America’s ObamaCare Crisis

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

Obama-HealthcareSen. Ted Cruz’s talking filibuster against Obamacare has helped to draw attention to the endless problems the program’s implementation is causing in society.

The 21 hour, 19 minute-long speech by Cruz, the junior Republican senator from Texas, that ended midday yesterday, served as a highly informative infomercial that detailed how the incipient entitlement program is boosting health insurance premiums, unemployment, and misery across the nation.

No one seems to think Obamacare is ready for prime time, except perhaps for the Obama administration and Democratic Party officials. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows 9 of 10 Americans don’t believe that the federal government, their state governments, and the health insurance industry are fully prepared to implement Obamacare. It is worth noting that in 16 ABC/Post polls since August 2009 Obamacare has never received majority support.

Moreover, six in 10 Americans (60%) now believe the federal government already has too much power, according to Gallup polls. Only 7 percent of Americans –that’s roughly one out of 14– believe the government doesn’t have enough power.

Yet President Obama sides with the statists who comprise the 7 percent.

This is the same President Obama who promised voters, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Columnist and bestselling author Michelle Malkin laments that Obamacare has caused her family to get booted out of its health insurance plan.

Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors. Or rather, we had such a plan.

Last week Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado notified the Malkins that they will not be allowed to retain their current insurance plan beyond its 2014 renewal date. The company blamed the loss of the family’s insurance on “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).”

“In short: Obama lied. My health plan died,” Malkin writes. Anthem’s cancellation letter said the entity will not be “selling new individual PPO plans,” and the company doesn’t know what plans it will be offering in the future.

“We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist,” she writes.

The same thing is happening to families across America.

Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Kentucky, recently learned that the insurance they buy on the individual market will nearly triple in cost next year, rising from $333 a month to a whopping $965. The insurance carrier blamed Obamacare for the jump.

“This isn’t a Cadillac plan, this isn’t even a silver plan,” Mr. Mangione said, in a reference to higher levels of coverage under Obamacare.

Even the New York Times has finally gotten around to covering the Obamacare crisis.

But the money-losing Old Gray Lady still manages to put a positive spin on the bad news.

Consumers will have to get used to “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, the paper reports, quoting Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at an obscure left-wing pressure group called the North Carolina Justice Center.

“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Linker said in an interview at his office in La-La Land.

Remember that Obamacare was touted, however improbably, as a cost-saving measure.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama vowed in mid-2008 that, “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year … We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States.”

Government actuaries openly scoff at this claim. In its first decade, Obamacare will cause health spending to skyrocket by “roughly $621 billion” over and above what Americans would have spent without the imposition of Obamacare. “Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450″ per family of four, according to Forbes magazine.

As it turns out, the average family of 4 has only had to face a relatively modest burden from Obamacare over the past four years—a little over $125. Unfortunately, this year’s average burden ($66) will be 10 times as large in 2014 when Obamacare kicks in for earnest. And it will rise for two years after that, after which it [will] hit a steady-state level of just under $800 a year.

Last week the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen refused to give a congressional subcommittee a straight answer when asked if the health insurance exchanges mandated by the Obamacare law will be ready to accept enrollees on Oct. 1, as required.

“Consumers will be able to go online, they’ll be able to get a determination of whatever tax subsidies they’re eligible for, they’ll be able to look at the plans that are available wherever they live, they will be able to see the premium net of subsidy that they would have to pay, and they would be able to choose a plan and enroll in coverage, beginning Oct. 1,” Cohen said in the first round.

The questioner followed up. “Let me rephrase the question: Will the enrollment process be ready on Oct. 1?”

“I have nothing further to add to my answer,” Cohen said.

When asked whether the exchanges will be ready by Jan. 1, 2014, Cohen froze. “Consumers will be able to – it’s the same answer,” Cohen responded.

Despite all this bad news for government-run health care, Democrats continue pimping Obamacare at every opportunity and pretending that everything is okay.

Once it is fully implemented Obamacare will be so wonderful that Americans are “not going to want to let it go,” Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said last week.

Not everyone is fooled.

As evidence of the ongoing collapse of Obamacare continues to mount, Cruz ended his 21 hour-plus speech against the hated government program around Noon yesterday, surrounded by a hostile media and enemies in both political parties.

But some Cruz allies did show up. Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), David Vitter (La.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), and Jim Inhofe (Okla.), joined Cruz on the Senate floor to support his bid to defund Obamacare.

Cruz was attacked by erstwhile conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other establishment Republican lawmakers. “Elections have consequences,” McCain said on the Senate floor yesterday as he urged his fellow Republicans to accept his belief that Obamacare is here to stay.

Contrary to conventional Washington wisdom, it can be defunded as long as the Constitution continues to give Congress the power of the purse. Some have pointed out that funds have already been appropriated to implement Obamacare. Those funds can be rescinded.

The bureaucratic infrastructure already created could be easily dismantled and no one would shed a tear — except for the radical left-wingers who backed Obamacare in the first place.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • truebearing

    Obamacare will be a disaster. That is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. And it will be a disaster like all of the others that have happened under Marxist regimes. It will destroy what is good and replace good with abject failure — and people will suffer and die as a result — but Obama and the Left won’t relent because political power is far more important to them than mere human lives.

    Just imagine how willing to submit to the state most people will become once they are dependent on the state for food, health care, and shelter. Being a compliant citizen can be rewarded with the essentials to survival. Obamacare is fully premeditated political weapon, and one that the Left will never voluntarily give up.

    We are now in a Politocracy — a world where politics is a 24 hour, 7 day a week grind, and political power is the ultimate “good.” People’s health is irrelevant.. It is a world the Left wanted. Everything is political now, and election season never ends. As pathetic as Obamacare is, the Left will hang onto it with white knuckles because it is the crown jewel in their monopolistic scheme.

    Marx coined the term “capitalism,” intending to give it a negative connotation because, he alleged, it wasn’t fair for the average citizen. His ideology was supposedly a remedy, but was really designed to monopolize political power in the same way he accused capitalists of monopolizing financial means. The real goal of his ideology was political monopoly, which, ironically, has turned out to be vastly less fair to the average citizen than capitalism — 150,000,000 democides by leftist regimes in the 20th Century are exhibit #1. Marx was emulating the success of powerful capitalists when he created his ideology, only he wanted more than just money. He wanted a monopoly on political power, which of course, means control of all of the capital, too.

    Obamacare is just the latest example of how Marxian “reform” universally inflicts egalitarian suffering on the people…but not on the greedy elitists on the top who amass their fortunes of political power, and money, on the misfortune of those they were claiming to champion.

    • Matthew Vadum

      An insightful comment, truebearing. Thanks!

    • ziggy zoggy

      And the average American dumb@$$ doesn’t even know the definition of the word “democide.” They are lining up behind the Obamaburo for free cheese.

      Ted Cruz just gave 21 hours to American exceptionalism but a contemptible freak like Nancy Pelosi is quoted like a scholar.


      The next time you see a leftard, smash its face. Make a grass roots contribution. Not just Truebearing. ALL OF YOU.

    • WW4

      You’re a smart poster…tell me why it’s going to be a disaster. Insurance is still provided mostly by private companies. They will have to compete for your money either on the private market or through the exchanges (where you can compare products and prices). Our current health care costs are out of control–literally. They are now at least double that of any comparable nation. This was the case no matter who was in office. It is due in part to third party involvement, to administrative costs and in part due to the large number of uninsured, whom we pay for both in higher prices and in taxes. We’ve been insulated from these costs–uninformed consumers. Now we’ll be more informed, and people will be held responsible for their insurance.

      I see a lot of opportunities for health care providers to keep profiting and insurance companies to revamp their models. My main concern is the immediate effect on businesses of a certain size–but I think as people enroll in insurance in numbers things will even out, and as in any market with informed consumers, costs will go down.

      • Drakken

        Obviously your one of those leftist enablers of this abortion about to take effect at the detriment of our nation. If you cannot plainly see how this is going to be the number one job killer in the nation and if you think that the govt can run this program better than private industry, maybe you and others of your ilk do deserve the economy that is going to be run into the ground where everybody is equally poor. God help us that folks like you vote for our own demise.

        • Guy Fromage

          I’m definitely perceiving the aroma of paid OFA concern troll with this one. It started out diplomatically enough, but ran out of talking points pretty quickly, and is returning to type right on schedule.

          • Drakken

            I am completely beyond words to describe as I watch this great nation go off the proverbial cliff of economic disaster that is happening before our very eyes and the people cheered for this bread and circuses.

          • Guy Fromage

            A former coworker, a soft spoken man of great skill and humility, identified the problem very succinctly:

            Covetousness. For too many, a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory.

          • JPeden

            From throwing his own Grandmother under the bus to throwing America off the cliff, “We are the people we’ve been waiting for!”

          • WW4

            I’ve been enlightening conservatives on FPM for going on 11 years, now, thanks. You got me for the long haul.

          • truebearing

            Such is the nature of the delusional.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve been enlightening conservatives on FPM for going on 11 years…”

            Another self-professed illuminati. Great. I don’t mind your approach, but be careful about anyone who declares themselves to be enlightened. Better to let your arguments demonstrate that than to come across as deluded when they fail.

          • WW4

            Ah, just havin’ fun, ofm.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I hope you don’t mind when I do too.

          • Guy Fromage

            Your credibility was exhausted by the time I got to “enlightening.”

          • ziggy zoggy

            And how long have you been blowing conservatives?

        • WW4

          I’m a health care provider/business owner who has been to many “Obamacare” seminars from various sectors–business, hospital, consumer. I’ve thought about from all those points of view. Unlike many of you I grasp WHY something HAD to happen (costs), and that conservatives did next to nothing constructive, and almost everything obstructive, to stand in the way of reform. I DON’T like many things about the ACA. But I have to counteract the ridiculous rumors and outright lies conservatives have been telling for years about it, just in case there’s any rational people here willing to look at it.

          • JPeden

            Everyone knows about costs, brainchild. That’s your first lie, and it totally destroys your credibility, such that no further help is needed from the impressive array of help you continued to pile up below your first “proof”.

          • WW4

            Oh, really? You sure you’re not just hearing it now, from me, and pretending you knew all along? That’s funny–what was the Republican plan to make health care more affordable, again? I remember there were a couple–those got squashed for resembling the ACA too much. Then there’s MItt Romney–(I know, too soon?) I don’t remember the revolutionary “free market model” roll out, though. I think Republicans had more important things to do, like find Obama’s birth certificate and “defend marriage.”

            I do recall, though, that we had these insurance “cartels” who were dropping people left and right–yes, even BEFORE Big Bad Freedom Hatin’ Obama took office. I remember the reports that medical costs were becoming the no. 1 cause of bankruptcy. I remember the hospitals with the $65 aspirin. Now, I’m told it has something to do with malpractice insurance–but then there’s all the studies that say that’s barely a blip as a factor on costs.

            The bad news: you guys lost a bunch of elections recently. The good news for you: there’s an election coming up next year, and a big one in under three. You’ll get another chance, and you’ll be able to point to something actual.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m a health care provider/business owner who has been to many “Obamacare” seminars from various sectors–business, hospital, consumer.”

            Do you personally provide healthcare directly to the patient on a regular basis, or are you a mere manager-lobbyist taken in by the Utopian dreams?

            “Unlike many of you I grasp WHY something had to happen…”

            That is BS. Total BS. We had to do something and the urgency required us to forgo proving our case before acting.

            Now that makes a lot of sense. And I’ve never seen that pattern fail before. If you want it, and you need it, you’ll get it by force of will. Just watch Star Wars if you have any remaining doubts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…and that conservatives did next to nothing constructive, and almost everything obstructive, to stand in the way of reform.”

            Those police officers do nothing but obstruct the social workers trying to obtain social justice at the bank. They claimed that these social workers were criminals trying to rob the bank, but something had to be done. That’s what you law and order types don’t get. You always obstruct social justice. You never help the revolution. Therefore you never do anything constructive except the same old things which of course are not acceptable now that we’ve articulated our Utopian plans.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I DON’T like many things about the ACA. But I have to counteract the ridiculous rumors and outright lies conservatives have been telling for years about it, just in case there’s any rational people here willing to look at it.”

            The ACA is irredeemable for so many reasons that it’s overwhelming even thinking about a comprehensive outline. That is no lie. What matters most; it’s tyranny.

      • JPeden

        “..tell me why it’s going to be a disaster. Insurance is still provided mostly by private companies.”

        The insurance companies don’t make any significant difference since it’s the State that tells them essentially what the policies must cover and what their profits will be = Fascism.

        The short ‘reasons why’ Obamacare is already going to be a disaster is that it is from the Government; it is a Monopoly with Dictatorial Powers which Politicizes every disease and treatment; it changes the medical standard of care to an arbitrary Cost-Benefit metric which itself ends up calculating the “worth” of every Identity Group and even the “worth” of each individual against economic and political, etc., factors, but ignores the values of “quality of life” and of life itself. Rationing and Death Panels must occur; and it is also a case of bureaucrats practicing medicine.

        One telling example: Has not Queen Kathleen decreed that ~”Birth Control Shall Be Free.?”

        • WW4

          You make a good point even though your example sucks. Birth control was part of millions’ plans, and those millions had no problem with it until it was made into a partisan issue, at which point, a few Catholics (95% of whom use some form of contraception) and the conservative nattering nabobs latched on as a talking point.

          All other countries comparable to ours have agreed on what a base, standard level of care is. I like the Swiss and Singapore models. So they take their “government coercion” (insurance companies can’t profit on that basic level of care which is based on GDP). But these companies compete to provide “boutique” care.

          I think we can get there in a few years as the political furor dies down, we at least accept that there SHOULD be an individual mandate (which, as I’ve pointed out, conservatives used to argue for).

          • FelixSD

            I have also worked in health care for many years, and see glaring problems with a totally government run HC. To simplify, yes, the gov’t can do what private companies can do, but at 10 times the cost and half the efficiency. Look at any providers’ Medicare & Medicaid billing and treatment issues. Next, other countries may have more successful socialized care, in part because of the evolution of a smaller society with limited resources and also because the taxes are MUCH higher and there are tiers of care. If you pay nothing you get very little basic care, but the more you pay to opt for better coverage, the better the care. (The USSR had HC for everyone, but no one could get treated!) . Third, health care is a PRODUCT, not a RIGHT. The myth of implementing ACA is that anybody without insurance is a deadbeat or too poor to pay their bills, and all the rest of us have to pay for their problem. This assumes that we are too stupid to be responsible for ourselves. The Individual mandate only penalizes the most productive of citizens. Those who don’t care will not participate no matter what the law is. Instead of doing something simple the demos had to f..k everybody. Thanks… a lot.

          • WW4

            Taxes are higher in those countries but the portion spent on health care is comparable to what we wind up paying in taxes for health care–and we are buying insurance, besides, and our employers are saddled with that expense, as well. Neither health care, nor college costs, are something that they stress over. And they are generally statistically in better health, if not better educated. They consider those investments in the future. So that’s a level of freedom we don’t have.

            At some point, those without insurance incur health care expenses. Deadbeat or not, that’s a problem. If you can afford to pay for health care a la carte, great. Not realistic for the vast majority.

            That said I have heard some excellent, market-based solutions that keep government out altogether and are very much a “customer service” model. But I am a realist; one huge problem with the ACA is all the sop to the myriad special interests that fund Washingtonian careers. I’m skeptical about the addressing of costs. However we needed a paradigm shift. Is this it? Hardly. But at least it’s a step away from what came before, and brought us to this unsustainable point. That may need to be enough for now.

          • JPeden

            “You make a good point even though your example sucks.”

            My example doesn’t suck. It’s all out there right before your very eyes, as decreed by Queen Kathleen. It’s perfect.

          • truebearing

            You hold up Singapore as an example of superior health care, and it is, but it isn’t remotely like Obamacare, and that is the topic. Obamacare is singularly idiotic and unworkable. Singapore’s system works and gives people choices.

            Your non-argument against insurance companies making profits ignores the biggest reasons our health care costs have continually gone up — not including Obamacare, the biggest reason. The Left has blocked tort reform, which adds massive costs to every aspect of medicine, including the cost of developing new technologies. The 2nd biggest inflation factor is restriction of free trade, i.e. competition. opening up the options for health care consumers would force competition which invariably drives down costs.

            Everything will be better in a few years, will it? You’re either delusional or intentionally dishonest. Obamacare will destroy an already floundering economy and add even more to out debt and deficit. If Obama didn’t have Bernacke printing funny money, the interest on our debt would be damn close to the entire amount of tax revenue collected annually, and soon will exceed the revenue…..yet you are sanguine about the trajectory we are on. That position is truly laughable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You hold up Singapore as an example of superior health care, and it is, but it isn’t remotely like Obamacare, and that is the topic. Obamacare is singularly idiotic and unworkable. Singapore’s system works and gives people choices.”

            I’ll accept Singapore-style socialized medicine if they also implement the same standards for residency and citizenship as Singapore.

            LOL. Where do these people come from?

          • ziggy zoggy

            I’ve been to Singapore more than ten times. IT SUCKS @$$.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            LOL. True, but it’s not even close to the worst place in the region. At least you can get good food there if you bring enough money.

          • WW4

            “Eliminating arbitrary retrictions on where consumers can purchase health insurance would foster competition, which invariably drives down costs.”

            I agree, and I think this is one of the aspects that can be changed.

            “The Left blocked tort reform”–true, and they were wrong to do so. Trial lawyers have a lot of influence. However, tort reform wouldn’t have a huge effect on costs–between .5 and 2% of are what I’ve seen:

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All other countries comparable to ours…”

            All of the other leading superpowers do what?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I like the Swiss and Singapore models. So they take their “government coercion” (insurance companies can’t profit on that basic level of care which is based on GDP). But these companies compete to provide “boutique” care.”

            If you want to steal a little bit, go ahead. If you get permission, we call that taxation. Socialist programs like ACA are worse than that because it’s a huge Ponzi scheme where some of the victims help the thieves.

          • WW4

            “Help the thieves”

            That’s a rather uncharitable way to describe the insurance companies, but ok….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s a rather uncharitable way to describe the insurance companies, but ok….”

            Any person or organization has the potential to try to scam you. That is why the free market is crucial, to give consumers options and power over potential tyrants who might exploit their marketplace advantages.

            Get it? The Fed is just another corporation. The most powerful corporation in the world. And you want to put all of our eggs in that basket, run by the IRS.


          • WW4

            Can’t one make the argument that the parts of this law that fall under the government’s purview are subject to change with any election? And the parts in the private realm can be expanded the same way?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Can’t one make the argument that the parts of this law that fall under the government’s purview are subject to change with any election?”

            In theory perhaps but I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. In reality the government must make a strong case for why it must interfere with our free market system.

            Are there clear safety issues being addressed? I don’t think so. Fraud? They will say yes, but this is based on socialist collectivist “social justice” ideology which does not pass muster according to our constitution. What fraud that does need to be addressed is not addressed at all.

            Their original premise was that they could deliver better value “collectively” but what it boils down to after doing the math is that it’s a grand income redistribution scheme that doesn’t mind destroying one of our most (if not the most) important segment of our economy in order to enrich a few classes of low-income people. But it sounds extremely enlightened. Because people have dreamed about this for centuries. People have been dreaming about intergalactic travel too. We’re not quite ready for that either.

            No, they can’t deliver better value. They can promise you that it’s more socially just. In their opinion. That’s the only benefit we get. At what cost?

            It’s insane.

            “And the parts in the private realm can be expanded the same way?”

            The private sector is subordinated to the control of the government. Every change that I’m aware of is about investing in the fallacy of the benefits of “central planning” by “benevolent elites” (tyrants).

            So what are the actual benefits in terms of the bottom line and how much will it cost to deliver those supposed benefits?

            Some aspects of medicine can be commodified. Most can’t. That’s the second biggest error in the failed models used to predict net gains from socialized medicine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think we can get there in a few years as the political furor dies down, we at least accept that there SHOULD be an individual mandate (which, as I’ve pointed out, conservatives used to argue for).”

            The timing itself was the worst. Even if each plan (that could affect the economy) had merit (which they don’t) you could only argue for trying to hone a given proposal in some rational overall plan. Throwing them all out at once before the economy had even recovered from the greatest all time scam of the socialists (“social justice home loans”) is like asking for (class) war.

            It may not have been 0′Bama’s intention personally (I don’t know and don’t care about any politician personally) but somebody is using grand deception schemes to roll out a revolution.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All other countries comparable to ours have agreed on what a base, standard level of care is.”

            So we’re not the greatest nation in history. We must strive to achieve the level of greatness of Norway or Holland.

            We better get working on that. Maybe some day we can be just like the UK. Some day.

      • JPeden

        “Our current health care costs are out of control–literally.”

        Then why didn’t Obamacare include medical insurance company competition across State borders, tort reform, strengthening of MSA’s, straight up deductibility of all medical expenses, for example?

        And as I heard one Black Lady comment, “If you want to add a room, you don’t tear down the whole house.”

        • WW4

          It didn’t-and those are good questions–because it’s a freaking behemoth of a reform with many well-funded special interests sticking their fingers in. Like I said–horse designed by committee. It’s not great–but not nearly as bad as some make it out. I HOPE some market rationality is a component of future reform. This is like the first lurch when turning around a very large ship.

          • JPeden

            Sorry, but there was nothing so drastically wrong with the ship or its direction to begin with that it indicated the ship should be destroyed. Therefore, it is the epitome of stupidity to sink the ship and then try to build another one out of Socialist “principles” which have already been tested and found to fail – at the least when finally inflicted upon the whole society, Obamacare – which single payer strongly resembles except that it’s more completely behind the closed doors of the Federal Government – being a necessary step of kind taken toward that failure.

            How many examples of the progressive and universal failure of Socialistic-Communistic societies do you require?

          • WW4

            “How many examples of the progressive and universal failure of Socialistic-Communistic societies do you require?”

            Yep, Norway and Canada are living hells, aren’t they?

          • WW4

            “Sorry, but there was nothing so drastically wrong with the ship or its direction to begin with that it indicated the ship should be destroyed.”

            Premiums were going up; what you got for the premiums was going down, more and more procedures being turned down by insurance companies. Medical expenses are one of, some say THE, leading cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. We’re talking about people who do work, who have insurance, who play by the rules.

            “Ship being destroyed” is colorful. But accurate?

          • JPeden

            .” Medical expenses are one of, some say THE, leading cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.”

            Elizabeth “Princess Lies Through Teeth” Warren coauthored the study forming the Urban Myth of “Medical Bankruptcy”. Go look at Table 2 of her study to see all of the absurd criteria which would make your bankruptcy “medical”, only one of them being necessary. And that’s only one of the things wrong with her study.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But we should bankrupt the nation so that we’re all destitute together. That way we won’t have so many individuals who file and then get over it. As a nation, we can go to China for help but individuals have to stress out and figure out what to do next.

            It makes me cry constantly to think about it.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Norway and Canada are sharia compliant frozen $hitholes. And you take it up the @$$.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yep, Norway and Canada are living hells, aren’t they?”

            Seriously ill people that can afford it come to the USA for it’s superior state-of-the-art medicine. Now you want to take the prototype labs for world medical advances and turn them in to welfare operations run by the IRS.

            Where do we go when they fail? Who is taking over that leadership role that ACA removes us from?

          • JPeden

            Norway has about 4.5 million people and is the second leading exporter of Natural Gas. duhhhhh

            Canadians stream across the border to the U.S. to get health care services because of the long, potentially lethal waits involved. Go up there for your coronary bypass surgery, but don’t forget to say goodbye to your best friends, “because it may be the last time”. — James Brown

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It didn’t-and those are good questions–because it’s a freaking behemoth of a reform with many well-funded special interests sticking their fingers in.”

            Really? Huh. But at least we can shop elsewhere if we don’t like it. It’s not like this inferior “corporation” has any special power over it’s competitors. Sure it’s cozy with the IRS, the executive branch etc. but you know, those guys all mean well…plus we had to do some thing.

      • Constitution First

        Take A set amount of doctors and hospitals add 35 million more people into the system who basically won’t be paying a dime into that system… and you tell me how it won’t cost the rest of us a great deal more money and get a great deal less care? Or are you a completely blind Troll? Are you being paid to spread false information?

        • ScottMayer

          Also, don’t forget about all of the newly created ObamaCare bureaucrats (who expect paychecks) that must be added to the overall cost of healthcare now.

          • WW4

            Yes, what do they cost, again?

          • truebearing

            Way too much. They are yet more parasites on the revenue the government extracts from those who create the wealth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, what do they cost, again?”

            Far greater than zero. But it’s your plan, you have to work the numbers, not us. Don’t forget to show your work like any other legitimate proponent of some thing.

      • truebearing

        You left out the biggest reasons for health care cost inflation: the absence of tort reform and restricting the options of health care consumers.

        Who will hold the government responsible for its incompetence and corruption? The insurance industry is among the most regulated and makes our government look sick when it comes to efficiency and ethics….of course, our government makes itself lokk sick without any comparisons.

        Informed consumers, you say? Who will inform them, pathological liars like Obama or his minions on the Left? The corrupt, goose stepping media? Or perhaps you? You better work on informing yourself first, because you maunderings have a singular lack of information.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “You’re a smart poster…tell me why it’s going to be a disaster. Insurance is still provided mostly by private companies. They will have to compete for your money either on the private market or through the exchanges (where you can compare products and prices).”

        You want to know why it won’t work? Because when you say:

        “Our current health care costs are out of control–literally.”

        You’ve actually made the biggest error of all. You can’t improve on the free market to “control costs” unless you’re a god. Are you? But someone will play god. They’re doing it already. Criticizing and demanding better performance is entirely different than delivering. These leftists demagogues are like track coaches nagging at athletes that are “out of control” for refusing to run 100 meters in 4 seconds. In theory it’s possible and it will be a great achievement for it to happen. Therefore it must be reasonable and it becomes an expectation.

        Now scale up the complexity and ask yourself if people are ever delusional about their expectations. Especially when they’ve spent their entire lives hearing politicians and agitators telling them what to expect if only certain greedy people would just get more compassionate. That’s the problem of course.

        If you want to make things better with some great idea, prove it on a smaller scale and then scale up. Don’t take a superpower and destroy it because you got enough dupes to place false hopes in atheistic Utopian delusions. There is no free lunch unless you steal it. And if you steal it, you’ll still pay eventually.

        • WW4

          Maybe the ACA will provide the catalyst for the next conservative revolution, ofm.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Maybe the ACA will provide the catalyst for the next conservative revolution, ofm.”

            I don’t want revolution. I’d like people to enlighten themselves with objectivity and a bit if awareness to the complexity of things before they try to improve it with failed ideas.

            It’s entirely possible that we can come up with dramatic real world improvements that meet *realistic* expectations rather than Utopian ones. We waste a lot of resources fighting people who try to promote Utopian ideas.

          • WW4

            This law doesn’t strike me as utopian in any sense. Single payer, maybe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This law doesn’t strike me as utopian in any sense.”

            That’s obvious lack of awareness on your part. We need Utopian dreamers in every society as long as they understand their role in it. We have too many Utopian dreamers who don’t know they’re dreaming because they imagine they’re actually slaying the dragons of greed and “social injustice.”

  • Mr. Smith

    Don’t go to the exchanges…go to private insurance or get in with Doctors starting up their own Co-Ops. Monthly or yearly fee, all small stuff done at office then have Catastrophic Ins. FTG!!! Then, if you do File tax forms..refuse to answer any questions concerning your healthcare, it’s none of the Gov’s concern. Don’t give into Government taking your Rights away. Almost forgot..obama can Ki$$ my A$$!!

    • WW4

      All you have to do is say that you have insurance. If you don’t, you’re gonna get dinged. It’s bad advice, man.

  • Guy Fromage

    It is transparently the case, that 0bamacare was intended, from inception, to be non-viable. It is a host-killing pathogen. In this case, the host is a heath care delivery management system already foundering due to government interference in the free market to degree unmatched in nearly any other business.

    The vast majority of Americans may have frequently grumbled about this or that stumbling block placed in their way by insurance companies (which operated as more or less cartels, thanks to government again), but tolerated the annoyances because the care, once received, had no equal in the world. Now, as 0bamacare goes into effect, a small minority may have “coverage,” who didn’t have it before, but this of course does not mean they will have care which is either timely, or of quality comparable to what might have been.

    So, instead of a grumbling but satisfied majority, we will now in short order have a furious majority, and too many will place the blame with insurance companies trying to make soup of bathwater, instead of the source of the pain, Washington.

    Then, when the mandarins’ synthetic “struggle” has ripened sufficiently, “single payer” will be offered as the panacea; this has always been the end game.

    • WW4

      “A grumbling but satisfied majority” describes our European and Israeli cousins, as well, though. And despite excessive government involvement, there, their costs are at least half our costs. You underestimate insurance companies’ skim in favor of the point about government. It’s safe to say no plan is perfect. I think Obamacare resembles a horse designed by committee–but I understand the political lifting that had to take place in order to make it happen 40 years after Nixon proposed it, with every president paying only lip service to reform.

      • Guy Fromage

        Nixon was no conservative, and you really ought to abandon the meme you’ve been trying to push where you attempt to caste conservatives as hypocrites for opposing 0bamacare.

        Claiming costs are lower in other places, is much like stating hamburger is cheaper than steak (or, if comparing Canada’s or England’s socialist health care systems, cat food and steak). Triage is a wonderful thing, if your a government bureaucrat with a Cadillac plan and a uptick in your GS level if the five-year plan’s health expenditures are under budget.

        Those knee replacements and MRIs weren’t really necessary, anyway.

        • WW4

          Point in bringing up Nixon was that we’ve known we’ve need reform for that long, and the reality of the costs we incur had finally become unavoidable.

          Hypocrisy in politics is the easiest charge to bring–I admit. But what else do you call a party that championed mandates and exchanges for over a decade until their opponents adopted the model–after which they called it “totalitarian?” Seriously.

          • Guy Fromage

            Reform, or deform? A free market brings better products and services at lower prices, faster, than any other known mechanism. Making the market less free is the last thing that should be attempted.

            The Tea Party is, in part, a response to a party which has failed to deliver on the promise of smaller government and a freer people. Some housing cleaning is in order, but to even suggest that support for socialized medicine was a platform of the GOP is laughably disingenuous.

            But you knew that already.

          • WW4

            While we’re on the subject of disingenuous, please explain conservatives’ long-time support for an individual mandate.

            I like a climate where business can compete fairly (not as you say, as cartels), too. I think we can get there, and perhaps it will be a TEA party initiative. But we could not maintain at rate health care costs were rising and expected to rise more. One way to address that is to make sure everyone gets care. No, I don’t think health care is a “right.” I think it’s something more of a responsibility. It’s a responsibility taken seriously in literally every other comparable country but ours. BTW it’s also disingenuous to compare their quality of care unfavorably with ours. Simple evidence: their health care stats and outcomes.

          • Guy Fromage

            Your question has no answer, because it is based on a false predicate, as is your argument against costs in a mythical health care free market. The reason costs rise, besides the state-induced factors which cause all costs to rise (inflation, energy suppression, etc.) is precisely because the market in heath care is not free.

            You close with a conflation of health statistics, with quality of care. It is much like the argument gun grabbers make with regards to crime statistics in some country’s comparing favorably to ours, as a justification for gun confiscation. It ignores a whole spectrum of cultural, climactic, and regional differences, in an attempt to boil down justification for their narrow agenda to one factor.

            Life is not a cartoon, though statists seem to want to turn it into one.

          • WW4

            “Your question has no answer, because it is based on a false predicate.” Because it makes it very inconvenient for you? No, it’s based on verifiable fact and the direct words of the conservatives who first floated the model. You can call it a “false comparsion” until you’re blue in the face but it won’t change the fact that the model for the ACA came from conservative circles and was championed by prominent Republicans for years.

            Few markets are truly “free.” I like Milton Friedman, too. I find his ideas pretty exciting and I hope conservativism can get back to that kind of constructive creativity someday. But maybe expecting a massive sector of our economy that affects everybody’s life to become a truly free market is a bit…quixotic?

          • Guy Fromage

            An approach conceived by some conservatives, does not make for a platform. It was an idea floated, then abandoned, for two reasons: it’s a bad idea, it’s an idea which is incompatible with individual liberty. For a summary of the conservative platform, I refer you to the radio address by Ronald Reagan, on the subject of the dangers of socialized medicine, and how it could be accomplished in the US by matters of degree.

            “Liking” Milton Freedman, and giving any weight to his teachings are not the same thing. Now who is using rhetoric deceptively? Also, claiming few markets are “truly free,” evades the whole issue of whether more, or less, freedom is better. There may be a market freedom equivalent of the Laffer Curve, where you get to a point of increase in marginal freedom which has a negative effect, but we’ve been no where near that level in medicine for decades.

            It’s amusing that you try to demarcate heath care as somehow unique, as a sector of the economy which “affects everybody’s life,” as if transportation and food don’t. Again, both are (over)regulated, but compared to the market of medical care, they are free-wheeling bazaars, and they deliver goods and services at reasonable prices.

          • WW4

            “More or less freedom” with regard to what? The freedom to declare bankruptcy because you got cancer? The freedom to be dropped from coverage at the whim of your insurance company?

            Health care involves myriad life and death decisions daily and the application of science at a level the sectors you mention simply do not.

          • Guy Fromage

            No. The freedom to contract, with terms agreeable to both parties. The freedom to save pre-tax dollars for the purpose of paying for health care.

            RE: Science. Complete hogwash. The engineering and science which goes into the businesses mentioned, as well as a myriad of others, are no less or greater a justification for government tampering in the marketplace. Further, the level of science used on a daily basis at the clinical level is dwarfed by that which is used to develop new drugs and medical machines, which are (or were, until 0bamacare’s medical device tax came into play) fairly well removed from government tampering, at least until the approval phase.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No. The freedom to contract, with terms agreeable to both parties.”

            But we need “the government” to help us enforce contracts when “the evil corporations” try to screw us. Therefore the ACA? Really?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The freedom to declare bankruptcy because you got cancer?”

            You think that unmerciful? The government should not insure but ensure life has no bumps that make people sad? No wonder you don’t see the Utopian urges behind ACA.

            “The freedom to be dropped from coverage at the whim of your insurance company?”

            That is BS. We have tons of regulations protecting consumers not to mention contract law from common law.

            We gave a voter base that has been indoctrinated by poignant anecdotes. Don’t our citizens even understand the fundamentals of our justice systems? I think no. Teaching them that would quickly lead to them rejecting socialist stupidity.

          • WW4

            Isn’t “insuring” what it is? Why should it rise to the level of “ensure?” For a utopian impulse there’s a common sense component to making sure care is accessible.

            I think we can agree the issue of health care–access and provision–can be seen as a safety net issue even through a conservative lens (Hayek, Mises). Would a preferable method be a stipend? Sort of “negative income tax?” “Here’s your alotment; go shopping?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Isn’t “insuring” what it is? Why should it rise to the level of “ensure?””

            Because that’s what you and others imply. If it’s universal guaranteed, no condition “insurance,” what’s the difference? There are no conditions to a simple assurance. Insurance puts requirements on the insured. We (you) promise the world to the voter but can we (you) deliver?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For a utopian impulse there’s a common sense component to making sure care is accessible.”

            OMG. Healthcare IS accessible! More accessible than any time and place in history! The only thing stopping anyone from getting healthcare is ignorance. Does it place requirements on the patient? Yes.

            Oh no, we can’t burden the patient directly. Only do that when we can blame others. Promise them everything and then blame others when we fail to deliver. Rinse and repeat.

          • WW4

            Do you, or do you not see health care as a legit “safety net” issue? As something which it is in the state’s interest to be concerned and make SOME provision for?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Do you, or do you not see health care as a legit “safety net” issue?”

            Issue for who? Start with the question: Who is accountable for my success? The same is accountable for my failures.

            “As something which it is in the state’s interest to be concerned and make SOME provision for?”

            Make provisions for ensuring nobody feels they don’t have equal health care and that the rich aren’t stealing from them by being successful? Because that’s what this is about. It’s about envy and blame-shifting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think we can agree the issue of health care–access and provision–can be seen as a safety net issue even through a conservative lens…”

            The safety nets already exist. You want to protect “poor people” from ever having to pay for something they “can’t afford.”

            “Would a preferable method be a stipend? Sort of “negative income tax?” “Here’s your alotment; go shopping for a plan?””

            That would certainly be more rational than the ACA but it would never make the radicals any happier. They hate consumer sovereignty. Get it? They have an impulse to take away consumer sovereignty to protect the stupid people from themselves so that smart Utopians can engineer our perfect future. It’s an impulse they can’t control.

            Having said that, I don’t mind a subsidy when we can afford it as long as you never dare tell people it’s their right. It’s not.

            “Plans would be openly competitive between states (as I’ve always agreed they should be?)”

            If there was any way for socialized medicine to work, they should at least run it at the state level and allow states to compete with each other for clients. At least then you’ve replicated a competitive market.

            You still have the root problems of Utopian ideology but we can deal with that as we go, since we must do that in any case. So yeah, if some proposal had come along for something like that I’d have a lot more respect for their efforts to try. But no, they’re a bunch of unhinged radicals. They come up with a plan that destroys everything before they must even show evidence that they know where the North Pole is. It’s obviously designed to be “too big to fail” for a reason so that we’re stuck with it and stuck with trying to fix it, because the old system has been dissolved.

          • WW4

            I can’t stand hearing that health care (or even education) is a “right,” and try to put the kaibosh on that kind of talk when I hear it among well-meaning friends.

            These may be things we as a society value highly as necessary and essential and for which we may make provisions. But they are not “rights.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not difficult to make a rational case for mercy and having a safety net, when it doesn’t endanger society. The problem is that socialist “safety nets” tend to cause more harm than good.

            In theory, socialism is just compassion with collective action. The problem is, who leads this collective effort? It ends up being not only coercive, but based on deception. A few anecdotes are used to represent entire classes of people and socialists today will tell you that it doesn’t even matter if the anecdotes are authentic because they “could be” true. They’re not committed to truth because ultimately their dreams are Utopian. They are convinced that their ideas are better than reality, so being committed to the truth is like being stuck in the past. That’s how many of them think. Compassion is only a tactic for most people with socialist dreams. They often even fool themselves about how altruistic they supposedly are. They almost universally expect to gain personally from these ideas.

            Given enough time, I’m sure that you and I could work out some reasonable policies. The present day political climate won’t allow anything like that. It’s too late for the ACA. Unfortunately, I think if the ACA is funded, the damage it will cause will not only set back socialism (which is good) but it will do great harm to our nation’s people in their capacity to care at all about “the greater good” even in charity. It will feel like it’s useless trying to help others who seem to not want to help themselves. Maybe that’s OK and churches will return to their traditional role, small charities will eventually fill the gaps and things will improve for most people.

            You will always have some poor, and some sick people. You will always have envious people and people who want more power. We should have zero tolerance for liars for a start, and then see where that leads us. I think things can only get better if we could simply all agree that lies are always destructive at some point.

          • WW4

            True. The problem with lies is the problem with human nature: we hear what we want to hear. Liberals like the lie about medical bankruptcies (yep, guilty of that one). Conservatives like the lie about “death panels.” Liberals use the anecdotes about the people who suffer after being dropped by their insurance company. Conservatives use the anecdotes about people who suffer waiting for procedures in Europe.

            I think we’re still in for our reckoning. Health care is at least “on people’s minds” (yes, cold comfort, that). I am enough of a realist to understand its subsidies will continue to mask costs, which was the main problem in the first place. I am enough of an idealist to think there is a framework, there, that can be adjustable in ways that do NOT cede more control to the government, and just enough “utopian” to hope that increased participation will help control those costs.

            I agree that “the poor you will always have with you;” the envious, as well. I am concerned about the basics for the middle class: health care costs, college costs for the kids, and what’s left over to retire on. I never get the sense for the Republican Party that these are “their” concerns: it’s “I got mine, Jack; government’s bad (except when it works for me).” Now that may be unfair, but if the GOP wonders why they lose elections, it’s not that the democrats have promised the moon–it’s that the GOP hasn’t offered constructive alternatives creative enough to fire people’s imaginations. Yet this is exactly what made Reagan successful.

        • Matthew Vadum

          As president Nixon was a vile leftist. Before that he was a cool commie hunter who worked with Joe McCarthy. Somewhere along the way he was corrupted. Nixon and Obama have much more in common than Republicans (and Democrats) would like to admit.

          • Guy Fromage

            That whole spying on the American people thing, for example, though in that regard, Nixon with a piker, compared to Hussein.

          • WW4

            I would actually agree with that.

          • Guy Fromage

            Rhetoric may be true, or untrue. In this case, the characterization is accurate.


          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As president Nixon was a vile leftist. Before that he was a cool commie hunter who worked with Joe McCarthy. Somewhere along the way he was corrupted.”

            Some commie hunters simply did not understand the comprehensive case against socialism and communism. They believe there was/is a “middle way” that is fine but that the Soviets were “extremists.” As if there is some kind of non-coercive socialism and or if you get it right by having enlightened administrators, well that is the role of modern governments to make sure we’re not too sad to reelect them.

      • JPeden

        “And despite excessive government involvement, there, their costs are at least half our costs. You can talk about differences in quality in some cases, sure–but you can’t get around that quantifiable fact.”

        Actually what you can’t get around is the value of an individual’s quality of life and life itself, which results from using a medical standard of care that involves “the highest existing care to each person,” instead of a Socialistic Government’s or Obamacare’s nearly opposite “cost containment” standard of care.

        It is instead the manifestation of a severe mental derangement to talk only in terms of economic costs and alleged benefits to the “bottom line”, such as Obama does! Especially since Obamacare will not even deliver that.

        Or else, assuming that “you can’t get around the quantifiable fact” of costs, then show me the valid Study which proves the “50% costs” claim. The Study that alleges that it takes into account all of the differences involved between the allegedly comparable countries, all of which have “National” or “single payer” delivery systems, except for the one that does not.

        I’m betting this Study doesn’t exist, because I’m pretty sure I can already think of many important factors that such a study will not adjust for. I’m also betting that the Study you refer to me will turn out to be only another example of the wide spread propagandizing use by Interest Groups and Governments of Political Science masquerading as Real Science!

        h/t “mainstream” Climate Science and “perception is reality” Progressive delusionalism..

        • WW4

          And I’ll take your studies (are there any?), and show you what the factors are that yours failed to consider. And we’ll play that game for a while. To the Google, Batman!

          In the meantime, we can talk about quality of life, and life itself. How many people in the U.S. experience stress regarding how they will afford health care when they lose their job, or get injured or experience serious disease? Quite a few, right?

          How many in Europe? None.

          I submit that is not only an issue of quality of life, but liberty, as well. Quality? Wait periods? Yes, those are the tradeoffs in some instances–but as I’ve said: they’re pretty satisfied over there.

          Now I have never said the quality of care here was not superior. Never. But I have said that, due to costs, those days were over–no matter who got elected in 2008. That quality came at a cost we could no longer manage and government is not entirely to blame for that. The “pro-government” candidate won twice partly because he at least acknowledged the need to act now.

          It may be that the ACA is merely a “Pyrrhic victory:” it’ll take a few years to see if disaster strikes. When conservatives decide to maybe become proactive, positive, creative, constructive, innovative, or modern on…well, anything…I’m open to it. Until then…keep up the great filibustering, enjoy the search for the “real” birth certificate, and swapping old Reagan anecdotes. It’s all really very important to the American people.

          • JPeden

            “And I’ll take your studies (are there any?), and show you what the
            factors are that yours failed to consider. And we’ll play that game for a
            while. To the Google, Batman!”

            That ends it for you WW4. You just done defeated your own bad self. You are just another proud possessor of what I called the Liberal Defect, starting back about 16 years ago:

            You are the one who claimed that healthcare costs are drastically lower in other comparable countries. Therefore, it is you who needs to prove it! I don’t have to prove anything.It is a defect in logic which makes you not realize this, if not also a strong case of denial. Again, I don’t have to present any studies at all until you have come up with a credible study backing your claim, which I see that you can’t!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Leftists forget that the burden of proof is on the party that proposes change. They always find a way to accuse others of the need for providing proof.

            “You claim my plan won’t work and now the burden is on you to prove it.”

            They’re robots.

          • WW4

            Ah! But the ACA is the law, upheld by the SCOTUS. We had this debate; your side lost, and now YOU want the change.

            But just in case, guys, I’ll play for a bit:



          • Guy Fromage

            The SCOTUS, at one time, also made the Dred Scott Decision. And the obamacare decision was made with a vote from a “Justice” who’s participation in crafting the abomination, meant recusing herself was the only ethical option.

            Then again, were talking about an 0bama appointee, so…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The SCOTUS decision was hardly comprehensive in speaking to the issue of constitutionality of the law as a whole. It just means the plaintiff failed in that approach.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Give it up, @$$hole. You’re a poster boy for leftwing failure.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah! But the ACA is the law…”

            Nobody is impeding any law that I know of.

            “upheld by the SCOTUS.”

            Elements were not deemed unconstitutional. That’s not relevant today. We’re going to congress because that is how parties seek relief from bad laws.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But just in case, guys, I’ll play for a bit:”

            Don’t tell me you think this is evidence that the ACA is helpful or constitutional?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In the meantime, we can talk about quality of life, and life itself. How many people in the U.S. experience stress regarding how they will afford health care when they lose their job, or get injured or experience serious disease? Quite a few, right? How many in Europe? None.”

            I can think of a far easier answer than destroying America. You prefer Europe? Great.

            Next case please.

          • American1969

            If Europe is such a fantastic example, then why don’t people like you go live there instead of here?

          • WW4

            Why not just fight for my values so that people like you become increasingly irrelevant relics?

          • ziggy zoggy

            What you value is obscene.

          • WW4

            That’s funny; I feel the same about you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point is that “maybe” our system is better (not to mention the fact that we are host to most of the world’s medical research and technology advances) and we don’t need to experiment with trying to homogenize Western nations just because it seems like a good idea to some people. On the left.

          • American1969

            Why not just renounce your American citizenship and go over to Europe and live your socialist dream? The rest of America doesn’t want it! Unlike you, the rest of us like our freedom without government interference. Please feel free to live under Big Brother’s thumb all you like.

    • victoryman

      Exactly! Single (Government) Payer is the end game. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. The “Death panels” will decide who gets what. You’re HOW old? And you WANT what medicine/treatment/surgery? Hahahahahaha. Here. Choose a red pill or a blue pill. Guess what? BOTH are placebos……but don’t tell anyone. Take one….and DON’T call me in the morning….If you are still alive. Can Solyent Green be far behind?

      • Guy Fromage

        As a metaphor, Soylent Green is not too far off. One of Hussein’s anointed, Cass Sunstein, is rather explicit on this point.

        • victoryman

          Let us not forget his anti-American, anti-Semitic wife, Samantha Power now residing at the UN…………

    • liza dany

      My Uncle Hunter got Mercedes-Benz S-Class Sedan just by working online with a pc. Resources


  • PhilByler

    I defended McCain when he had a conservative voting record in the Senate in the years 2009 to 2012. Now, someone needs to tell McCain that he is a defeatist and needs to retire now so that he does not disgrace himself any longer. He has been a numbskull this year.
    Kudos to Senator Cruz.

    • ilovemykids

      McCain uses “elections have consequences” as a reason to accept tyranny. I suppose he would have done that when Hitler was “elected” too. Wonder what Obama has on him?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Opposition party.”

        What does that mean? Time to talk to my spin doctors…

    • John11745

      Why don’t YOU tell him by calling his office!

  • muck fuslims
  • davarino

    The senate repubs can keep their McConnellCare if they like it so much. Along with all the other “go along to get along” BS they have foisted on us.

  • Jason P

    The Manhattan Institute (if I remember correctly) recently had an article explaining that in a few states, like NY & NJ, insurance costs may go down. But this is because these states already have heavy regulations that drove costs up to about $2000 a month for an adult couple. Costs will be lowered by eliminating good health insurance (like the PPO plan that Malkin has) and leave only inferior HMOs.

    These new HMOs aren’t like the current one’s. These will pay doctors and hospitals so little that very few health care providers will participate. It will be a lower quality of health care and you won’t be able to get the doctor of your choice. This is Obama’s purpose: to bring everyone down to the same level of low quality health care. Think Cuba.

    • WW4

      These are good points Jason. Ultimately, people who have means will always be able to afford high quality care. And people whose plans have not changed in the last 2 years will keep the same plans. Prices are going up because insurers are hedging. But we have to ask–why are BCBS premiums rising when this is a company pulling down between $1-2 billion in PROFITS during the last few years?

      This is not “insurance companies are evil”–but they are companies. They do have overhead, and they do take profits (even the non-profits). But it’s YOUR health care.

      I don’t think quality is going to suffer long term. I also think once you get everyone participating, with MEASURABLE costs (as opposed to “here’s what we estimate it might cost”) we’ll even out. But I definitely think the economy takes a hit, short term, during the adjustment. That sucks.

      If people truly hate “Obamacare” after 4 years, hey, have a revolution.

      • Drakken

        Your living in la la land, wherever govt get their fingers into, you can bet good money that they will FUBAR it. I hope to God this abortion crashes and burns and the folks start taking to the pitchfork and torches to the politicians you wrought this upon us.

        • Guy Fromage

          People who confuse coverage with care, are tantamount to those who confuse pasture with milk.

          If you think they’re interchangeable, it’s time to try something new on your breakfast cereal.

          • Drakken

            Well you do have 47 % of the low/no information voter and solidly demoncrat districts (Pelousy) who are going to run the rest of us into the ground and they will still love their demoncrats for it.

          • JPeden

            Yeah, I’ve been watching and from the time of Hillarycare through Obamacare, the noble Propagandists pushing for such care have been unable to produce even one valid example of someone having been denied care because of inability to pay, when according to them, such cases are epidemic.

            For example, E.R.’s are obligated by law and ethics to “evaluate” anyone who shows up, period, and to then treat according to the standard of care. I did it for 30 years.

          • Guy Fromage

            Never mind that you did it in the real word, there’s a meme to push!

          • WW4

            “Care”–what none of you guys is willing to admit is that the old days were over. Your quality of care was not going to the stay the same if the ghost of Reagan came to life and won office. Costs were out of control. Band-aids like tort reform (which, yes, would be a good thing), would only count towards maybe 2% of that. Read Steven Brill’s article in Time about costs. Then read Conover’s rebuttal in Forbes about insurance company profits and consumer obliviousness. You know what other countries pay in taxes for their health care? We pay that too–on top of our insurance payments, on top of our employers’ contributions. We are messed up.

            As you praise Ted Cruz’s 11th hour campaign theatrics (you do love your show ponies, don’t you?), do remember that your party offered NOTHING as a solution. Correction: there were a few proposals made, but because they were too similar to the ACA, your leadership shot them down.

          • JPeden

            All I get from your post is that you are talking to your own delusions and are either too lazy or not capable of making a coherent argument on point. No one’s going to look at your references if you don’t make links to them and also describe what points you think they make or are rebutting.

          • WW4

            I’ll recap for the people who won’t address a single one of my points directly:

            1. COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS. Health care costs were out of control, whether Obama or Donald Duck got elected in 2008.

            2. Republicans argued for the individual mandate and health care exchanges for over a decade–right up until the democrats adopted those ideas. Something no one here dares to refute (you just dance around it and fatuously pretend I haven’t made a point).

            3. When it became clear that health care reform was the first thing on Obama’s agenda, Republicans scrambled–having not thought health care as important as, say, gay marriage. The few serious PLANS offered resembled the ACA too much and were squashed by leadership. Republican agenda ever since, on EVERYTHING, is obstruction–not construction, not creativity.

            4. Republicans cued in on band-aids like “tort reform,” which accounts for almost a whopping 2% of out of control costs, totally missing big picture.

            5. Republicans have outright LIED about much of the ACA (“death panels,” “government takeover”).

            6. Now that Obama has been re-elected and the ACA is law, upheld by the Supreme Court, ideologically bankrupt Republicans hold the full faith and credit of the U.S. hostage while they stamp their widdle feet over the ACA and all their failures.

          • Drakken

            Competion, competion, competion, competion ! The private industry can do much better than when any govt entity gets involved.

          • American1969

            How about competition? That always helps to lower costs. How about TORT REFORM which is why costs are so high? That’s the true problem. Until that gets addressed, costs will never come down. Allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines (like auto insurance) would bring down costs also.

          • WW4

            Tort reform would account for between .5-2% of costs. I think it should happen, but I don’t see that it is that significant a factor in overall costs.

            I agree about purchasing across state lines, I think that would be much better.

          • Guy Fromage

            I see the membership has already made the case for me, so I’ll simply say, enjoy your cereal.

      • truebearing

        You never address why costs have continued to rise. Why is that? Is it because you don’t know, or are too dishonest to admit something that annhilates your ridiculous defense of Obamacare?

        • WW4

          There are many factors, as you might imagine, and I would point you to the Steven Brill “Bitter Pill” article in Time this year (the longest the mag ever published) but it looks to be subscription-only. If you happen to frequent a library, it’s worth your time. I’m not trying to cop out–maybe it’s online somewhere for free–but it says it a lot better than I can.

          Here is part 1 of Chris Conover’s rebuttal to that article in Forbes, which doesn’t so much refute Brill’s article as draw out some erroneous assumptions or “myths”:

          A lot of it has to do with the third-party involvement of insurance companies, the utter lack of cost transparency that this can engender, the way prices are negotiated through different agencies with different leveraging power, emergency room visits/non-payers’ effect on driving up prices.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “But we have to ask–why are BCBS premiums rising when this is a company pulling down between $1-2 billion in PROFITS during the last few years?”

        Why don’t you show us after your careful comprehensive analysis you no doubt performed as part of your due diligence before certifying ACA?

        Don’t tell me you’re just making assumptions in to implied accusations? It can’t be that…

  • Melvin Polatnick

    Doctors exams will be no more than 10 minutes under Obamacare, most of their time will be spent filling out forms. Nurses will do most of the work. But no sick person will go without a little check up.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Nurses NEVER work.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Oh, sorry. Standing around and complaining about getting paid to do nothing is real work. And a nursing degree is a real diploma.

        • WW4

          Wow, you really sound like you know what you’re talking about! You got the whole right there in Mom’s basement, don’t you? Good for you! Hey, that unemployment check come in for you, yet, zig? Wouldn’t want your Pringles supply to dwindle as you smite “Leftists” with your insightful posts!

          Go on–now you make a gay joke and promise violence! Do it, boy! Do it! So funny!

    • WW4

      Nurses have been doing most of the work for eons. EMRs ARE a pain in the neck right now but like any software it’ll become more streamlined.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Nurses have been doing most of the work for eons. EMRs ARE a pain in the neck right now but like any software it’ll become more streamlined.”

        Ah, special government software? Wew! Thank God for the government. Here to save us!

  • WhiteHunter

    “Gary Cohen refused to give a congressional subcommittee a straight answer ….”
    Jeepers, THAT’s a first for an Obammunist testilying before a committee. NOT.
    I’m not exactly holding my breath for the first time any member of this racketeering enterprise actually tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They all seem to have a glandular allergy to the truth.

  • Walter Sieruk

    First,the current health care system may have its faults nevertheless there is no rational point to replace it with Obamacare .A system which is far worse. Second, there is an old saying from the Far-East which is that “Nothing is so bad that action will not make it worse.” With the action of Obamacare that ancient proverb may turn out to be true

  • Clare Spark

    Obamacare is as much a life and death issue as a war. I linked Ted Cruz, World War I, and generational conflict here: The moderate men (like McCain) are utopian and horrifyingly prudent, like their “moderate” predecessors.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I actually agree with you. ACA is the hood ornament for the global neo-communist movements.

      I think you have to go back at least to Darwin to really understand the fallacies of the modern left. Nietzsche and Marx are easier to understand when you focus on Darwin’s impact on society, science and pseudo science.

  • Matthew Vadum

    BREAKING: More proof Obamacare isn’t ready for rollout:

    The Obama administration is delaying another piece of Obamacare – this time postponing online enrollment in some of the small-business exchanges scheduled to open Oct. 1, sources tell POLITICO.
    Small businesses looking to enroll in coverage on so-called SHOP exchanges run by the federal government will be able to submit a paper application on Oct. 1 – they just won’t be able to enroll online.

    The delay is expected to further stoke Republican-led concerns that the law is not ready and should be stopped before 2014. [...]

    Read more:

    • Guy Fromage

      Well, at least we had those shovel ready jobs.

      Oh, wait.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Well, at least we had those shovel ready jobs. Oh, wait.”

        Yeah, OOPS! They never freaking learn. Always on to the next scam without learning from the previous liars and their lies.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    I don’t care what happens. If the government is “shut down,” I am more than willinjg to live with the consequences. This law means the destruction of our system of healthcare, an unacceptable diminution of our liberties as individuals, and a vicious interference with the doctor/patient relationship.

    • Guy Fromage

      The problem is, weak-kneed Republicans are worried that their constituents who are expecting earned benefits promised them, and depend on them, will misplace the blame for their interruption.

      And when you consider the sycophancy of the MSM, the concern is not an overblown one.

  • Constitution First

    Ineptitude or an intentional augering of 1/5th of the nations economy?
    I believe it is “The Cloward – Piven Strategy” being followed to it’s disastrous but inevitable conclusion.
    If we were to have had the opportunity to have properly vetted 0bama’s collage papers, we would have most certainly found a manifesto like Hillary’s Wellesley senior college thesis paean to Saul Alinski.
    However, someone (besides Barry, he didn’t have that kind of dough) felt the need to cough-up $1.25 Million dollars in legal fees to hide all that paper. We can now understand why that was so critically important to the puppet masters in 2007.

  • William James Ward

    Everything Obama does ends in a crisis, nothing he does is of any
    use to America and those who pay to keep it running, i.e.,the
    tax payers. He is a scourge on America and will if not stopped
    run the nation into a pit of misery and poverty with all of the
    Nations wealth in the hands of Political parasites in Washington
    D. C., district of criminals. So many problems, Obama-care is
    doomed and dooming, it will cover by diverting attention from all of
    the so called stimulus taxation, the biggest scam in the history of
    the World, trillions in the hands of Obama supporters and all
    with false programs that end in bankruptcy after they are paid
    enormous salaries and bonuses in millions of tax dollars.

  • American1969

    Obama’s entire Administration is a crisis!

  • Friv 4

    It seems that the U.S. President was very tired because of work, I hope things will soon be settled

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yeah, blowing the ayatollah is very tiring.