — is gravy, a bonus, almost incident.

And that's why I am right and Tom is wrong.

 

Once the average joe fully realizes that "Hey this was about communism, not saving me money!" (his words, or near, not mine), the backlash will be immense. He's just starting to get that now. Wait until Thanksgiving is over. Every liberal in America is dreading sitting at that Thanksgiving table, and having to take the beating they know is coming, in jest, or serious, it doesn't matter. The word "demoralized" comes to mind.

 

The real effect may be demoralizing the Democratic base, which will kill turnout for 2014, and may even kill it for 2016. If they don't get their people out at the same historically high level they did last time?

 

The "demographics" argument will be exposed as the fairy tale that it is.

 

However, what would make Tom right in 2016?

 

If the Rs nominate somebody who isn't personally likable, and therefore, can't deflect whatever nonsense "binders full of women" horsecrap the Ds gin up. The Rs have to think not just about who is most conservative, but also: who is most likable. And, likability is important as a qualification for actually doing the job, not just winning the election.

 

Obama is the least likable, in person, guy there is, and that's why Congress, Ds and Rs, wants little to do with him.

 

In any event, the Ds have a looooong way to go to overcoming Obamacare as an issue for both 2014 and 2016, no matter how many dogs end up on cars.

[boyst]

And that's why I am right and Tom is wrong.

 

Once the average joe fully realizes that "Hey this was about communism, not saving me money!" (his words, or near, not mine), the backlash will be immense. He's just starting to get that now. Wait until Thanksgiving is over. Every liberal in America is dreading sitting at that Thanksgiving table, and having to take the beating they know is coming, in jest, or serious, it doesn't matter. The word "demoralized" comes to mind.

I

The real effect may be demoralizing the Democratic base, which will kill turnout for 2014, and may even kill it for 2016. If they don't get their people out at the same historically high level they did last time?

 

The "demographics" argument will be exposed as the fairy tale that it is.

 

However, what would make Tom right in 2016?

 

If the Rs nominate somebody who isn't personally likable, and therefore, can't deflect whatever nonsense "binders full of women" horsecrap the Ds gin up. The Rs have to think not just about who is most conservative, but also: who is most likable. And, likability is important as a qualification for actually doing the job, not just winning the election.

 

Obama is the least likable, in person, guy there is, and that's why Congress, Ds and Rs, wants little to do with him.

 

In any event, the Ds have a looooong way to go to overcoming Obamacare as an issue for both 2014 and 2016, no matter how many dogs end up on cars.

most of the voting populous is too stupid to understand communism and how this is even remotely like it or an example of a communist. That won't matter.

[DC Tom]

And that's why I am right and Tom is wrong.

 

Once the average joe fully realizes that "Hey this was about communism, not saving me money!" (his words, or near, not mine), the backlash will be immense. He's just starting to get that now. Wait until Thanksgiving is over. Every liberal in America is dreading sitting at that Thanksgiving table, and having to take the beating they know is coming, in jest, or serious, it doesn't matter. The word "demoralized" comes to mind.

 

The real effect may be demoralizing the Democratic base, which will kill turnout for 2014, and may even kill it for 2016. If they don't get their people out at the same historically high level they did last time?

 

The "demographics" argument will be exposed as the fairy tale that it is.

 

However, what would make Tom right in 2016?

 

If the Rs nominate somebody who isn't personally likable, and therefore, can't deflect whatever nonsense "binders full of women" horsecrap the Ds gin up. The Rs have to think not just about who is most conservative, but also: who is most likable. And, likability is important as a qualification for actually doing the job, not just winning the election.

 

Obama is the least likable, in person, guy there is, and that's why Congress, Ds and Rs, wants little to do with him.

 

In any event, the Ds have a looooong way to go to overcoming Obamacare as an issue for both 2014 and 2016, no matter how many dogs end up on cars.

 

Your position is based on people thinking rationally for five minutes, and believing they're responsible for their own finances.

 

My position is based on people being unable to do even that much, and on the Democrats successfully selling those people on "We need Democrats to fix the Republican obstructionism of the Democrats' programs."

 

Let me reduce that philosophical difference to a very simple, real-world microcosm: when Obama blames the insurance industry for not reinstating cancelled policies by the end of the year, and the media backs him, do you honestly think more people will fault Obama than the insurance companies?

[3rdnlng]

Your position is based on people thinking rationally for five minutes, and believing they're responsible for their own finances.

 

My position is based on people being unable to do even that much, and on the Democrats successfully selling those people on "We need Democrats to fix the Republican obstructionism of the Democrats' programs."

 

Let me reduce that philosophical difference to a very simple, real-world microcosm: when Obama blames the insurance industry for not reinstating cancelled policies by the end of the year, and the media backs him, do you honestly think more people will fault Obama than the insurance companies?

 

That's sad.

[unbillievable]

Your position is based on people thinking rationally for five minutes, and believing they're responsible for their own finances.

 

My position is based on people being unable to do even that much, and on the Democrats successfully selling those people on "We need Democrats to fix the Republican obstructionism of the Democrats' programs."

 

Let me reduce that philosophical difference to a very simple, real-world microcosm: when Obama blames the insurance industry for not reinstating cancelled policies by the end of the year, and the media backs him, do you honestly think more people will fault Obama than the insurance companies?

 

I can't wait for the Democrats to start blaming the "Republican shutdown" of the government as the reason why the website failed.