7 Million Sign Up for ObamaCare — or Not

Fantasy IslandPresident Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and the rest of the president’s team are downright giddy because, as they tell us, more than six million Americans have signed up for the so-called Affordable Care Act.  Wow!  And that was last week.  This week, the news is even better.  Now, it’s nearly seven million, we’re told, who signed up, which was the goal set by the president early on.

What an achievement, especially after the disastrous rollout when a reasonable person might conclude that nobody would be able to sign up.  Great job, Mr. President!

Too bad the White House forgot to tell the American people how great ObamaCare is.  An AP poll taken right before the six million number was released showed that only 26 percent of Americans support the president’s signature piece of legislation.  That’s the lowest approval rating since ObamaCare became law. (In fairness, the poll may be way off base since it wasn’t conducted of “registered voters” or “likely voters” but simply “adults” – anyone, in other words, with a pulse.)

I don’t want to be a party pooper but there are a few things we don’t know.  We don’t know how many of the six or seven million actually paid their premium.  If they didn’t, they’re not covered — and so they don’t count.

We don’t know how many fit into the key demographic – young and healthy, the ones whose money is desperately needed to keep the plan afloat.

We also don’t know how many already had health insurance but got cancellation notices before they signed up for a new plan they didn’t want.   For all we know maybe only a million of those supposed six or seven million got medical insurance for the first time.

And there’s something else we don’t know.  We don’t know if the numbers the White House is putting out are even close to accurate.

Why should anyone take the administration’s word for anything about ObamaCare given the number of times the president himself misled the American people?  He told us if we liked our health care plan we could keep it, period. He told us if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor, period. He told us our premiums would be going down.  Tell that to the millions whose premiums went up.

No one knows how this will turn out.  It will take years to get an answer on that.  But I suspect still more trouble is right over the horizon.  I’m betting that more than a few young, healthy Americans who signed up will cancel within six months.  Either they’ll get an annual physical using their new insurance then drop out.  Or they’ll go half a year and wonder why they’re paying for a product they think they don’t need.  And if they get sick when they have no insurance, they know they can go to the emergency room where they can’t be turned down.

But even if seven million or so Americans really did sign up, wait until they find out what they’re getting for their money.  Not all hospitals are in all plans.  Not all doctors are either.  And this seems like a good time to remind everyone what President Obama told a woman named Jane Sturm back in 2009.  Here’s what Ms. Sturm asked the president:

“My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

And here’s what the president told Jane Sturm about her mother:

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That’d be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re gonna have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t gonna help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Translation:  A few pills are cheaper than a pacemaker.  Or to put it another way:  If she dies she dies.

Nancy Pelosi, who famously told us that, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it,” more recently said that Democrats are proud of the Affordable Care Act and that Republicans are “wasting their time” using it as an issue in the midterm elections.  This woman is a gem, a gift for the GOP that keeps on giving.  If Nancy Pelosi didn’t exist the Koch brothers would have to pay somebody to create her.

*****

Leave a comment … and tell your friends to sign up for FREE updates.

 

 

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Great and clever comment!

  • Chris Matthewson

    Single payer/universal healthcare was always the way to go. Cut out the insurance company profiteers. Also, go after the pharma companies and expensive healthcare providers–the hospitals, physicians and rehab mills. Reduce payments by 1/4 to 1/2. That’s the way to fix the healthcare system. Obamacare was a half-way solution–better than what we had, but very flawed. If conservatives would push for a single payer system, it would be a political game-changer.

    • wally12

      Single payer is a number of things. What it is not? It does not provide good health insurance. It is a means of controlling people by making them reliant on the government. Democrats like that since they garner more votes since people think they are getting something for nothing. What really happens is that the working class, companies and business end up paying for those health premiums. That makes all their products and services more expensive and makes these companies less competitive and more products end up being imported. Who suffers? The poor and middle class since they pay those taxes that the companies pass on in the cost of the products and services. Yet, the democrats say they are helping these people. It is a total lie. The profits that the insurance companies make are not excessive when there is free competition across state lines and as many companies allowed as possible. Excessive profits occur when the governments, both state and federal, get involved and only allow certain companies to compete. Also, the profits that insurance companies make would be more than offset by the waste and fraud that a government single payer system would have. Take a look at the costs that the federal government has piled up in its terrible implementation of Obamacare. It has been over 670 million and the total costs are not in. Look at the actual costs so far for insurance to cover all the regulations that the government has imposed. It will only get worst now that the government has a hand in the process. The government wants the Obamacare to fail and they will use this failure by blaming the insurance companies, doctors and hospitals for the failure. But, never fear, the government will save us by saying we need a single payer system. Many of the uninformed will go along with the government view. At that point we are a total socialist country.

    • Wheels55

      Most people like to have choices. For-profit insurance companies provide many choices – even more before Obamacare made us lose plans we liked.
      Single-payer systems tend to be one size fits all.
      So, I ask you, are you so willing to give up choice so that you don’t have to think about a major expenditure?

      • Chris Matthewson

        Most insured people have no choice–they get whatever health insurance their employers select. Their employers have a choice, but incentives are not necessarily to get the best possible insurance for their employees.

        At long last, Medicare is finally releasing lists of doctors, hospitals and other HC providers and the vast amounts of money some of them suck from the Washington teat. These lists are just being released after decades of talking about it. The various state Medicaid systems still don’t do it and, even if they did, the state systems are so screwed up we could not rely on the accuracy of the info.

        So, with these obvious flaws in government-provided HC, why do I advocate for a single-payer system? Because, if it were designed by conservatives, good sound cost control measures would be built into the system. That is what the Dems would have to agree to before such a system were adopted.

        Who among you would advocate for abolishing our Medicare system? With all its flaws, it is still favored by the vast majority of our citizens. If that system could be expanded to cover all Americans, but re-designed to impose rational cost-saving measures, then America’s HC system could be the envy of the world.

    • gongdark

      Is that who you are, the son of the man who always seems to have a same sex “thrill” running down his leg. If so, the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree. Anyone that is for this abomination is a looney tunes.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @Eagle. Full of hatred? I think not! How about dealing in logic, common sense, facts and reality? You are always telling people who disagree with your ridiculous comments to get help. Worst of all accusing them on dementia, alzheimers (sp), retardation, etc. because they don’t buy into your crap..That is definitely hatred! Anyone with intelligence, or well read does not accuse people of these sad diseases in order to prove/win your/their point. You claim you deal in REALITY?? NADA, NADA, NADA.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @TIM. I contacted a friend who was a successful businessman. Retired at age 50. I asked him recently, and was a tad bit surprised. My question was did his BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIED HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY have a CAP? His reply was, he didn’t know! Surprised me. There is a lot of “fine print” in these health and life insurance policies and with his response and his intellect, success, still living high on the hog being retired, I can’t help but wonder if he ever took the time to read the entire policy and the “fine print.” I won’t ask him as that is too much prying of something that is none of my business. I know the “fine print” in my Home Owners Policy came back to bite me in the butt years ago. So, for many, many years, I read the fine print before I sign on the bottom line.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    YOU GO MIKE STREIKER/NEW BOY ON THE BLOCK AS YOU SAY :) I’m on the same page with you regarding the Eagle. As is many others.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @EAGLE. MIKE STREIKER HAS YOUR NUMBER AS DO MANY OTHER :)
    PESTULANCE AND GUTTER SNIPE..Well said Mike Streiker.

    • Mike Strieker

      Thanks patty. And don’t sweat the small stuff, such as mispelling. I’d much rather mispell lying than to be the worst liar in presidential history

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @Eagle. Nope, not subsidy. Federal tax write off. Note others are on to your BS.. Check out TED, GUERREO, ETC. Ted does a good job of spelling out just what “subsidy” means.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @brickman. Yup, I plead “ignorance” when misspelling words at times. AND..I always enjoy being corrected?

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @Eagle. Subsidized by the government? How about tax write off?

  • Mike Strieker

    How will we compete with the carnival barkers ( lamesream press ) who loyally serve as a distraction from the actual nightmare, known as ACA. As long as the non- liberal media connects with only 30-35% of the public, we are stuck with 65-70% of the public learning that republicans hate women, blacks, gays and social justice……and democrats are for the working man, god and country.

  • Jeff Metz

    All the Obama Administration needs is for folks to believe this number through the elections in November. Its really that simple. Jeff Metz, http://www.thepoliticalspectator.org

  • Tim Ned

    A friend told me some time ago that when you see the ads on TV from law firms promoting class action medial lawsuits read the fine print. They are all from Texas. The vast majority I have observed are from Texas.

    Anyone want to guess why?

    • Mike Strieker
      • Tim Ned

        My friend who is a Texas lawyer states its because Texas put in tort reform for medical liabilities several years ago. They advertise in states like mine that have not put through tort reform.

        • legal eagle

          California has had tort reform for approximately 15 years…It’s not brought health insurance premiums down a penny….Tort reform is a scam by big pharma/drug companies to avoid liability for injuries and deaths caused by pharmaceuticals….Let me know if you want any further insight..

          • Drew Page

            Typical response from a lawyer.

          • legal eagle

            Typical response from someone who isn’t interested enough to figure out the Republican’s true agenda….Let Corporate Interests Rule….

          • Steve

            Legal Eagle or blind crow?

        • legal eagle

          Your statement is factually untrue…but you probably know that…

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Just wait until those working Corporate America/Microsoft, Boeing, Honeywell, IBM, etc. lose their health care insurance that has been provided by their company for years. Small amount taken out of their checks/small deductible and in some cases provided 100% coverage.

    • legal eagle

      All subsidized by the government…

      • Tim Ned

        Private health care has never been subsidized by the government. Only liberal math could calculate such a statement

        • legal eagle

          With all due respect, there is a tax subsidy as the cost of employee health benefits is fully deductible to the employer and there is no offset as employees pay no tax on the benefit….Disagree?

          • Tim Ned

            Look up and read what a subsidy is. This is typical of your party re-interrupting the correct definition of a subsidy.

          • legal eagle

            I believe my definition is accurate….Would you be happier with “tax subsidy”?….LOL

          • Tim Ned

            sub·si·dy
            noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies

            1.
            a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
            “a farm subsidy”
            a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.
            a grant or contribution of money.

          • Mike Strieker

            Tim, why do any of us bother to respond to legal? He whines that private health benifits are gov handouts but seems ok with 40 million on foodstamps, medicade, obama phones and welfare in general. How willfully blind, deaf and dumb can one be?

          • Guerrero_viejo

            Totally disagree? Like most leftist idiots you count a tax deduction as a subsidy.
            It’s the tax code. Don’t like it? close the loop hole. Don’t whine about subsidies.

          • George Williams
  • http://att.net/ patty

    Thanks..always nice to have someone of the same page. Someone who knows the true meaning the what ACA ACTUALLY MEANS :)

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Whoops. hit the wrong key. We, the people. need to stop complaining. arguing who is right and who is wrong when blogging when we should be doing something productive to stop this “mofia President and his team of thugs. I completely support the Tea Party. Remembering, I am a registered Independent but don’t let a specific party influence me and make my own decisions. @SJANGERS …Yes, I know your frustrations. However, I get mad, “pissy” ha. as I frustrations tend to bring me down. Eagle constantly boo-hoo’s, complains about being called names when he just told told Jeff Webb to crawl back in his hole” because he didn’t like his comment. If people don’t agree with him, he accuses them of having Alzheimers (sp) or retarded or an angry person and wonders how your husband puts up with you, or asking if they forgot their medication, or having side affect, brainwashed ideologue. He also told “NED” “we people, American citizens, we the voters, we the tax payer” are not in the position to demand or ask questions of our Senators? Can someone please explain where he came up with that foolish comment? @MARY FRANCIS..Excellent comment.

    • legal eagle

      You’re misquoting me about questioning of a Senator…I said the exact opposite of what you claim I said….now take your meds and relax…LOL

    • Mike Strieker

      I’ve only been on this site for a week and I can already see that legal is quite the pestulance. Other than that guttersnipe, i love the the give and take offered by most of the posters. I’m learning a lot and appreciate the thoughtful commentaries. I already asked legal why he insults so often, then i tried to pay him a compliment- only to be insulted again- so now i figured I try it his way by insulting him. We really aught to isolate his petty, boring and predictable little snipes

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @FITZSIMMONS..If you are tired hearing about Obama and his “cooked books.” Then do something about it..That is the problem. People complain while sipping on their martini at a social gather of sorts. OR Kicked back in their recliners drinking a beer yelling at the television and political daily news and that

  • Wheels55

    Let’s assume the 7.1 million number is correct and all of these people have paid (neither is likely true). Regular health insurance stats tell us that some people stop paying for their insurance before the end of their policy. So, where does all of this take us? People will drop their coverage. Health insurance will continue to get more expensive, at least for the foreseeable future. Healthy youth will continue to question the need to spend money on health insurance. The IRS will continue to be inefficient and clumsy – therefore not collect the puny penalties imposed.
    Conservatives will come up with a replacement plan that would have to help those now getting subsidies, a large burden on taxpayers that will be difficult to get away from.
    Welcome Medicaid part 2. We are screwed.

    • legal eagle

      Can you tell me when Health insurance did not get more expensive?

      • tim ned

        Our company plan dropped 1% this year. Our employees saved a bundle when we moved away from our Cadillac plan to a higher deductible a few years ago. The company pays the deductible after the employee pays the first $2k.

        Insurance rates are related to health care costs. If health care costs drop, so does insurance. Health care costs have been on a continued rise over several decades so what do you think insurance costs are going to do? Obamacare does not address cost. In fact it penalizes those building the medical devices and is directly increasing the cost of health care.

        • legal eagle

          “Group” insurance rates are, theoretically, based upon the group “experience”. Anyone who has been involved in negotiating health insurance contract for large employers, which I once was, will tell you that this is more theory than fact. The only real way for employers to lower cots on group plans is by raising deductibles or co-pays, as was your experience….
          Whether the ACA slows down the rate of increase of medical costs in the U.S. will take years to determine.

          • Tim Ned

            I experienced both as our group costs are low and we saved money by changing our plan through a free market.

            President Obama stated families would experience a decrease of $2500.00 which Paul stated above. What does it say about a statement as such when this is untrue?

          • legal eagle

            Obama was “overly optimistic”….LOL

          • Mike Strieker

            The president also informed us that the planet would begin to heal and the seas would recede upon his nomination.

        • Mike Strieker

          There you go again! Debating a hateful waterboy. You respond with a perfect example along with a serious and thoughtful answer to LE, but mr know-it-all has no intention of acknowledging your good piont(s), just like his god, obama.

      • Paul Courtney

        Sure can, health insurance dropped $2500-in Barack’s speeches. Can you now admit ACA failed to stop cost curve’s upward run, despite the promises from D’s? You’re the one implying it got more expensive everywhere. Go ahead, you can say it, you’ll feel better. Before you tell us it’s only been 6 mos., promises made in ’09 (and ever since) were quite specific, cost curve down was supposed to follow passage in 2010. Don’t you get tired of D’s lying to you?

        • legal eagle

          Your statement about healthcare expenditures is based upon what? Perhaps you should read the following…

          http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-health-cost-curve-is-bending-is-obamacare-to-blame-20140102

          • Paul Courtney

            Perhaps you should read your post, the loaded question implying hc is more expensive. Oh, and there’s the CMS report back in Feb., showing costs grew at slower pace, due to recession mostly, but not due to ACA. Didn’t stop mendacious partisans of the left from giving Obama credit (yes, he deserves “credit”-for the recession), nice of NJ to call them “optimists.” From my quick read, NJ failed to mention that the “negative” outlook is fully supported by Kathy S. CMS, and “optimists” debunked.

          • legal eagle

            What recession? Is the U.S. economy in a recession?
            “mendacious partisans”? On which side of the argument? One can place blame or give credit. That’s a political question not an economic one…

  • mary frances

    Bernie,Your article is great….as usual! I am a retired oncology nurse after 43 yrs.I saw this coming and had this discussion yrs. ago with another nurse. Even then I saw pts. coming in and there were certain ins. companies then that treated accordingly to $’s. I figured then that the day was coming when insurance comp. were not going to do anything heroic to safe certain people. It was not going to benefit them in monies to do such. They are going to give you pain meds. and say,”have a nice life” My thoughts are they,being lobbyists,drug companies,Drs,and on and on,do not want to find a cure for cancer.It would put too many people out of commision.
    I continue to be so fed up with this man,and his lies and corruption,the lawlessness that he goes by,that I so hope something soon rather than later will be done.I fell that he is in cohoots with the USSupreme Court and on down the line.
    thanks for the article.
    Mary Frances

    • legal eagle

      You sound very bitter….how did you function for so many years as a nurse watching people die? Did you tell your patients and their families your concerns about insurance companies?
      And your fed up with Obama, as related to healthcare because?

      • Tim Ned

        I see no bitterness in her statements for you to cough up the bull you provided in your statement. Mary sounds like a nurse that cared and is fed up with the health care industry to which we all are. More directly she sees an expansion in a system that is broken and understands the implications.

        Many of us who donate are becoming more frustrated with the amount of money put into organizations (trillions) and not seeing results. Much of this money ends up spinning off in new directions and patients for the researchers totally unrelated to the cause. Mary sees the results as do other health care providers.

        • legal eagle

          The “bitter” I was referring to was her Obama rant….What does the Obama Administration have to do with insurance companies denying benefits? The answer is nothing….

    • Mike Strieker

      Mary, thank you for your service. I was lucky enough to have a caring nurse like yourself when I had cancer in 2009. In fact, every dr., nurse and technician I encountered during my 11 months of treatment was outstanding, compassionate and professional. Only in america could an ordinary joe like myself expect to receive such world-class care. God bless the health care professionals in our system.

  • jackietreehorn3

    If the Obama administration can tell us with certainty the number of people signed up, then surely they can give us a breakdown in age demographics. Because that is the only number that matters. I have a feeling we won’t be getting that number or the hollow chestthumping afterward anytime soon

  • Marvin Katzen

    I smell books being cooked with a healthy bit of bullshit added for flavor.

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    Bernie,
    With all due respect, I’m grateful for you and your wisdom and the great columns you write but I’m so tired of everyone talking about how these numbers are cooked. Who’s going to get to the bottom of the numbers? Whose going to get to the truth. Everyone talks about how this is rigged and how the 7,1 million was so precise(after not revealing any numbers before this) but no one is coming up with the answers.

    • 19don36

      Wouldn’t you, or any rational human being think it was the responsibility of the people running the program to be able to answer such questions? For example, since this program had as an objective to provide insurance for those who did not have it, how many of the 7.1 million were uninsured before the ACA came along? That would tell us how close we came to doing what we wanted to do. I would not think that having that information was the responsibility of some railroad engineer in Peoria.

    • Wheels55

      It seems that nobody other than the Obama Administration can provide true numbers. In fact, the goals set were from Obama’s people. Therefore, their declaration of victory with questionable numbers on a self-imposed goal should make anyone wonder what is true.

  • D Parri

    One of the overused talking points that Dems have been touting since the lie about having the ObamaCare website and exchanges “ready to go”–but it fell through floor upon implementation–has been, “Well, it took a long time to implement the Social Security system.”

    Really?

    Well then, would someone please explain to me what free-market based industry had to be collapsed in order to put Social Security in operation. The individual health insurance market is no longer functional as it once was. It is gone.

    So, why try to compare Social Security with the ObamaCare exchanges? SS was from the very beginning a supplement and ‘safety net’ retirement system for those who had no retirement plans. Most of the ObamaCare “enrollees” already had coverage–for less.

    • Bob Olden

      Very good point you make, but since the administration uses bogus numbers anyway, why should they worry about trying to equate apples and oranges?

      • D Parri

        They won’t. It will simply be another ‘talking point’ used to obfuscate the real issues of the day–primarily, the failure of ObamaCare.

        • sgthappyg

          D Parri: I have a side question – are you a retired or active National Guard member? Your icon is the Minuteman. I have over 30 years of military service with Active Duty, Reserves and the last 20 years between the Colorado National Guard and the California National Guard. Currently I am on active duty orders in South Korea. Just curioius about your icon. Thanks!!

          • D Parri

            First, thanks for your service to our country. I hope that you are doing well.

            In answer to your question, no, I have never served in the military because of a disability.

            I chose the Minuteman icon because it represents the time in our nation’s history when the Founding Fathers put together the design for our country, and it was in a spirit of independence from a big, imperialist government that I feel needs to be renewed.

            Thank you for asking.

    • legal eagle

      Because there is no ‘free-market” insurance and hospital industry…..It stopped functioning efficiently 40 years ago…

    • Tim Ned

      You are right. The only comment I can add is that many working people listened to their government pertaining to social security and in place of saving and investing throughout the years, found themselves in retirement with benefits that barely keep them above the poverty line.

    • Mike Strieker

      Excellent point. First time I’ve read such a clever comparison.

  • JASVN67

    Cooking the books. Liars figure and figures never lie. Kathleen Sibelious was left speechless at a recently held on air press interview when a reporter told her the ACA law is still a much loathed law. A resent Fox News poll showed that out of 1,015 registered voters [MOE +1/-3%] 40% approved of the law and 57% disapproved of it. The total cost of this law is going to overwhelm the tax payers at some point in the future it has to. More importantly, is what the law does to the medical industry. There is anecdotal evidence that doctors are going to flee and that medical services will be provided by physician assistants, or the nurse practitioner so that the whole medical industry we have in America today will decline quickly and drastically. All this so that we get to a single payer Government run healthcare program!
    Remember when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius refused to intervene for Sarah Murnaghan who was dying from Cystic Fibrosis? A Federal Judge had to order that she be given a lung transplant to save her life! The ACA provides for a fifteen member board to be set in place that would determine what medical procedures you or I will be entitled to receive and God forbid you’re up in age. If a dying ten year old was treated with indifference the odds for getting the medical care you needed is a very open to question! No sir. Our medical care should be between us and our doctor(s). The Government has to stay out!!

    From the beginning this Administration has said they were going to fundamentally change America. Well, they can keep the change. We the people need to tell them socialized medicine is not wanted here Period!

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @sjangers. Not to worry about D. Parri. If the DNC calls l for him, they will have to bring along many busses to carry off Parria and the rest of the unpatriotic you speak of. :)

    • sjangers

      Yeah. I’m just feeling a little frustrated about the left tonight, patty. Thanks.

  • D Parri

    To Sign up, or File for Bankruptcy

    Yes, very interesting if you crunch the numbers with reality in mind.

    For a 60 year old single male in Florida earning $26,000 ann inc, an HMO or EPO plan would cost from $127 to $526 in monthly premium costs, and the deductibles would range from $850 to $6,000 annually.

    That would make the lowest deduct/highest prem plan total $7,162 for premium and deductibles, and the total costs incurred would be $8,347 before all deductibles and premiums would be covered and the plan paid out 100% for eligible costs.

    A plan that costs $127/mo and carried a $6,000 deductible would total $7,524 after all premium costs and deductibles were added. The maximum of $16,524 in premium and co-payments would be needed to reach the $6,000 deductible, at a 40% co-payment rate.

    This is based upon an income of $26,000, making the total healthcare costs range from 29% to 32% of that individual’s total annual income.

    It is expected that the premiums will increase each year.

    An alternative for many individuals, especially the younger group, will be to ‘roll the dice’ and gamble that their healthcare costs will be somewhat less than the 29% to 32% of income coverage demanded by the law’s mandate. This is generally based upon the understanding that the younger groups will need less attention paid to health and will choose to divert that income to other uses. That will hold true even with the requirement to sacrifice 1% of their income in order to retain 29% to 32% of their income, outright.

    Adding to this scenario will be the ability to declare personal bankruptcy in the case of a catastrophic event based upon their healthcare needs.

    • sjangers

      Be careful posting that kind of information, D Parri. Someone from the DNC should be along soon to insist that you’re being unpatriotic.

      • D Parri

        Don’t worry, if the truth doesn’t fit their game plan then all they need to do is spin another lie. That’s the favorite approach.

        • sjangers

          I really don’t want to believe that, D Parri. I’d like to think better of the majority of my fellow man. But I’m starting to think that what you say is true. There are few levels of intellectual dishonesty to which some won’t stoop to advance their selfish interests.

          I ran across a piece in The Daily Beast yesterday that was the most remarkable reductio ad absurdum chutzpah I’ve seen in years. Part of me wants to believe that it was an April Fools Day prank, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t.

          One of The Beast’s columnists, Sally Kohn, claims that conservative opposition to Obamacare is un-American based on the argument that the Founding Fathers believed part of the purpose of government had to be to ensure the general welfare against the selfish interests of groups and individuals, leading to the conclusion that any opposition to policies advocated as being for the general welfare must be opposed to the intent of the Founders, and hence are un-American.

          I’m still dazed and confused. I think I would have been less disoriented if, instead of reading her column, I had filled the washing machine with water, stuck my head inside, and hit the spin cycle. I’m seeing far too much of this white is black, black is white nonsense these days for my own health.

          • D Parri

            I believe that Ms. Kohn is more interested in advancing her party agenda than promoting the truth. Otherwise she would show at least a cursory interest in the truth by correctly stating the Founding Father’s goal in establishing the framework which we’ve come to know as the U.S. Constitution, and the government derived from that.

            It plays well for her narrative to denigrate anything that she sees as conservative, and the truth needn’t stand in her way.

            Un-American? How about lying to the American people? That is the real travesty of so much of today’s politics, and I would call it anything but patriotic.

          • sjangers

            It was a mind-numbing reading experience. Kohn took one phrase, twisted it to mean much more than the Founders ever intended it to mean, and the next thing I knew anyone who objected to her agenda was anti-American. How can you even communicate with people who has such unbridled contempt for the truth?

          • Kevin Hubble

            And who among us would doubt that the one person in America singularly qualified to discern the thoughts and intents of the Founding Fathers with respect to promoting the general welfare is Sally Kohn? I think we should all agree that from now on, whatever Sally says, goes! I know none of us want to be un-American regardless of our views on this or any other issue. Can we all agree on that? Raise your hands!

    • Tim Ned

      There is another factor here. Pay the tax which is much less than insurance and buy a policy when you get sick.

      • D Parri

        That will turn out to be one of the most popular strategies. It will also be the dagger in the heart of ObamaCare.

    • legal eagle

      You seem to generally know what you’re talking about except for the following:

      “A plan that costs $127/mo and carried a $6,000 deductible would total $7,524 after all premium costs and deductibles were added. The maximum of $16,524 in premium and co-payments would be needed to reach the $6,000 deductible, at a 40% co-payment rate”.
      What kind of plan has a 40% co-pay? I have never heard of anything with such a high co-pay?

      • D Parri

        For some plans, the consumer’s share of expenses may come in the form of large deductibles (e.g. above $5,000) with low out-of-pocket costs for services received after the deductible is satisfied. For other plans, the deductible might be low but the consumer would be responsible for 40% of the cost of every covered medical service he or she receives.
        http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/bronze-health-plans#.UzvJo2BOWUk

        It depends on the Bronze Plan in which you enroll as well as your state of residence. For example, in California Bronze Plans have a standardized charge of $60 (or 40% of total cost for HSA Bronze plans) for a primary care visit.
        http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/bronze-health-plans#.UzvJo2BOWUk

        The state, the plan, the subsidy, all factor into the cost. Unfortunately, most people won’t know the reality of their coverage until much later. It might look good now, but give it time for reality to come in play.

        • legal eagle

          Thanks for the info…

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @BRICKMAN. Time you s..t your brick and get over yourself.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    I REALLY DON’T GIVE A RATS A… THAT I SPELLED THE WORD LYING WRONG. Will admit a tad bit embarrassment . Since in my youth I was in a state wide spelling Bee/contest. (ah those were the days).. So tell me, how many of you have not misspelled a word or used poor grammar in the heat of your passion supporting your beliefs? Ok, if not..Throw gasoline on me and light the match :) Personally, for me, what is important is the point being made in the comment and spelling and grammar, I don’t give a “rip.” I’ve seen many an intellectual comment, researched, fact proven with misspelled words and grammar..Who give a FF?

  • DanB_Tiffin

    “Why should anyone take the administration’s word?”
    1) ideology
    2) Free Stuff!

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Holy Crap. Believe it or not I do know how to spelling lying, lieing. No excuses..Just F’d up in heat of passion with comment. I guess you haven’t ever F’d up yourself. Please share your secrets to perfection with me..You’re going to split hairs over a misspelled word. Get a life, jerk.

    • brickman

      I see spelling mistakes and let them go all the time. I singled you out because you were talking about someone else as ignorant.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    The Eagle is constantly spewing figures and yet doesn’t take the time to report where he found his statistics. Blow hard. He claims he lives in the real world. If so, why doesn’t he educate us where he gets all of his knowledge/research, statistics. I’m not sure but some health coverage policy don’t have CAPS and know some do have CAPS? Anyone know what Blue Cross Blue Shield offers in their health care plans? Do they have CAPS or DON’T THEY HAVE CAPS?

  • http://att.net/ patty

    The Eagle drop another load of crap with his comment. Ridiculous response/which indicates his ignorance. Not angry..Just know when the President, Sebelius, Pelosi/his TEAM open their mouths, lies, bullshit will be all that comes out. and not smart enough to know just what the ACA stands for. Remember the saying about. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE LIEING? WHEN THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTHS! Oh, poooor me..so angry. How about I know deceit when I hear and read it along with many others.

    • brickman

      I love it when people talking about someone else’s ignorance can’t spell the word “lying”.

      • George Williams

        We’ll be scrutinizing your spelling with a find tooth comb And we’ll be sure to educate you as to your ignorance.

        • brickman

          I think it’s “fine” tooth comb. :). I only correct spelling in posts where the commenter calls someone ignorant.

    • legal eagle

      You are one angry lady….Check your medication for side effects….

    • Jeff Webb

      Patty, please no profanity.

    • JASVN67

      I think he came from the Huffington Post as a plant. A potted one.

  • Chuck

    The administration touting 7 million is no surprise. You knew they would “cook the books,” as Sen. Barasso said Sunday. We will eventually find out it wasn’t really 7 million at all. It will work similar to the jobs numbers–tout the falling unemployment rate, then adjust the percentage upward in subsequent months.

    • brickman

      Maybe the Obama Administration had big numbers all along but held them back to make opponents look like idiots. Did you really believe that in one day that they had only signed up 6 people?

      • Tim Ned

        Yes!

    • legal eagle

      Did Sen. Barasso offer any proof any crap you hear on Fox News?

      • Jeff Webb

        >>Did Sen. Barasso offer any proof any crap you hear on Fox News?<<

        If you want an answer, phrase the question so it makes sense.

        Just like with most other claims this administration makes, they're not giving us all the facts:

        http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/31/obamacare-sees-last-minute-sign-up-surge

        • legal eagle

          Sore losers…….More Obama Derangement Syndrome (“ODS”) I can’t wait to hear the Hillary hate after she become POTUS…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I love it. Americans who don’t like getting lied to, losing their health plans, losing their doctors, and seeing their premiums and deductibles skyrocket are just “sore losers.”

            Legal Eagle – a real man of the people.

          • legal eagle

            Still whining so late at night? The cult of victimization seems to never rest….I can’t wait for Hillary to be elected so you can continue your moaning and groaning…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            There’s modern day liberalism on display for you folks: America needs to bend over and take it, or risk being ridiculed by an anonymous Hooters waitress posing as a lawyer.

          • legal eagle

            Seems you have a thing for Hooters waitresses.. Having a wet dream with your chicken wings?…LOL

          • legal eagle

            Since when did you object to bending over?….LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Look, more homophobic comments from legal eagle. There’s a shocker.

          • Tim ned

            You should hug your pillow tonight dreaming of the days of Hillary. Because when she loses in 2016 that’s all you’ll have. I’m trying to think of your worst nightmare President? Probably between Rand Paul and Rick Perry.

          • legal eagle

            I find Rand Paul interesting….and he doesn’t agree with the tea baggers on every issue as well as not being a war monger like most Republicans…

          • Jeff Webb

            Proves they were cooking the books, which you scoffed at, remember?

            Typical. You sneer at a legitimate assertion, I back it up, and your response is a childish cop-out.

          • Integrity

            No need to wait; I already think she is worthless. Just curious. Why do you think she is so great? By the way, you are starting to wear “hyperbolic” out, even though it is an interesting function. QED

      • Tim Ned

        He was on Fox Sunday. I thought you watch Fox news?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          lol. He’s never watched Fox News outside of a Daily Show clip.

          • legal eagle

            Crawl back in your hole…..How would you know what anyone watches/ You probably don’t even have a clue what your kids watch…LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh Legal, you silly fool. We’ve already been through this several times before.

            No one who actually watches Fox News routinely makes false statements about what they report and what they don’t. You even get wrong what is said in Bernie’s segments.

            You haven’t a clue what is on the network.

          • JASVN67

            Fox News the number #1 cable news network 14yrs. running. Just have to be doing something right leaving the others green with envy!

          • legal eagle

            and Porno is the most watched video on the web…

          • JASVN67

            The potted plant comes to life. You really need to change your picture. The man has been dead going on 46 years!

          • legal eagle

            Send me your mother’s picture and I’ll use it…LOL

          • JASVN67

            Sigh ho hum, POTTED PLANT as I informed you, the picture of the man you post with is long dead, and like him, so are your opinons and thoughts. You are a FOOL.
            The best part of you ran down your daddy’s leg! Hence-forth, on this blog, may you be known as THE POTTED PLANT. LOL!

          • Tim Ned

            And that number would drop if there were less attorneys in this country.

          • Jeff Webb

            Well, I for one know exactly what mine watch! Besides stuff like Bubble Guppies and Super Why!, they also click on this site to watch you get owned.

          • legal eagle

            I asked what your kids were watching not what you watch….LMFAO

          • Jeff Webb

            Oh, I proudly watch Super Why! Quid pro quo–they let me watch that, I let them watch Justified.

            BTW, paraphrasing my 3-year-old: “Mr. Eagle’s laughing about THAT?”

          • legal eagle

            Tell your three year old to always be happy and always question authority…unless the authority is their parents or grandparents…LOL

        • legal eagle

          I saw the interview and I didn’t hear Barasso give any factual basis for claims. Did I miss something?

          • Tim Ned

            I have no idea. I didn’t watch it. But after the problems with the website that persist today, the facts used by this administration “Cooking the books” selling Obamacare; why would anyone trust without verification? This administration, and you, are in no position to demand or question the opinion of a Senator or ask for proof of his statement. When your President demonstrates a higher standard of truth, than he will obtain that respect in return.

          • legal eagle

            “This administration, and you, are in no position to demand or question the opinion of a Senator or ask for proof of his statement”
            Really? Seems like your hatred of Obama has overwhelmed common sense.. Hard to have a discussion with a brainwashed ideologue like yourself…

          • tim ned

            Actually, I am hoping that Obamacare reduces my health care insurance. I am hoping when the employee mandate takes effect we won’t lose our coverage. I am hoping that that so many young people sign up we can provide supportive coverage to those that can’t afford it. Until this President starts backing up the statements he made, he is going his just deserve. Quit reading your WH talking points and wake up.

          • legal eagle

            I hope you’re right….Medicare seems to have worked out pretty well, hopefully ACA will also…

          • JASVN67

            Just refer to him as the potted plant.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Seems like your hatred of Obama has overwhelmed common sense<>Hard to have a discussion with a brainwashed ideologue like yourself.<<

            Hopefully, Obamacare won't skyrocket your shrink's going rate for projection treatment.

          • legal eagle

            When I want projection…I go to the movies….BTW…Noah is pretty good…saw it the other night

          • George Williams

            Uh, did you forget the lying Obama when he told us we could keep our health insurance and doctor? This has nothing to do with hatred, but cold hard facts that Obama’s veracity is in question on anything he’s said since and will say again. Once the public trust is broke, it’s nearly impossible to regain. No one really believes Obama and the Democrats statistics on Obamacare, and there’s no reason they should. It is evident to the rest of us that it is you that have the mindless belief in this snake oil salesman. He could stand on the White House lawn in broad daylight and you’d believe him if he said it was midnight.

          • George Williams

            Obama said we could keep our insurance and doctors. I don’t think that your side has any moral standing to question Barasso.

          • legal eagle

            My side? What is this a football game? LOL

          • George Williams

            I don’t recognize your party as Americans.

  • Phillip Macharg

    Of course when 6 million people lost their insurance policies the White House said that was a “small sliver”of the population–no bid deal guys! Now, they reportedly have 7 million undefined ObamaCare enrollees (previously insured or uninsured, or who haven’t paid premiums) supported by truck-loads of taxpayer dollars and for this we are to sing hosannas in the streets!

  • Stimpy

    Wonder how many of those 7 million were illegals who got help signing up at their nearest friendly Mexican consulate. Reported in an IBD editorial.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      Consulate? How about helped by teh friendly neighborhood ICE agent?

    • JMax

      None. Illegals are not eligible. They were signing up legal residents who are eligible.

      • Tim Ned

        I have absolutely no faith that the Obamacare website can distinguish the difference between a green card or a yellow card!

        • JMax

          It doesn’t have to. Applicants must provide a Social Security Number. A person’s Social Security records indicate that the holder is a citizen or a legal resident of the US.

          • Tim Ned

            Yes, just as they are required for employment. Yet we have over 11 million in this country illegally that have jobs.

          • JMax

            Every last man, woman, and child?

          • Tim Ned

            I’m just giving you the NY times stats.

          • JMax

            The NY Times says that all eleven million undocumented immigrants have a job? Each and every one of them? So much for being lazy.

          • Tim Ned

            Correction, actually Pew research puts the estimates at about 71 percent or roughly 8 million in the work force. This is down due to the economy. The vast majority of illegal aliens are workers supporting their families at home.

          • JMax

            Even legal immigrants are hesitant to sign up for insurance because they fear relatives might be at risk of deportation. Imagine how much the undocumented ones fear deportation.

            The question remains as to what proof exists that agents of the government were trying to illegally sign up ineligible people.

          • Tim Ned

            I or you have no idea if they are signing up or not. They have jobs and they have social security numbers and there is no method to audit the applicants. We can’t even get reports from the website.

          • JMax

            If legal immigrants are reticent to sign up, what makes you think undocumented immigrants are hot to do it?

          • Porkbevr

            Are you really that naïve? SS # theft is extremely common.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A friend of mine found out a few years ago that nearly 10 other people (illegals) were using her social security number.

          • JMax

            I’m not naive at all. There will always be fraud. But if it was the intent of the government to sign up ineligible people I’m sure Daryl Issa, the other brother, will investigate it.

          • George Williams

            Democrats aren’t interested in discovering fraud, as the votes of those who commit welfare fraud are just as valid as those who don’t . And fraudulent recipients are forever grateful to those who would minimize it and refuse to action. “There will always be fraud ” is their mantra and excuse for doing nothing.

          • JMax

            It may surprise you to learn that government employees who administer government programs are not particularly ideological. They serve a career under Republican and Democratic administrations and are dedicated to service to the American people. They are your neighbors, friends, and relatives. Pity you think so little of them.

            How about this: Republicans ignore fraud committed by the defense industry because contractors contribute to their campaigns and because a reduction in fraudulent spending would mean a reduction in next year’s budget.

          • George Williams

            I’ve worked for the Defense Department for 35 years. Fraud is generally much easier to detect because there’s far more oversight of contracts through agencies established just for that purpose. The DoD has massive testing programs and progress reports and evaluations to protect the troops from contractor error or fraud. This is not the case in the rest of government, like welfare and Social Security. Fraud is much more difficult to detect and as such much easier to get away with. The DoD is not nearly as politicized as those agencies that service the expenditure of social programs, and apparently the IRS that has far most prosecutorial discretion and ability to make judgments on making rules on how to enforce the law. You know nothing. We’ve seen how the Obama administration waived the work requirement for welfare. You tell me that that’s not an open invitation to fraud. The fact is that the federal government has two levels of management, the political appointee at the top and the civil servant that’s supposed to act independently and follow the law. The DoJ is now so politicized that the immigration laws are no longer being enforced. The same kind of politicization is done with other, non DoD agencies, where Obama decides that he discretion to enforce the law, or fail to do so under the rubric of having insufficient resources to do so. All the Executive Branch agencies are under the control of presidential appointees and these people have a great deal of influence on how they carry out the law. If the choose not to do so they can put a monkey wrench in the works that will delay or change the priorities such that nothing will be done during their tenure. Again, you know nothing.

          • JMax

            Wow! 35 years in DOD. I guess you no what you’re talking about.

            Except that you don’t. I kept reading and you’ve got some real whoppers in there.

            I was going along with you about the difference between the DoD which is clearly non-ideological and other federal agencies which are rife with people who will let fraud slide. I was going along because with 35 years in DoD you must know what’s up.

            “We found out that the claim that the targeting of conservatives groups originated in civil service did not originate there at all, but came from an appointee in Washington.”

            The IRS “targeting” began in the Determinations Unit of the Cincinnati IRS office, not in Washington.

            “That’s where most corruption of agencies come from.”

            Horse manure.

            “You know nothing.”

            So you say.

            “We’ve seen how the Obama administration waived the work requirement for welfare.”

            Here is where you prove yourself to be either an ideologue or ignorant. Your statement is utterly untrue. Totally, I might add. The administration allowed the states more flexibility in their work requirements IF and only IF the state plans demonstrated a significant increase (20%) in effectiveness over the existing plan. You know nothing.

            “The DoJ is now so politicized that the immigration laws are no longer being enforced.”

            Even though the rate of deportations under Obama has surpassed any other administration?

            “Obama had an opportunity to make a legal amnesty when his party was in total control, but chose not to do.”

            Obama’s party was in “total control” for 77 legislative days until Scott Brown was sworn in, and not all Democrats were in favor of a “liberal” immigration policy.

            The Obama administration must be the first in history to use its administrative discretion for political advantage.

          • George Williams

            I said….”We found out that the claim that the targeting of conservatives groups originated in civil service did not originate there at all, but came from an appointee in Washington.”

            jmax said: The IRS “targeting” began in the Determinations Unit of the Cincinnati IRS office, not in Washington.

            “That’s where most corruption of agencies come from.”

            “Horse manure.”

            Horse manure? Not so, even the WPO, a liberal newspaper stated otherwise. You are just touting what Jay Carney and the lying Obama regime wanted you to believe. The civil servants of the Cincinnati office of the IRS were thrown under the same bus that ran over Obama’s grandmother when he implied she was a racist. Yours is old news and false….

            The Washington Post said…..”The chief counsel’s office for the Internal Revenue Service, headed by a political appointee of President Obama, helped develop the agency’s problematic guidelines for reviewing “tea party” cases, according to a top IRS attorney.”

            “In interviews with congressional investigators, IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel’s office, led by William Wilkins, would need to review some of the first applications the agency screened for additional scrutiny because of potential political activity.” See….http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/17/irs-chief-counsel-involved-in-targeting-controversy/

            I said: “The DoJ is now so politicized that the immigration laws are no longer being enforced.”

            You repeated more Obama lies. Obama is counting people as deported those who are turned back from the border, whereas other administrations never did:

            “Even though the rate of deportations under Obama has surpassed any other administration?”

            The National Review on line et al said the truth:

            “It is one of the Obama administration’s favorite talking points on immigration: It has been deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers. That bolsters its credentials on enforcement and supports the argument that, now that we’ve gotten tough on the border, it is time to enact comprehensive immigration reform.But figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations appears to have declined significantly during the president’s term in office.”

            “Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, has analyzed a set of largely unpublished official statistics on immigration-enforcement activity over the past five years. Earlier this month, Vaughan testified in court on behalf of a group of U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents who are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. The agents are seeking an injunction against a series of policy directives from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that were designed to regulate the extent to which ICE officers could initiate deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants in their custody.”

            “In her testimony on April 8, Vaughan noted that, contrary to the administration’s claims, the number of illegal-immigrant removals has dropped 40 percent since June 2011, when ICE director John Morton issued the first of several directives outlining significant changes to the agency’s enforcement policies. “There has been a significant decline in enforcement activity as measured by the number of removals,” Vaughan says.”

            “Deportations specifically of illegal immigrants convicted of a crime — individuals the administration says it has prioritized for removal — are similarly down, almost 40 percent since June 2011, Vaughan found. And that decline has occurred despite a significant increase in the number of illegal immigrants referred to ICE after being arrested for crimes. “There are certainly enough illegal aliens out there, especially enough criminal illegal aliens, that their numbers should be going up, not down,” Vaughan says. “So they appear to be giving a lot of free passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally.”

            “Removals generated by ICE’s Enforcement and Removals division, which is responsible for interior immigration enforcement, have decreased nearly 50 percent since June 2011. Vaughan says the administration has been inflating its deportation statistics by including a greater number of U.S. Border Patrol cases — illegal immigrants picked up at the border and subsequently referred to ICE — as part of its annual statistics. Border Patrol cases accounted for 56 percent of removals reported in fiscal year 2013, up from 33 percent in 2008. Typically, an individual apprehended at the southern border is simply returned to Mexico without being processed as a deportation by ICE.”

            See:”http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346043/cooking-books-deportation-stats

            You said: “The Obama administration must be the first in history to use its administrative discretion for political advantage.”

            I say: But your Obama said that he’d be the most transparent president in history. He bragged about being so, at the expense of criticizing others. I don’t believe any president has been so brazenly hypocritical. And you seem to believe everything he’s said, as if he was.

  • semmy

    Yesterday I created an account for Obamacare simply to avoid the fine. I didn’t choose a plan and I certainly didn’t pay for anything, yet I’m considered an enrollee, correct? How does that number even mean anything? What if I just leave things at that? Am I contributing to the “success”?

    • JMax

      You’re full of it. You won’t avoid the penalty if you don’t complete your enrollment by April 15th. You also have to make a statement in good faith that you were unable to complete your enrollment by the deadline due to technical problems. If you didn’t intend to complete your enrollment, then you will be committing fraud. I hope they hunt you down.

      • Jeff Webb

        Does this mean if you haven’t purchased a plan, you’re not officially enrolled?

        • JMax

          Define “purchased”.

          • Jeff Webb

            Huh? Mind explaining why I need to tell you what “purchased” means?
            With all the mess & confusion Obamacare has already brought, I really hope we’re not being forced to change the way we use certain words, too.

          • JMax

            If you have good credit and you go to a car dealership and acquire a car with a loan, have you “purchased” the car when you sign the papers or have you “purchased” it when you make your first loan payment?

            I believe one is enrolled in an exchange policy when their application has been accepted.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I believe one is enrolled in an exchange policy when their application has been accepted.<<

            Maybe so. Still seems to be a nice, low standard the administration sets for itself.

            You might recall BO repeatedly talking about the serious problem in America that OC would solve: tens of millions of people without insurance.
            BO's victory lap over the 7 million signups is another example of OC being impossible for him to sell honestly and transparently. For one thing, that number includes folks who weren't among the aforementioned uninsured; For another, it's not known how many of the 7 million ARE insured, as in paid for a policy and now have one.

          • JMax

            “Still seems to be a nice, low standard the administration sets for itself.”

            I’ll bet you the car dealer counted his sale on December 31st even though he hadn’t received the first payment yet.

            “You might recall BO repeatedly talking about the serious problem in America that OC would solve”

            Yes, would solve over time. Neither he, the CBO, any health care experts or analysts EVER suggested that those problems would be totally solved in year one, two, or even ten.

            “BO’s victory lap over the 7 million signups is another example of OC being impossible for him to sell honestly and transparently.”

            Nonsense. His “victory lap” as you call it is all about meeting an important milestone in the process. As someone who participated in the effort I think a victory lap is justified.

            “For one thing, that number includes folks who weren’t among the aforementioned uninsured”

            So what? It also doesn’t include a lot of people who got insured outside of an exchange.

            “For another, it’s not known how many of the 7 million ARE insured, as in paid for a policy and now have one.”

            So what? Are you hoping a significant number AREN’T? If so, why?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>So what? It also doesn’t include a lot of people who got insured outside of an exchange.<>So what? Are you hoping a significant number AREN’T? If so, why?<<

            No. Once again, I just want one of the many, many things Obama promised: a transparent administration.

          • JMax

            “Sincerely, I think you’re a better person than to not find that at least a little questionable.”

            I’m not concerned about the exact number. What if it were 6 million instead of 7 million? I’d call that outstanding considering the website launch. The important thing is people have a way to get insurance that many didn’t have before. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

            BTW someone on this thread was asking why Obamacare failed to enroll all 30 of 40 million uninsured and when if ever a majority would. I saw to day that the CBO released a report estimating that 24 million will have signed up by 2017. That’s a good thing too, isn’t it?

            At this point you and others are like claiming Secretariat didn’t really win the Belmont Stakes because he lost a shoe and the Jockey had on the wrong colors neither of which was caught on camera. Whether or not ACA was the best way to get millions of people insured, shouldn’t we all be rooting that they are?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’m not concerned about the exact number. What if it were 6 million
            instead of 7 million? I’d call that outstanding considering the website
            launch.<>Whether or not ACA was the best way to get millions of people insured, shouldn’t we all be rooting that they are?<<

            If you think for a minute I wouldn't want someone to be able to improve their medical situation, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

            Reform is not good just because it is reform. Reform is proper under certain conditions:
            -it's designed to give as little power as possible to the government
            -nobody votes for it before reading it or allowing the public sufficient time to read it
            -the president and Congress campaign with less speeches, more open townhalls & press conferences
            -the entire law and its passage at the very least adhere to the intent, if not also the text, of the Constitution
            -it's designed to avoid affecting parties that aren't part of the law's intended target
            -it's deficit neutral & safeguarded against cost overruns, before, during, and after implementation

            When you asked whether those were "a good thing," the answer is "it depends." The question cannot be answered without knowing all the factors, and the overall result would have to be net-positive. This has been my whole point.

          • JMax

            “It still takes a stunning lack of scruples to tell people the law you
            propose won’t cause them to lose their insurance, then pass the law that
            causes them to lose their insurance, and then brag about the situation
            you put them in against their will.”

            I don’t see it that way. First, nobody “lost” their insurance. Their old policy was discontinued and they were offered another or could buy another on an exchange. I think you were asking how many people among the 7 million has previously “lost” their insurance. Some of them, no doubt.

            I’ve said this before. I think what Obama was trying to say was that there was no such thing as a government insurance policy that everyone would be signing up for. There IS no such thing as Obamacare, in other words. He didn’t say it the way he should have. He also made the faulty assumption that people who had lousy policies would not want to keep them. Lastly, I don’t see how Obama is bragging about any “situation”.

            I don’t know how you feel about people getting insurance who didn’t have it before. My only way of guessing that is how you react to the fact that they have, nitpicking about how many there are and whether of not they’ve paid yet. I’m glad for however many of them there are.

            I don’t see a significant conflict between your conditions and the ACA.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I don’t see it that way. First, nobody “lost” their insurance. Their old policy was discontinued and they were offered another or could buy another on an exchange.<> I don’t see how Obama is bragging about any “situation”.<> I think what Obama was trying to say was that there was no such thing as a government insurance policy that everyone would be signing up for. There IS no such thing as Obamacare, in other words.<>He didn’t say it the way he should have.<>I don’t know how you feel about people getting insurance who didn’t have it before. My only way of guessing that is how you react to the fact that they have, nitpicking about how many there are and whether of not they’ve paid yet.<>I don’t see a significant conflict between your conditions and the ACA.<<

            It has failed on practically every single one.

          • JMax

            I don’t remember Obama swearing about keeping one’s plan, but yeah, he did say it. He shouldn’t have. I don’t know whether he knew better or not. Regardless, he has paid a heavy political price for it. I don’t see saying that it’s a good thing enrollment reached 7 million as bragging. On the other hand I have no problem with him bragging that it did so despite it’s faulty start and every possible GOP attempt to sabotage enrollment.

            “people out there are smart and alert enough to understand what they’re hearing.”

            Including the Palin/Grassley/Bachmann “Death Panel” lies?

            “it doesn’t actually tell me people who didn’t have insurance before now have it. Of the 7+ million, maybe 80-90% actually are insured now (per
            Sebelius’ latest estimate), and nobody really knows whether or not they had it before.

            The point of the enrollment and the exchanges is not solely to get insurance for previously uninsured people. It is also to improve the private insurance market, get numbers of people into the insurance risk pools, and improve coverage.

            Not knowing the answers to your questions is not a matter of transparency. It’s a matter of having the data and analyzing it. That doesn’t happen instantaneously. Maybe the number will be 6.8 million. Maybe 2-3% will end up not paying and eventually be excluded. Does this make it any less of a significant achievement?

            To me this is the same nitpicking crap that the GOP has been relentless with. Any possible way to deny this president some measure of success in anything. Why aren’t the GOP giving credit to the administration for coming back from the terrible roll out of healthcare.gov and reaching (even coming close) to the original CBO estimate? Nope. They bitch about the law, bitch when people can’t sign up for it, then bitch about it when they do.

            “-it’s designed to give as little power as possible to the government”

            I think it was designed to give more power to consumers and less to insurance companies. I think it was designed to give federal employees just enough power to do that job. What is the motive to do otherwise?

            “-nobody votes for it before reading it or allowing the public sufficient time to read it”

            Members of Congress have staffs who read and analyze legislation. Pelosi’s words have been purposely misconstrued. Legislation changes sometimes day to day or hour to hour in the last stages as deals and compromises are worked out. Until the final bill is passed, nobody knows which provisions are in or out. That doesn’t mean the legislators and their staffs have not read or analyzed every possible provision.

            Most legislation is available online. Most of the time “the public” wouldn’t know what they are reading but all the think tanks a media analysts do and provide that information to their audiences. Otherwise how would people have known what was going on with all the abortion issues and “death panel” lies during that time.

            “-the president and Congress campaign with less speeches, more open townhalls & press conferences”

            There were plenty of town halls in August of 2010. They were overrun with Tea Party agitators.

            “-the entire law and its passage at the very least adhere to the intent, if not also the text, of the Constitution”

            Every law that Congress passes is based on Constitutional principles. Many of those principles and intent are subject to interpretation. If they weren’t there would be no need for the Supreme Court. In this case the people who wrote and voted for the bill were acting in good faith based on the “commerce” clause and the “general welfare” clause.

            “-it’s designed to avoid affecting parties that aren’t part of the law’s intended target”

            There is hardly ever any legislation where someone’s ox isn’t gored. The vast majority of Americans have not been adversely effected by this law.

            “-it’s deficit neutral & safeguarded against cost overruns, before, during, and after implementation”

            This law is better. It will decrease the deficit by $100 billion in the first 10 years and over a trillion in the next.

          • Jeff Webb

            *sigh*
            Well, I still believe you’re a decent enough guy that you at least WOULD be somewhat troubled by it, if the denial weren’t a factor.

      • semmy

        Jmax, I hate wasting time on toolbags like you but what the hell…
        1) I’m not full of anything. My post was honest and accurate. All I did was ask a question I can’t get an answer to.
        2) I intend to pick and pay for a plan by the 15th. I never said I wasn’t going to. I didn’t want to get hit with the penalty on Monday.
        3) I was lucky to get as far as I did. As it was it took most of the day and into the evening. Covered California crashed on me constantly. Every time I would fill out a page and hit continue it locked up on me and I had to go back to the main page. Thankfully, clicking on apply took me back where I left off but it took at least two and sometimes even four or five tries to complete one page. I wasn’t alone. Many news stories and articles document other people having the same problems Monday.
        4) Fraud? Seriously? Who says I will be committing fraud? I have yet to hear that from anybody or anywhere else. That would be a hell of a lot of people the courts would be prosecuting here. I’m willing to bet multitudes of people aren’t going to follow through. Personally, I WANT to have insurance. I had a great plan until Dec. 31st when it was canceled.
        5) “They” hunt me down? Who’s “they”? The government? Is that the way our country is supposed to work? I don’t bow to the Feds and they “hunt me down”?
        6) Lastly, you, of course, didn’t answer my question. As of today, do I count as one of the 7.1 million enrollees? If so, that number is clearly unabashedly bogus because I didn’t do anything other than create an account. I wonder how many others just did that. How many people have actually paid a premium?

        • JMax

          I apologize for being rash. Hope you apologize for calling me a “toolbag”. It seems like I may have meant to reply to someone else. Maybe not. Many people here make up stuff.

          1) I think that if you actually intend to enroll then your initiating the process is contributing to the success. The definitions of “enrollment” and “success” are a little nebulous at this time, but it will all shake out. If the goal is to help people get insurance and provide consumer protections, shouldn’t we all be rooting for success?

          2) Great!

          3) I’m honestly curious as to why you waited until the deadline. CoveredCA has been one of the best functioning exchanges since Oct 1. I’ve actually been doing table work for CoveredCA at public events.

          4) With the history of GOP sabotage of ACA enrollment, I believe that some people may have been in the system on Monday purely to slow it down or muddy the results. Apparently you are not one of them, so I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

          5) See 4.

          6) See 1. As of Friday the number was 6 million. If you think that the last 1.1 million included a significant number of people who don’t intend to complete the process, then you are agreeing with my #4. Insurance companies are reporting that 80-90% of enrollees have already made a payment. That’s still around 6 million. So far.

          I’d honestly be interested in the details of what you end up signing for compared to what you had. Good luck!

    • Tim Ned

      No one knows if you are counted or not since specifics and demographics have not been released. You are not relieved of the penalty/tax or what ever they are calling it today be simply putting you name in the pool. This I suspect will come down on your 2014 tax filings when you have to prove you had insurance. Forbes wrote an article this month summarizing the exceptions to not having insurance in which you would not be subject to the penalty/tax. there are about 15 conditions including web site issues.

      • JASVN67

        The anointed one made another change to his law. You can claim you didn’t know how to use the computer. Or was it dirty Harry? So many lies need a program to keep track.

        • Tim Ned

          Yes, I believe there are about 6 different categories of computer errors that you can list as a reason you don’t have health care.

    • legal eagle

      No..you’re considered an idiot….

      • semmy

        Legal Beagle…. such a typical liberal… not even answering the question and going right to a personal insult.
        Why does answering questions scare people like you so much?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Legal hates being asked questions because the answers typically aren’t provided in his daily emails from the DNC. Thus, he has nothing left but the insult.

    • George Williams

      No same person would consider you an enrollee, but that wouldn’t stop Obama and his minions from counting you as having paid your premiums. The Obama administration considers the dead people who are still currently on the voting rolls this year as constituents, campaign contributors and voters. And his party’s activists will be glad to bring them to the polls at every election opportunity. They’ll provide pre-marked ballots as a convenience.

  • D Parri

    Ain’t it just amazin’ that ObamaCare enrollment figures have miraculously made it to the projected ‘goal’ of 7 mil enrollees? How accurate is that?

    I don’t know anyone that is that good at predicting the outcome of a competitive stream of activity involving more than 7 mil people–especially someone as terrible at sports brackets as Obama.

    I’m not positive, KY, but something sounds verrrrry suspicious to me. Oh, why hesh my mouth! Those folks wouldn’t lie…, would they?

  • D Parri

    I think that Obama and crew had it planned this way all the time. Don’t forget that this is April Fool’s Day, and they’ve planned the biggest hoax of all. It’s called ObamaCare. Who cares?

    They will actually change the name later on today to “Obama Cares?” That way whenever the program is brought up or referred to by anyone outside of the WH, then the reply will be a standard, “Obama Cares? Why, hell no!”

    This will also be used in the new stand-up comedy routine that Obama has been working on for the last five years. Expectations are for this comedy act to be recorded as the longest, most expensive act in history, at a cost of well over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money.

  • falling321

    My sister lost her insurance due to her old policy not meeting all of the requirements of Obamacare, primarily the birth control requirements (which she has zero need for anyway) and has spent four sessions in one of Obama’s navigators offices located at MCV, here in VA. Unfortunately, both the computer and the phone lines were down all four times. BUT she did find out that if someone makes LESS than $11,490 a year, that person does NOT qualify for one dime in subsidies to purchase an exchange policy!!! Nor does that person qualify for Medicaid (at least in VA) if they are not currently pregnant, post natal, handicapped or elderly. Unfortunately, she made $112,000 in 2013, so now she has no insurance, does not qualify for help paying for an exchange policy or Medicaid AND has brittle diabetes and is currently being checked for MS or MA as her eye checkup showed serious abnormalities pointing to either of these serious diseases! So what is SHE supposed to do now?

    Obamacare does not help the poorest among us, but it steals the state insurance they previously qualified for. It costs our middle class far too much in in increased premiums, co-pays and deductibles. But the rich will still have easy access to great healthcare…and I guess that is good, because they are going to need it! It isn’t going to be long before the “rich” are supporting us all if Obama has his way!

    • legal eagle

      Your sister in law made $112,000 in 2013 and is looking for a subsidy?

      • JMax

        Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. She could also have gotten a qualified plan simply by going to any insurance broker.

        Don’t blame Obamacare because a person making less than $11,490 a year can’t qualify for Medicaid. Blame the state of Virginia for not accepting the Medicaid expansion and leaving a gap between Medicaid qualification and ACA subsidy qualification. Under expanded Medicaid, a single person qualifies with an income as high as $15,521. Thanks Virginia!

        • legal eagle

          He claims his sister made $112,000 and couldn’t call a broker to get health insurance? He’s full of crap.as are most of the people on this site who claim they can’t get health insurance…. Notice how it’s always a story about someone “they know”? And if you question the facts, they start attacking.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal, I lost my individual plan because of Obamacare. It didn’t happened to someone I know. It happened to me. I had to settle for a much more expensive one.

            A month ago, I found out that my primary care doctor is shutting down his practice. He told me six months earlier that he was considering it because of all of the extra hassle of Obamacare. It seems he went ahead pulled the trigger. I’m currently looking for a new doctor.

            You probably find stories like this to be hilarious, but I assure you that they ARE real stories. Democratic incumbents aren’t freaking out because of Republican scare tactics. They’re freaking out because they know what their constituents are going through as a result of idiocy of Obamacare.

          • legal eagle

            I cant comment on your healthcare without the details…

            Did your Doctor accept Medicaid and Medicare patients?
            If so then the story about Obamacare causing him to retire may be a bit of an exaggeration?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m telling you what he told me, legal.

          • Tim Ned

            It seems John I am hearing more and more stories like this from friends that have excellent plans and were cancelled. On a recent trip with a friend he lost his health care plan which he called a Cadillac plan and had to settle for a high deductible plan which in the end is as much as his Cadillac plan.

            These stories are starting to worry me when the employee mandate hits in a couple of years. How many small businesses like ours are going to end up with plans which will make us noncompetitive with the larger corporations who we compete with for employees.

          • JMax

            Yeah, my favorite was a FB friend who claimed that her 22 year-old daughter had to pay the ACA penalty of $6,000. I congratulated her on having a 22 year-old daughter who apparently was making $600,000 a year! And why didn’t my friend simply put her daughter on her policy.

            It’s clearly not just the politicians and pundits who make up s**t.

          • legal eagle

            As usual, haven’t seem a response back from “falling123″….more b.s.

  • Judie K Kopfman

    I have friends in their mid-50′s and have not signed up due to the expense of the insurance and the lack of income to pay for it on a monthly basis or to even meet the deductible. These are down right red blooded Americans who have been screwed around by our government so many times that they are not taking their chances on this one. They are lucky to have a doctor in their area that they see who charges on a sliding scale income, which is far cheaper than having insurance to cover an office visit. Should the time ever come, they will face the Emergency Room and see what happens next.

    • legal eagle

      and how would they pay a potential hospital bill?

      • Stimpy

        They don’t. When asked if they are a citizen they say “gee I don’t know”. If they are asked if they are a republican they say “absolutely not”.

        • legal eagle

          Ask a simple question, get a moronic response…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Ask a simple question, get a moronic response..<

  • crclark

    Right now I’m watching BO finish up his victory speech about his 7M plus enrollees…not including all those under 26 year olds on their parents plan or all the extra medicaid sign ups. I had to mute the sound he sounds so smug… At the same time, an AP report is asking about the breakdown of those numbers and what they mean. I have a bit of hope that the press will actually do their job and find out.

  • Mark W.

    So, now 7 million people have Obamacare… of course, few of them will get any benefit from it due to the outrageously high deductibles! That’s progress!

  • veeper

    obama is a LIAR…..always has been ….always will be….

    obamacare was conceived with lies, passed with lies, sold with lies, advertised with lies, people enrolled with lies and it continues to be all LIES….

    This the biggest scam ever pulled on the american people….all with LIES…

  • ksp48

    Is there anyone anywhere who still pays the least bit of attention to what this administration or the liar in chief has to say? Is it 7 million? Who knows, but I wouldn’t take their word for it being Tuesday.

    • sjangers

      The White House Press Room. Where every day is April Fool’s Day.

      • Mark W.

        You’re right! How did I not see this joke coming? Reminds me of being in Berlin on April 1, 1968 when I saw a newspaper headline that Pres. Johnson wasn’t going to run for re-election. I was skeptical until the next day!

        • sjangers

          When the news is too good it pays to be skeptical, no matter what the date.

    • firststater

      The questions enumerated by Mr. Goldberg and many others by the way, need to be answered – PERIOD!

  • Joh

    We’ve lost something as a country when the President of the United States has all the crediblity of Joe Isuzu.

    • veeper

      and, gained the Saddam & Gadaffi something in this country…..

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Back again. Just want to share with all of you who might not understand what the acronym “ACA” stands for? All of you who are supporting Obama’s “ACA” you need to understand just what Obama’s health care plan is doing to you and ACA really stands AMERICAN CORNHOLING ASSOCIATION. That’s what his plan is doing to all true Americans. Don’t know? look it up/for your own good.

    • legal eagle

      You seem angry… Is your husband not obeying your every command or do your children no longer take your calls?

      • Tim Ned

        I know you are not deaf to the people who have been hurt by Obamacare. You just don’t care because you’re a political ideologue low on facts, high on inconsequential dribble.

        • legal eagle

          What fact am I low on? care to specify or is this just more “shoot the messenger” rhetoric ?

          • Tim Ned

            A college professor told me years ago that at times it is not only appropriate, but necessary to shoot the messenger based upon the content of the message the messenger agreed to deliver.

          • legal eagle

            Hopefully he meant if figuratively not literally…LOL

  • J. B.

    Legal Eagle’s other pastime is solo Ping-Pong, based on the way he bounces around on this blog. He loves this more than [........]; he’s not going away.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    I guess Eagle would his elderly mother/father on a bus to get to doctor. Rather than go with them and help them to make a choice of their health. Daughter and mother on heart surgery BOTH SAYD “GO FOR IT.” AND he speaks of “cost” for procedures? I sure as hell have never nor would ever let the COST of a procedure determine if a love one lived or died. Eagle is a real piece of work! People like bigmoejr, joepotato,drew page, on and on. He accuses people of being racist (always a cop out) and people insulting him? Well “ain’t that special?”
    The man is constantly calling those who disagree with him names, insulting comments to challenge his so called facts. Too bad his brain isn’t as big as his proclaimed big a brain as his proclaimed “excellent self esteem” he boasts. He need to get out of the H’s in the dictionary “homophobic, racist, and the over used HYPERBOLIC. I think DREW PAGE’S COMMENT REALLY TELL THE TRUE STORY. THE FACTS, THAT EAGLE ALWAYS BRAGGING HE STATES.

    • legal eagle

      You live in a dream world….I deal in reality…You’re full of hatred….get some help….

  • bigmoejr

    In a pig’s ass they did!!

  • joepotato

    Soetorobama care is doing just what Obie wanted… It’s had a negative effect on the economy which is Obamanomics 101… and it is a Trojan Horse for Fascism or whatever ism we end up with after the resistance has been extorted for not signing on to “the plan”… Tyranny isn’t so great after all, but Soetorobama and his masters are just getting started… As in dictatorships around the planet, they usually end badly…

  • Drew Page

    Both president Obama and Kathleen Sebelius have done nothing but lie about Obama Care since day one, why should anyone take seriously anything they say about it now? Both Sebelius and Jay Carney recently lied again to the American public saying that the enrollment deadline would not be extended beyond March 31st. It didn’t take very long for that lie to be exposed.
    Starting in July of this year, health insurance companies participating in the government exchange, are going to be working on determining their renewal rates for the January 1, 2015 renewal year. By September 1, 2014 they will need to have their renewal rates ready for posting. Between July 1st and Sept. 1st they will be looking at the claims generated by those who became covered under the Obama Care options and the premiums paid by those people. If not already so, it will be very clear to these insurance companies that the hoped for influx of young people into these plans will be well below expectations. On the other hand, those who had the most urgent need for health insurance (i.e. very ill people) will account for the majority of those who did purchase coverage. The rate increases coming out in September of 2014 will be substantial, to say the least.
    Let Obama and Sebelius crow about the six million enrollees. They aren’t telling you how many of those six million have paid premiums for those plans. In order for someone to find out what they will really be charged, they have to pick a plan and then enroll in it. Initially, enrollees are shown teaser rates for those under age 50 and for age 50 and above. Unfortunately, the teaser rates for those under age 50 are based on age 27, so if you are age 45, your rate will be a hell of a lot higher than the teaser rates. The teaser rates for those age 50 and over are based on age 50. so if you are 60 years old, your rate will be much higher than what you were shown. Once people get a good look at what they are really going to be charged, many will decide they can’t afford the option they selected and won’t pay the premium. But these people are still being counted as “enrollees”.
    We were told that the reason for ramming this ill-conceived mandatory health insurance law was to cover those “30 million poor, uninsured”. Well, this was the chance for all those uninsured to jump on board Obama’s life raft. If you couldn’t afford his Affordable Health Care options, the government was going to give you subsidies so you could. So where are they all? Where are the other 23 million uninsured that were kept out of health insurance plans by those greedy insurance companies? This assumes that all of those 7 million enrollees will all pay the premium for the plans they chose; that none of those 7 million went into Medicaid; and that none of the 7 million enrollees had any health insurance prior to “enrolling” in Obama Care.
    I don’t expect that the government will ever release the actual truthful figures, but my guess is that of those 7 million “enrollees” about five million will actually pay for the plan they selected, and of those five million, three million will be people who had their prior health insurance cancelled. That being the case, the government will have spent $634 million dollars and four years developing an enrollment website that didn’t work; caused the the cancellation of millions of individual health policies that people wanted and could afford; and subjected the American public to the nightmare of Obama Care for the benefit of 2 million of those “30 million poor uninsured”.

  • Paul Rush

    The president and his lemmings are going to tout this sign up. They know in reality that that many people will not pay their so called premiums. Sort of like shopping on Amazon.com you put things in their basket. The real result will be how many pay for it. And as usual the democrats will delay releasing the final total or defend the actual total of the population who pays for it. They don’t want that embarrassment to get out and have egg on their collective faces. And like you said Bernie they will kick that can down the road……

  • Seattle Sam

    Bernie — The reason the Strurm example is problematic is simply because we have separated the costs and benefits of decisions via third party payment (government in the case of Medicare). If the Strums wanted to buy a policy that provides for unlimited care for the very elderly, they should have been entitled to do so — and pay the premiums that covered that risk. Likewise they should be able to choose coverage that is not that unlimited– and realize the associated premium savings for it. Then they would have no complaints. Unfortunately they are not given those choices.

    • SkyCitizen

      Yep Sam, that’s it in a nutshell.

    • legal eagle

      “If the Strums wanted to buy a policy that provides for unlimited care for the very elderly, they should have been entitled to do so”
      Can you cite an insurance company that offers such a policy or are you just theorizing?

      • veeper

        just do it obama’s way and kill her….

      • Seattle Sam

        As long as insurance is sold primarily to groups through a third party (government, employer), such a policy would not likely be offered widely. That’s my point. If people were responsible for selecting and paying for their own insurance (as they do for property/casualty) there should be a market for it. I doubt there would be a lot of takers — just like there aren’t a lot of takers for earthquake insurance. Insurers don’t really want to sell a lot of earthquake insurance, but they want policyholders to know they had the chance to buy it and rejected it.

        • legal eagle

          I live in Southern California…I don’t know what everyone does but I don’t know any homeowner/commercial property owner who lives here and does not have earthquake insurance….

          • Seattle Sam

            You probably need to expand your circle :-) Only 12 percent of Californians who buy residential insurance policies also buy earthquake insurance.

          • legal eagle

            As I said…I don’t know everyone but I have it as do every other friend or family member who owns a home in Southern Cal..
            most people, I would guess, wouldn’t buy car insurance if it wasn’t mandatory.

        • legal eagle

          Why would any insurance company write a policy covering “unlimited care”?…Insurance companies are not in the “unlimited risk” business…..

    • Tim ned

      This is not an issue of unlimited liability. The story is very simple. A person needed a pace maker and a doctor approved it. We don’t need complex systems to determine the value of a life by some insurance adjuster or medicare analyst three thousand miles away. I find in most of the doctors I know and use, they have a high degree of ethics, unlike attorneys. In my own parents case and that of my in laws we made conscientious decisions with their end of life decisions. The decision by the doctor in the Sturm example was outstanding. The response by the President is an example of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

  • Mark W.

    As with all other government statistics, a report will come out on a Friday afternoon a couple of months from now, with numbers “revised” lower.

    • legal eagle

      Reality….such a bitch to be living in the real world?

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie: Once again, the R’s did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. From the campaign of ’08 until the aca passed, Dems were screaming about 30 mil., 40 mil., 45 mil uninsured; get a couple glasses of Pinot grichio in Nancy P and it grew to 52 million uninsured. The aca was passed to provide affordable health care for all, so the moment that 7 mil. number was announced as “what success looks like” to Kathy S, the question should have been hammered at for at least the last 6 mos. by R’s, “what about the other 40-45 million?” Instead, R’s played right into this, all the talk has been, “they won’t get to 7 mil.”, was easy to predict Obama admin would announce that number was met, knowing that press would not dig into it and R’s would be howling at the moon that the number is a lie. Your statement is correct, why would we believe anything admin puts out, but networks aren’t approaching it that way. Surprise! NYT must have figured getting to 7 mil. so hopeless, even Obama would not claim it, so it went into deflection mode with the leaked alarmist GW report from the UN, one of the wildest works of fiction in the history of fiction and UN reports. Confirmed as fiction by the fact that Brian Williams swallowed it whole.

    • JMax

      Nobody ever said or expected that 30 million people would be covered by the end of the first open enrollment period or by the end of year two or three.

      • falling321

        Of course not, but we were told that they would be covered and they could have signed up if there were truly that many lacking healthcare coverage of any type. The truth is that there were NEVER very many who had no coverage or access to health care either through Medicare, Medicaid or a state program such as VCC here in VA. And in order to get this claimed 7 million signed up, this administration had to recruit at Mexcican embassies, promise illegal aliens that their citizenship would not be checked nor their family and friends deported if they signed up. They had to force 5.7 million off of coverage they were happy with. They had to spend $5 million just convincing people to sign up and make numerous delays and hand out thousands of exemptions. And there are STILL 30-45 million who have yet to be signed up, we have no clue how many have paid, how many got subsidies, how many were previously insured and had their insurance cancelled, how many are in the target age group. And now the CBO tells us that their Obamacare estimates over a ten year period are skyrocketing! This is one big cluster frack!

        • JMax

          “we were told that they would be covered”

          Yes, eventually.

          “they could have signed up if there were truly that many lacking healthcare coverage of any type.”

          Some people are still not getting the message. Others are being misinformed by ACA opponents, and others are being hampered by direct efforts to sabotage the the sign ups.

          ” The truth is that there were NEVER very many who had no coverage or access to health care”

          The truth? What’s your number?

          “promise illegal aliens that their citizenship would not be checked nor their family and friends deported if they signed up.”

          That’s an outright lie. No undocumented immigrants are being signed up. Everyone must provide evidence of legal residence. Period. It is true that some legal residents are reticent to enroll due to fears about the status of some members of their families and friends. That’s part of the number included in the millions not yet signed up.

          “And there are STILL 30-45 million who have yet to be signed up”

          Wait, didn’t you already say that the number was much lower than that?

          “we have no clue how many have paid”

          Insurance companies are reporting that 80-90% have already paid. Who do you think is going to spend an hour or more to sign up and not eventually pay (besides GOP who would do that to foul up the numbers and use up system resources)?

          ” how many got subsidies, how many were previously insured and had their insurance cancelled, how many are in the target age group.”

          Knowing this today matters why?

          “the CBO tells us that their Obamacare estimates over a ten year period are skyrocketing!”

          Do you have a source for this? Link?

      • Paul Courtney

        Putting aside the pretty speeches about the aca giving “access to health care for all” (speeches they still give and J Carney still dribbles out), why did you support, and continue to shill for, a “reform” supposedly designed to solve the problem of the uninsured, which you now admit was never designed for that, and isn’t doing the job? By most accounts, only one out of thirty uninsured is getting the promised “access” to insurance, and you’re good with that?
        Instead of wasting your time trolling here, you should be demanding answers from your side, even by your own mendacious numbers no more than 7 of 30 get insurance so crappy, it leaves people yearning for their good old “substandard” coverage? Is this really the best you progs can do? Or are you too busy spray painting “single payer now!” on the walls left standing in the rubble?

        • JMax

          “why did you support, and continue to shill for, a “reform” supposedly designed to solve the problem of the uninsured, which you now admit was never designed for that, and isn’t doing the job?”

          Universal coverage is a major goal of ACA, but not the only one. A have not admitted that ACA wasn’t designed for that because it simply wouldn’t be true.

          It IS doing the job. Millions of people who did not previously have health care insurance now have it. The CBO estimated that around 7 million people would be covered through the exchanges in the initial open enrollment. I never heard anyone six months ago saying, “Well that’s not 30 million so it’s already a fail.” Now that enrollment has reached that estimate, people like you are saying, “Well that’s not 30 million so it’s already a fail.”

          Polio wasn’t eradicated in the first six months after the Salk vaccine was introduced. All estimates of the ACA have said that universal coverage would not be achieved for a number of years.

          “and you’re good with that?”

          I’m good with the progress but not satisfied until universal coverage is achieved. It would have helped a lot if 24 GOP-controlled states had accepted the ACA’s expanded Medicaid program.

          “even by your own mendacious numbers”

          These are not my numbers.

          “insurance so crappy, it leaves people yearning for their good old “substandard” coverage?”

          Do you have any proof of this? Most of the accounts I have read say that they are thrilled with their new policies.

          • Paul Courtney

            When the CBO said 7m. to break even, Rs and other critics made the point you claim you never heard. When Kathy S said 7m. was what success looked like, R’s and critics repeated the point, what happened to universal coverage. You missed it then, too? Hmmm. Recently, I think it was CBO again, said in ten yrs, still 30 m. uninsured, bet you were furious, but you “never heard” the chorus from the right complaining that the law is a failure? I’d accuse you of a purposeful ignorance, but the press has given very little attention to critics of the aca and their wild predictions, going back four yrs, that the law would force cancellations, doctors dropping networks, etc, and other subtle racism. So now that you’re admitting the aca would not give universal coverage until yrs after its effect, how many of the 30-52 m. uninsured did you figure would be covered in 1st year? 2d year? You say you didn’t have any numbers? No matter, make some up. That’s the Obama admin’s approach. And you’re good with that, as well.

          • JMax

            “When the CBO said 7m. to break even”

            I don’t believe the CBO or anybody else ever said that. What would “break even” even mean at this stage?

            No rational person would ever say or believe that universal coverage would be accomplished in six months unless they were flat out dishonest or clueless. And critics never brought up the idea that 7 million was a failure in the quest for universal coverage until the 7 million mark was in sight or achieved because they had to drum up another false point to denigrate the achievement.

            “Recently, I think it was CBO again, said in ten yrs, still 30 m. uninsured,”

            How about a link for that. I don’t believe it.

            “you “never heard” the chorus from the right complaining that the law is a failure?”

            They’ve said it was a failure every day since March of 2010, so what else is new. The crux of the ACA has only been in force for 92 days so it’s a little early to declare it a failure on any basis.

            “I’d accuse you of a purposeful ignorance, but the press has given very little attention to critics of the aca and their wild predictions”

            Horse manure!

            “that the law would force cancellations, doctors dropping networks, etc, and other subtle racism.”

            It was inevitable that policies not compliant with the law would be cancelled. That doesn’t mean that anyone was left without access to insurance. Insurance companies have been cancelling policies since insurance was invented. Doctors have been dropping networks since networks were invented. Subtle racism? Explain please.

            “So now that you’re admitting the aca would not give universal coverage until yrs after its effect,”

            I don’t have anything to admit since it was well known that universal coverage would only be achieved after a number of years. Nobody, but nobody asserted, expected, legislated, or estimated that full coverage would occur in year one. It’s your straw man.

    • legal eagle

      People have to sign up for ACA….it’s like the census…If you don’t want to participate it’s not a criminal violation…

      • tim ned

        No, just the largest tax increase in American history.

      • Paul Courtney

        Hey, pigeon, what don’t you get about “Reply”?

  • SkyCitizen

    Bernie- Thanks for another well reasoned and factual article. Too bad facts don’t count for much anymore to a factually disconnected citizenry. It took 70 years for Russians to climb out of the ditch of Communism only to now find themselves in the new ditch of Russian nationalism and a one trick pony economy. Who are we to think that we might be immune to the siren call to a collective economy. I think not, and the President knows it. They, meaning the Democrats, have,removed civics from our schools, control the press for the most part, and leave conservatives with the duty of explaining a position which the listener is not equipped and incapable of understanding. I’m afraid it’s 1917 “deja vu all over again”. Prepare yourself for a new barrage of slogans devoid of any basis of fact in the 2014-2016 election cycles.

    • JMax

      Our public schools teach civics. If yours don’t you can blame your local school board or state board of education.

  • Benny Honna

    Having watched the news coverage of the efforts to sign people up it’s obvious that they actually got mainly people who qualify for the biggest subsidies. They clearly did not get the demographic they needed to make the system financially viable.

    They have actually ensured that they will be paying out more than they will take in. All in an effort to claim that they met their goal in a vain attempt to nullify the impact of the damage that the program will have on the campaigns of Democratic politicians.

    I seriously doubt that the Democrats will be able to keep the Senate or get control of the House. The reality of the negative impacts of the ACA will due great harm to their prospects in the November elections.

  • Johnny Deadline

    What I’ve wondered since Chief Justice John Roberts’ mind-bending logic allowed this monstrosity to survive is this: what kind of indemnity insurance does the government have when the Pathetic Protection and Unaffordable Care Act blows up? Oh, yeah – the U.S. taxpayer.

    • Drew Page

      You know very well what kind of ‘indemnity insurance’ the government has to cover the failure of the ACA. It’s called taxation.

      • Johnny Deadline

        But would it really be taxation to rescue Owebamacare or a financial penalty on the American people, Drew? I’ve been confused since the Chief Justice ruled the individual mandate a tax under the Commerce Clause, but the administration argued from the beginning it wasn’t a tax but a penalty.

        • Drew Page

          How can the refusal to purchase be construed as commerce?

  • Jarob54

    If you believe the enrollment numbers, you are a man of faith in your federal government, particulary this administration. I don’t believe the numbers because the administration can not or will not provide the American public with the numbers that really count. How many have paid. This is the number that counts. But if you believe the head count without batting an eye, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell.

    • Paul Courtney

      Well, contact NBC, those folks are buying. The same folks who told us we could not see numbers ’til the 15th of a given month are now providing numbers up to the minute like the crawl on a business channel. Kathy S has no idea, no info, on who has paid, yet I saw a Prof. named Cutler telling us HE has seen numbers, and the pay-rate is just like we see in employee plans. How has he got numbers that Kathy hasn’t got? Oh, he went to Hahvuhd.

  • A reader in NC.

    Great article, Bernie. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are two of the GOP’s greatest assets.

  • Roadmaster

    Wow! No nasty, venomous, idiotic trolls today. Good job, Bernie – your article is beyond their comprehension and they cannot debate the points (as if they actually could).

  • Marge Illich

    Heard this morning only between 700-750K of previously uninsured people have actually “signed up.” Whether they paid or not…that’s another story.

    • Drew Page

      So where are the other 29,300,000 uninsured the Democrats were so worried about?

  • Michael

    Another very good analysis of one of the greatest debacles in US history.

  • legal eagle

    So if my 95 year old aunt with congestive hear failure wants a heart transplant the doctor/insurance company/Medicare should approve the procedure regardless of cost or prognosis because she or her children “want it”???….What an absurd statement by Goldberg, but then again he’s being well paid by Fox News to spout the party line …

    • JDinSTL

      That’s all you’ve got?

    • Wally C

      How is that related to FOX or the party line? Weren’t the democrats the ones that were stating there are no death panels? Isn’t her not getting the transplant a death sentence?

      • legal eagle

        There are no “death’ panels….It’s a political talking point…

        • Floridastorm

          And, you know this how?

          • JMax

            Everybody who has had the experience of their insurance company refusing to pay for a procedure that their doctor recommended knows this. This is/was basic before ACA and still is. Just because some basics MUST be covered doesn’t mean that insurance companies can’t refuse coverage for some procedures they deem “experimental” or not cost effective. See, this socialist health care system still allows the private insurance companies to make a profit.

          • legal eagle

            You’re being far too logical and realistic today….These comments are critical of the Medicare system which has been in force since 1963. Was there a time Medicare paid for any and every procedure? What am I missing?

        • Wally C

          “There are no “death’ panels….It’s a political talking point…” of course there aren’t in the strict sense of the word, but refusing procedures sometimes has the same effect. I know that surely you know this. How much does DNC pay you to be here all day commenting? Does insurance come with the jobs package?

          • legal eagle

            Do you believe “refusing procedures” by Medicare or insurance companies started in 2009? What is your point?
            Do you believe every patient should get every procedure they request? You know the answer is NO…

          • Wally C

            What does 2009 have to do with anything?

          • legal eagle

            Jan. 20, 2009…When Obama became POTUS..

    • Jarob54

      I read your dribble from time to time. And my analysis, you are a straight clown.

      • legal eagle

        As opposed to a “gay clown”? I realize it’s difficult for you to deal with reality but medical decisions are far more complex than the simple minded ideologues want to portray them as…

        • Jarob54

          As in a straight up clown., you gay clown

          • legal eagle

            Thanks for your homophobia….

          • Jarob54

            You never cease to embarrass yourself. You are the resident fool of this site.

          • legal eagle

            That’s Mr. Fool to you…..LOL

          • JMax

            Thanks for taking the heat, LE!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Says the guy who has used “gay” as an insult numerous times on this website.

    • En blaguant, par moquerie

      Mr. Eagle, I am amazed that any time I read your comments, I could swear I hear Obama’s voice! Barry, is that you? Come on, big guy, your NCAA bracket busted the first day… and Michigan State as National Champion–not even in the Final Four. So man up, admit you made a mistake with health care, too. And Mr. Obama, I mean, “Mr. Eagle,” time to put your smartphone away and get back to work… on the golf course where you can’t do any harm to the rest of us. Good day.

      • Jarob54

        The ” Eagle” is some small town lawyer in Ohio who is lacking in self esteem, attempting to dazzle we “simple minded” people with his rhetoric. But he does not dazzle, whilst he does try.

        • legal eagle

          For the record, I live in Southern California and my self esteem is in excellent condition…I try to add some factual argument to the debate but if insulting me makes you feel better….go for it…

          • Jarob54

            We all can do just fine if you would just please go away and stay away. You really don’t have a clue how bad you constantly embarrass yourself.

          • legal eagle

            “We all can do just fine if you would just please go away and stay away. You really don’t have a clue how bad you constantly embarrass yourself.”

            Are you repeating what your wife said to you this morning?….LOL

          • JMax

            BOOM!

    • legal eagle

      That’s reality….I’ve had several family as well as legal experiences in this situation….It is common to want to prolong the lives of loved one’s irrespective of outcome or cost…..Goldberg is implying, in his article, that something has changed regarding Medicare. I believe he is being hyperbolic to appeal to Obama haters…..
      The “pacemaker” medical decision is nothing new despite Goldberg’s insinuation that the rules have changed under the current Administration..

    • Tova Feinman

      That depends on if your aunt will benefit from the surgery to the point that her quality of life would improve for another decade. If you aren’t willing to evaluate each patient’s risk/benefit profile individually, why not just line up all 90 year old women and euthanize them? Eventually they’ll all need care. Stop that before it gets too expensive for the government. Funerals are cheaper.

      • Mark W.

        Exactly right! I am already afraid the idea of the age 90 cutoff is gaining ground in some circles. I have no confidence in Dr. Emanuel or his ilk.

        • legal eagle

          I understand why you have a problem with Zeke Emanuel…He deals in reality, you deal in political hyperbole…

          • Mark W.

            In Germany, it was called the “Final Solution.” That was reality, too.

          • legal eagle

            A truly ignorant and obnoxious statement…..you’re in the right place to display your ignorance…

          • Mark W.

            No, I am seeing the future if we are not vigilant.

          • legal eagle

            As someone who had relatives who died in the concentration camps your remarks are totally obnoxious and inappropriate…

          • Mark W.

            As an American, I resent your defamation based on historical facts. If you haven’t noticed, there is a “war” on senior citizens. The similarities cannot be ignored. I am truly sorry for your family’s loss; I truly cry for them and all victims of the Holocaust. My concern is that it does not repeat in our country. It would be more subtle, but just as deadly. And with people like Dr. Emanuel leading the way, I’m not sure it won’t be attempted. After all, he’s a realist.

          • legal eagle

            Hard to argue with hyperbolic nonsense….Tell me about the “war” on seniors…Cite some examples not political talking points..

          • Mikal Gastpipe

            You’re PROOF of IGNORANCE personified…that’s why YOU’RE here, isn’t it?

      • legal eagle

        Tell me Tova what are you claiming is new. Medicare is 50 years old…Do you believe that, prior to Obama becoming President, Medicare paid for every procedure requested by a doctor or the patient’s family? There has always been a referee in these situations…..Doctors are often advocates for their patients, and rightly so…
        Your argument implies that costs have no bearing on healthcare decisions…you know that’s obviously not true..

        • Tova Feinman

          People should be allowed the OPTION. When the government pays the government dictates. If the government decides your 90 year old aunt has no value, she dies. If she has CHOICE, maybe she chooses surgery and maybe she doesn’t. The point is the choice is HERS not some Obamacrat in Washington looking at a statistical table. Nurse Ratchet, aka Kathelene Sebilius, was perfectly willing to let a 12 year old DIE because she deemed her life less valuable than government regulations. Now the little girl is doing quite well because people interceded for her. That decison should never have been in Obamacrats hands in the first place. It is the same issue with your 90 year old aunt. Medicare dictates who, when and what kind of care a senior or disabled person can get. Squeeze out the bucks like Obama is doing and guess what, fewer and fewer choices, more and more premature deaths. I say as allow as much private insurance options with as many choices as possible for seniors and disabled people. Use Standard Medicare when there are no other options. It’s better than nothing. CHOICE. Medicare Advantage allowed CHOICE. Now Obama is strangling it.

          • legal eagle

            Looks like you have a problem with Medicare? As it now has been in force for 50 years it’s strange how it’s only a problem for you when a Democrat is in office….

          • legal eagle

            Obama is strangling Medicare Advantage? How?

    • Drew Page

      What if your aunt were 85, or 75, or maybe even 65? Pick the appropriate age that you think it would be ok to provide (or deny) the heart transplant she (and her kids) want for her?

      • legal eagle

        My opinion is that my aunt should get any and every procedure she wants as long as Medicare is paying for it….
        I am not involved in healthcare policy or budgeting so I don’t care what it costs…

    • Paul Courtney

      Hey, pigeon, certainly you’re not suggesting the gov’t should stick its nose into a decision between a woman and her doctor? Isn’t that a constitutional violation of her right to privacy and some penumbra or other? Thought you were some sort of lawyer (and we know the sort).

      • JMax

        It’s not a decision between only a woman and her doctor. Her insurance company has always been a very important party in the decision since they have been footing the bill.

        • Tim Ned

          The State of Minnesota is quite effective in overriding the decisions of insurance companies. This is why it is important to have supplemental insurance plans for those on Medicare. When an insurance company decided to remove my dad from Physical therapy because of his age I made one call to the state attorney generals office. That same day my dad received the additional two weeks he needed and his knee recovered. His doctors applauded my call.

          In Minnesota, one of the great fears of insurance companies and attorneys is a call to the state attorney generals office.

          Had my dad not had the supplemental insurance, he would have been SOL. Because with Medicare, the ones you are complaining to; are the ones you are complaining about.

        • Paul Courtney

          Well, Ds have been saying for some time now that gov’t can’t be involved in decisions between woman and doc., haven’t heard that, either? So you think this insurance co. involvement in decision is a good thing?

          • JMax

            I said “important”. I didn’t say necessarily beneficial. Prior to ACA insurance companies ALWAYS had the last say in what was covered. Now they are subject to ACA consumer protections.

      • legal eagle

        It’s called MEDICARE…it’s been the law since 1963…..ever hear of Medicare?

        • Tim ned

          Do you have supplemental insurance to your medicare? If medicare is so great, why do companies offer this type of insurance?

          • legal eagle

            supplemental covers what Medicare doesn’t? Has been that way since 1963…What’s your point?

          • Tim ned

            Answer my question!

        • Paul Courtney

          Heard. Just trying to grasp your first principal- OK for gov’t to not only interfere in decision between doc and patient, but actually make the medical decision? So you’re pro-life and support gov’t restrictions on abortion? Even as those laws impinge on that constitutional right to privacy re. medical treatment? Just because gov’t funds it?

          • legal eagle

            I hate to break it to you but costs do count…it’s not a question of who’s making the medical decision it’s a question of who’s paying the costs for the treatment…Medicare does not make decisions about care. They do have guidelines on what they are paying for..

    • Tim Ned

      You are missing or misinterpreting the story here. The story isn’t what the doctor decided to do for this elderly women, the story is Obama’s response.

      • legal eagle

        That’s what YOU want the story to be ….You hate Obama so much you don’t even understand what the facts in the story are and why Goldberg’s article is misleading…

        • Tim Ned

          The point taken in the article is that the procedure was performed. Read Obama’s response. I don’t vent on hate like you, I vent with facts. When you can’t dispute the facts so you generalize or mostly, call names. Maybe you really are an attorney! Let me tell you one more fact!

  • Mark W.

    When you’re the scorekeeper (and the ballot counter), your team can win every time!

    • JMax

      Ballots are counted by your local precincts.

      • Mark W.

        Thanks for the civics lesson. And you don’t think “your team” can’t count ballots? How about Washington Governor Christine Gregoire who was elected in 2004 by confirmed dead people? And JFK in 1960 in Chicago precincts? Those come immediately to mind… You know we’re not living in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.

        • JMax

          The Washington state incident was shown to be people who cast absentee ballots for dead relatives. Some of those were Republican votes. These was no evidence of any effort to change the election results.

          As to 1960, to this very day there is no clear evidence one way or the other that the election was stolen for Kennedy. But it makes a nice story.

          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-26-jfk-chicago-politics_N.htm

          “Five decades later, there’s no definitive answer. “My sense is nobody really knows and nobody’s ever going to know,” says Edmund Kallina Jr., a
          University of Central Florida history professor and author of the new book Kennedy v. Nixon: The Presidential Election of 1960. He believes vote fraud did occur in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, but not on a scale that changed the outcome.”

  • Lou

    Why is it not talked about ??? How much this Obamacare program has cost us? Start up costs, fix up costs, selling costs?? Time spent by who knows how many people?? If a private company started a project and put the time and money the government did with this program and 4 years later got the same results, everyone who touched it would be fired. Even the person who put the first IT firm in place.

    • Seattle Sam

      People get fired in private industry not because of a sense of outrage, but because you can’t stay in business if you staff it with incompetents. Government has no such constraint.

    • legal eagle

      Has cost us? Are you kidding…Hyperbolic nonsense…

      • Drew Page

        Tell that to the people who lost the health insurance they used to have, could afford and wanted to keep. Tell that to the people who lost their jobs because employers couldn’t or wouldn’t provide mandated health insurance. Think of your comments when your next health insurance rate increase comes along.

        • legal eagle

          Personally, I do not recall any time in the past 20 years where my health insurance premiums have not increased…..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Personally, I recall President Obama saying our premiums would go down.

  • Lamont_Madison

    Too bad Obama doesn’t need a pacemaker! AND THE 7 MILLION – JUST MORE LIES FROM THESE CORRUPT SOBS IN THIS MOST CORRUPT AND INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATION EVER!

  • http://www.e-marketingpartner.com/ Bob Weber

    Plans in Colorado for a 40 year old single male started around $190 per month with a $5000 deductible. That means that in the next year I would have to spend $7300 before I saw much benefit from a healthcare plan. I would spend $2300 even if I don’t visit the doctor once.

    • JDinSTL

      That’s what CHANGE looks like in Colorado

    • legal eagle

      It’s called INSURANCE….you pay for it to mitigate your financial risk….What a concept?….LOL

      • Drew Page

        Yes, it is called insurance. Up until Obama Care came along, people could decide for themselves what level of risk they wanted to take and what they would pay for increasing or decreasing that risk. But now we have people who have no knowledge of the coverage someone had telling them that what waits for them under the Obama Care options is better for them than what they had and wanted to keep. Now that’s a concept — one we could do without.

        • legal eagle

          B.S. Prior to the ACA 99% of healthcare policies had lifetime coverage limits….You had no clue what you were buying …

        • legal eagle

          Still awaiting a response to your b.s. insurance coverage claim….

    • JMax

      Annual physical exams and all preventative care will have no copay. Vaccinations will have no copay. $7300 won’t cover a cover a severe accident or illness. Or are you invincible?

  • pasquale7

    What motivated you to take a swipe at the Koch brothers? Was that necessary?

    • nickshaw

      Funny, I didn’t see it as a “swipe” at all.

      • pasquale7

        the Koch bros have not done anything illegal and they are exercising their rights as citizens of the USA. I suspects the unions have donated much more money than the KBs. I saw one article about big donors and they were ranked #59, but the Press and the Liberal hate groups have been attacking them like they are criminals and I was surprised to see Bernie mention them in the way he did. I think what they do goes under “Free Speech?” I thought the Supreme dealt with that 5-6 years ago. Whether I agree with them or not I respect their right to express themselves with their own money, unlike the unions who use the money of a lot of their members who are Republican or Rep sympathizers. I do not think we should denigrate people who exercise their rights and obey the laws.

        • nickshaw

          And?
          Where was Bernie’s “swipe” at the brothers?

  • Florida Jim

    When someone lies to you doubts appear is all they say when a President lies repeatedly and Obamacare lies are just a small portion of his ,seemingly daily lies since 2007, why should we ever trust this man again. Every number coming from his administration is tainted, massaged, obfuscated or withheld until a Friday afternoon. I am fed up, Are you?

    • legal eagle

      Seems as soon as you wake up you are fed up?…..LOL

  • buckrodgers

    I think it’s about time that Congress passes a resolution that requires executive at media outlets and their employees who keep saying how great Obamcare is, would be required yo actually enroll in a plan, with hefty fine and mandatory jail time for those who try to pay out of pocket or use doctors and hospitals that are out of their plan, I’m getting sick and tired when white liberals tell me a racist then run home put on white hoods and burn crosses on African Americans who want to move into their neighborhood, i’m also getting sick and tired when a white liberal male says women do a better job then they do,nut refuse to resign so a better qualified women can replace them, instead of rewriting the second amendment, the right to bear arms,we should stop giving first amendment rights to these clown journalist who put ou this garbage reporting or at the very least make them liable when a innocent person is harmed because of their actions, journalist are not suppose to be competing with comedians like John Stewart, who plays a journalist on comedy central and their also not suppose to be a bunch of talking heads, who act like a bunch of trained seals, their suppose to be the watch dogs not lap dogs of government, their bias reporting in the Tawna Brawley and Duke Lacrosse case almost got innocent Americans some jail time,their bias reporting in the George Zimmerman case almost turned ugly when a mob knocked on the door of a innocent couple because the media riled up the crowd and the wrong address was giving out and in the Rodney King beating they caused a riot, acting like judge, juror and executioner might make sensational news before President Obama can change America, he has to Change the Democratic Party and he is slowly dismantling the white master race, who have exploited African Americans for decades, If African Americans stay home on election day, white politicians lose at the polls, so criticizing a man who controls ninety percent of the black vote is not an option.

    • legal eagle

      Looks like you have a problem with black people? Seems your fixated on any story involving blacks?

      • Jeff Webb

        Buck has been around long enough to know you’re the only racist here, LE.

        • legal eagle

          Too bad you don’t recognize or want to recognize racist b.s. as spouted by “buckrodgers”…..I understand one of your jobs here is to defend all bigoted and racist posts by your fellow ideologues but perhaps you should mind your business occasionally..

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Too bad you don’t recognize or want to recognize racist b.s. as spouted by “buckrodgers”<>I understand one of your jobs here is to defend all bigoted and racist posts by your fellow ideologues but perhaps you should mind your business occasionally..<<

            Aww, poor wittle Eagle doesn't wike being chawwenged.

            So, you want to be able to make cheap accusations and use barred language, without response or consequences. Umm, no.

  • gbandy

    Who really cares about 7 million signing up? It is not about the 7million it is the 32million Obama said he must insure! Where are they and why did they not sign up? Everyone is focusing on the 7 million yet 6 million lost their insurance and we the People have had our entire Healthcare system destroyed trying to insure 32 million who still are uninsured. Besides being a disaster/train wreck nothing about Obama care and the hundreds of millions spent selling it makes any sense. Now just watch next years premiums skyrocket and who will be to blame. The amount of money spent already wastefully could of paid for those uninsured without destroying our entire Healthcare system.

    • Seattle Sam

      They’re not signing up because it’s not in their best interest to do so. Obama has essentially waived all the consequences for failing to insure, and they weren’t that great anyway. Think about it. If you’re young, you’re unlikely to need health insurance, and if you discover you do need it, you just sign up for it then. How much life insurance do you think they would sell if you could buy it after being diagnosed with cancer?

      • Drew Page

        Why not pass a law that says construction companies must rebuild any home destroyed by fire, even if the owner has no fire insurance or the ability to pay to have it rebuilt? Then pass another law that says a fire insurance company is obligated to sell you fire insurance right up to the time your house is burning? “Here’s my $1,000 premium, now pay my $300,000 claim. I’m dropping the insurance after my claim is paid, but don’t worry, I’ll be back the next time my house starts burning and we can do this all over again. And by the way, if you can’t afford the $1,000 premium, the government will give you a subsidy.” This is Obama Care for home owners and it makes as much sense as his health insurance law.

    • Kernighan

      This cannot be repeated enough. What happened to these gigantic numbers of uninsured? Where the heck are they?

      • JDinSTL

        They’re GROWING by leaps and bounds

    • legal eagle

      “we the People have had our entire Healthcare system destroyed”
      You must be a regular consumer of Fox News and Limbaugh….Hyperbolic nonsense..

      • gbandy

        Wow you must be profiting from Obamacare to make such a statement. Perhaps you should ask the Doctors and hospitals what they think.

        • legal eagle

          I was at my doctor’s yesterday and we discussed Obamacare….His opinion was that, in his opinion, not much has changed…but in the world of healthcare things often do…

          • J. B.

            But insurance benefits for psychiatric care are different than for physical care. So maybe she hasn’t felt the changes yet.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            How is Dr. Carney doing these days?

      • Robert Silky Campbell

        Soon Obama will come out with the Affordable Legal Defense Act. Then we will se how you gay lawyers like that!

    • rgcomega

      No argument, no matter how cogent, works…simply because the people who made this horror happen want to be in control of your life. Cost is not an object other than it harms America/Americans, which is also what they want because it feeds Plan 1 – big government. If you want to get rid of anger, that’s fair, but if you want results they can be as easily achieved as talking to a wall. Democrats and RHINOS are not listening, and never will. It’s we the people that elect (and reelect) these morons; no escaping we are the problem, i.e., cynically, we’re merely getting what we also pay for.

  • not_fooled

    To my American friends ( I’m from Canada) hang onto to your wallets, brace for one hell of a ride. We have have as most know, a government run health care system here. It’s falling apart and most medical care ( drugs, surgery) are no longer covered. You have it much worst, with your upfront costs. I sympathize with what you are going through and what you are about to go through from those lying hordes in Washington.

  • docww

    Bernie—I have to disagree with you about this statement: “No one knows how this will turn out.” As a practicing physician in the trenches, I know exactly how it’s going to turn out. How many ways can you spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r?

    It doesn’t make any difference if they signed up a gazillion people. Most people are looking at the ACA as some type of insurance underwriting issue. Sign up enough healthy young people and we’re home free.

    I have news for you. No matter how many people you do or don’t sign up, healthcare in this country is going to become more expensive and less available, and please don’t ask me about the quality of the care. The reasons why this is so are endless but irrefutable. I really think we need to stop discussing numbers and head for the lifeboats because what is coming will not be a pretty picture.

    • legal eagle

      Paranoia runs deep…..Have you been treated for your malady?….LOL

      • docww

        Legal eagle—Hey, a little paranoia is just what the doctor
        ordered. The only way ObamaCare is going to work is if they ration medical care. As Bernie points out, there goes grandma’s pacemaker. My own father had a pacemaker ICD put in a few years ago at 92. He would have died without it. It
        gave him 8 more months of high quality life with his friends and family. Under ObamaCare a bureaucrat will decide if grandma or grandpa will get their pacemaker. Good luck with that!

        I’m old enough to be on Medicare and my wife is a few years
        north of 50, yet a month ago we had a baby girl. My wife developed a rare heart complication at the end but fortunately we were at Mass General Hospital and everything worked out fine. When the politicians around the country and world
        get sick or their relatives get sick, they want to send them to the Mayo Clinic, MGH or other Boston centers of excellence. Under ObamaCare the politicians will likely be the only ones who have access to this type of care. If this is the world you want to live in, go for it.

        • legal eagle

          As you are not citing anything to support your theory…Maybe you can explain why you believe your father’s situation would be different under Medicare…A few facts might be helpful but I doubt you have any to support your paranoia…

          • docww

            legal eagle–We have homes in Greece and Mexico, countries that do provide some basic support for their citizens. That’s not bad, except if you want more than “basic”, good luck. I am old enough to see how the world really works. How about you?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal’s old enough. He’s just never left his bubble of left-wing, ignorant bliss.

          • docww

            John–Nicely said.

          • legal eagle

            This supports your theory? I have no idea what you are talking about? You are projecting what you claim may go wrong by citing Greece and Mexico?

          • docww

            Yes. That’s a hell of a lot more support that you have provided to this forum.

          • legal eagle

            Great non answer….Spouting theories without any facts…then attack anyone who questions your B.S….Your wife must be very patient…LOL

          • docww

            Yes she is and she is also very Greek. As I tell her, the Greeks gave us the best two things we have–democracy and empiric science, and then they went on vacation! How many women can give you a child when they are over the age of 50? Facts, smacks–give me something I can hold and love.

  • Joe Scherzer

    Our Local CBS affiliate in Phoenix has a “Consumer Advocate” named Dave Cherry. On tv, a few months ago, he denied the existence of Death Panels in obamacare, saying it was “Just Insurance.” When I emailed him, explaining why he was wrong, he said he “would look into it.” He has said nothing further. I just emailed this column to him, giving him another example (pacemaker story) to chew on. He won’t change his Liberal tune, but he may attain a modicum of guilt or understanding after a while. Joseph M. Scherzer, M.D. (RETIRED)

    • legal eagle

      Death Panels? So according to you Medicare, which has been in existence for 50 years, has always approved every medical procedure requested, regardless of the age of the patient? You know that that is an absurd statement?

      • One Man’s Opinion

        That was then… Medicare has less money now. The rules have changed and continue to change.

        • legal eagle

          What you’re saying is factually untrue… I would suggest you do some research into how Medicare pays for services rather than spouting political talking points…

          • One Man’s O

            Denial will never alter the facts. There may come an unfortunate time where you learn the hard way that you have been misinformed yourself.

  • Gloria

    Here are some real numbers…..just my personal ones. My old plan was yanked and I was forced to ‘shop’ for a new plan starting January 1st this year. The new plan costs $800 more annually, but that’s not all. I am just now finding out that my prescription is now a ‘tier 3′ drug and not fully covered and that a specialist I really need to see is ‘out of network’ and that the Urgent Care that I went to last Sunday (where I had gone before and was covered) is not covered! So in addition to higher premiums, I personally had to shell out $530 in just one five day period! And if I want to see this specialist that will cost another $836. Yikes. I was happy with the insurance I had before folks, and now I am paying more and apparently getting a lot less. Thanks idiots in Congress. Thanks American voters. And my guess is we are STUCK with this mess ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Thanks for nothing.

    • Tova Feinman

      But Harry Reid says real world situations like yours are “just lies”. Nice, huh. They screw with your life and tell you you are a liar if you dare say “ouch”.

      • Gloria

        Ouch is right! And what I stated here – although not a LOT of money – is nonetheless a lot more for ME. And those figures are the truth, no lies.

    • Seattle Sam

      This just illustrates that Obamacare is working as planned. People like you get less and pay more so that others can get more and pay less. Like my friend who has a seven figure net worth and lives on the water in Florida. He’s getting an $8000 Obamacare subsidy — quite legally because until he sells some of his portfolio he will have very little actual income.

      • Gloria

        You know what? You hit the nail on the head. I didn’t want to mention my brother-in-law and his wife who each drive a Lexus, live in a huge home in a high priced area (with NO MORTGAGE) and because he is not working and she has a low wage part time job they have qualified for an $8000 decrease in their insurance premium. They are thrilled – don’t have to touch their 7 figure+ portfolio either! But here is the thing, nine other schlubs like me have to pay more $800 more so they can pay $8000 less! Is that fair? Is that right?
        Now I wouldn’t mind contributing to those who are TRULY indigent and in need of subsidization for their family health care, but this ACA is ludicrous just like all other govt run programs. Where is the means testing?? As usual, an idiotic plan that harms the many for the benefit of the few.

        • Seattle Sam

          As I said, Obamacare is working as planned.

        • legal eagle

          Seems your a bit envious of your brother-in -law?

          • Gloria

            Not at all. I love them. As usual you miss the point entirely. I am illustrating the need for ‘means testing’ as a check on typical waste and fraud in government run programs. My in-laws have stated, “Hey if they’re giving it out, we’re taking it.” Even though they surely do not have a financial need as so many others truly do.

            As far as your other inane comment about ‘bellyaching’, I am actually lending some credible personal evidence to the debate here with regard to paying far more, but getting far less. The in network “specialists” that my plan offers for my specific ailment are about as good as going to the local vet for an opinion. And contrary to what you may think, I ain’t no dog. So I will pony up the cash and see a doctor who is Qualified.

          • Gloria

            Oh and by the way ‘your’ should be ‘you’re’. Showing your 5th grade education again.

    • JDinSTL

      You pay more so someone else gets something for nothing. It’s the marxist way. Look at his swagger on this video

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lT4VzH5xY8

      • Gloria

        I looked at it and he makes me sick. Had to stop watching or else would have had to go to Urgent Care and pay more to get less once again.

    • legal eagle

      Go see a specialist who is “in network” or ask your “specialist” to join your network…Stop bellyaching and take action…

  • Buzzeroo

    Obama and company are truly the reincarnation of the old snake oil salesmen whose antics had come to be considered a joke until this phony bunch of hustlers came along. If their nation bankrupting plan is so good, they would publish the results of their sale but they do not using the dumbest of all excuses that are equivalent to “the dog ate my homework”. Their cheating, lying and obfuscation is manifold and out and out criminal. I firmly believe that Abraham Lincoln was right on when he said “You can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time”……………This will be Obama’s and his henchmen’s downfall. As his plan’s failings became apparent, he didn’t CORRECT them–he simply POSTPONED them with the usual thief’s confidence that the target’s of their chicanery would mistake one for the other until it is late enough for them to make their getaway. NOT THIS TIME. They will lose the senate in November still losing the house—and by the time all of the investigations and exposures that that filthy undertaker Reid has been squelching come to light, all decent citizens would wash their kids mouth’s out with soap if they ever utter the words Obama or democrat in front of them.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Obamacare is for the right what for the left used to be the war in Iraq: The whole project is a disaster that never should have undertaken in the first place, so the familiar narrative goes, and the administration at the helm keeps lying and whitewashing.

  • Floridastorm

    I think that the first time one of these new Obamacare signees get the bill for a CAT scan or some medical procedure they will wonder what hit them. Yes, your premiums may be subsidized but your deductible is not. Most of these plans have 6 to 10 thousand dollar deductibles. That means you not only pay the premium each month but you pay all of the bills until your yearly deductible is met. Good luck paying for your $2,000 CAT scan, your $5,000 minor surgery, or your $8,000 hospital bill. Of course you can then use your Obamaphone to call the white house for help.

    • JDinSTL

      They’ll just pass a law requiring physicians to give services away

    • legal eagle

      and your expertise on health insurance premiums and deductibles is based upon what?

      • Floridastorm

        From a lot of research into various medical insurance programs. What is your expertise, may I ask?

        • legal eagle

          Besides being self employed and having to deal with health insurance for my family and my employees I also did legal work for a large company in negotiating health insurance coverage for their employees…..
          Both of these situations had me buying a large bottle of Advil which became necessary in order to deal with insurance carriers…LOL

  • Seattle Sam

    Isn’t it clear that the loudly trumpeted goal of “insuring the uninsured” was just a ruse to gain control over the healthcare industry? That “40 million uninsured” cannot have been reduced by more than 2 million.

  • Tova Feinman

    Bernie, that is so sad about your mom. If it had been left up to Kathelen Sebilius, aka Nurse Ratchet (she looks just like her and acts just like her) there would be a little girl in PA dead because Sebilius wouldn’t let her have a lung transplant. Remember Sebilius said “the rules are the rules”. In other words, let her die. She doesn’t meet government criteria. Never mind that Obama himself clearly doesn’t believe in “the rules are the rules” when his political ambitions are at risk. He’s changed the rules 38 times to make himself seem more palitable to a horrified public and disgruntled supporters. I would not believe a single “fact” that came out of the mouths of any Obama official. 6 million, 7 million, heck, 100 million. It’s all the same to me. They have no track record of speaking the TRUTH. I’d be an absolute fool to believe them at this point.

  • Brad Ghorn

    I am wondering when the death panels are going to be enacted, or are they already in place. They have lied about so much, I am guessing that they were lying about the death panels. I

    • Ted Crawford

      These were originally refered to as “End of Life Councils” and were authorized in Section 1233 of HR – 3200! As soon as Governor Palin exposed them they were hastely removed!

      • JMax

        Half-time Governor Palin exposed only her ignorance and now so have you.

        There are no “End of Life Councils”. Section 1233 ONLY authorizes the payment of a doctor’s fee for voluntary consultation with a patient in planning end of life options, you know, like an Advanced Healthcare Directive.

        Yes, it was removed because ignorant people like Palin and liars like Grassley squawked about something most rational people already have voluntarily done, namely let the doctor know how they wished to be cared for once they can no longer communicate with their doctor. Thanks to Palin et al patients have to pay for the consultation out of pocket.

        • Brad Ghorn

          Obama and other ACA supporters are taking money away from medicare. Do you actually believe that this will not result in elderly people dying earlier than they would otherwise?

          • JMax

            NO
            THEY
            ARE
            NOT

            The $716 billion in Medicare cost reduction in ACA is in reducing over-payments to Medicare service providers negotiated WITH THOSE PROVIDERS.

            Not surprisingly, the Ryan/GOP budget includes those very same negotiated cost reductions, but uses the savings to maintain lower high-end tax rates and oil company subsidies instead of extending the solvency of Medicare.

          • J. B.

            Oh, and continually trying to lower payments to doctors, from already low payouts, already forcing many of them to quit or not treat older patients. Open your eyes! Oh. I’m sorry, I see that you are blind.

          • JMax

            Your source for this information is what?

          • Brad Ghorn

            Dems love to decide when people are overpaid. Lawyers, union workers, teachers, etc. are never overpaid according to Dems. When you pay doctors less, do you expect to have as much access as someone who is willing to pay that same doctor more? People will die when they cannot get access.

          • JMax

            “When you pay doctors less, do you expect to have as much access as someone who is willing to pay that same doctor more?”

            Most patients “pay” what their insurance policies allow. These payments are negotiated between the providers and the insurance companies. ACA does the same for Medicare.

            “People will die when they can’t get access.”

            Bravo! you now understand one of the biggest reasons for ACA.

            Lawyers are over paid? By whom? You don’t believe in the free market?

        • Ted Crawford

          Nice try Comrade, however wrong again!
          What it actually does is provide monetary incentives for the Doctors to do so! In fact it even provides that Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants are authorized to initiate “End of Life Care” Subsection (2) (B)!
          Subsection (3) (B), sections (i) thru (iv) names some specific treatments and allows the health care personnel to determine how much, if any of these procedures are carried out!
          “Logical consequences are the Scarecrows of Fools and the Beacons of Wise Men!” Thomas Huxley

          • JMax

            False. Doctors can already charge patients for these consultations. Now Medicare would pay for it. Furthermore, patients, their families, and their practitioners all benefit from having an advanced care directive. Don’t you have one? You should.

            The bill only allowed medical personnel AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATE to be involved in any part of this process.

            Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants do not initiate end of life care. They care for patients according to the patients wishes. They can if authorized in their state initiate a consultation with a patient which will result in an order regarding life sustaining treatment. This order is the patient’s own order for how, when, or whether certain life sustaining treatment is to be carried out if they are incapacitated. It is NOT an order to begin any life ending treatment.

            Furthermore, the consultation includes the many options, conditions, and states of health for which the patient can make choices in their advanced care directive. By law, all practitioners must carry out the patient’s wishes and only have discretion within standard medical practices.

            You can read the text yourself here:

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200rh/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200rh.pdf

            Page 447.

          • Ted Crawford

            Once again , Nice try Comrade! Read the documents, they dovetail nicely with the 1997 Oregon “Death With Dignity Act” passed as “voluntary”, however so was personal income tax.
            Progressive laws ALWAYS evolve, and always in the same dirrection, more government intrusion! Even one of your own warned about this;
            “You [should] not examine Legislation in the light of the benifits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered!” Lyndon Johnson!
            Again, logical consequences, based on long standing Historic Precedence!
            If it were not true, explain why they frantically eliminated this section from the original Bill, after Governor Palin exposed it!

          • JMax

            Nyet, Tovarich. There is no connection between ACA and the Oregon Act. None other than your imagination. Nothing in the ACA provision allows for anything more than patient planning for care according to state standards of medical practice.

            I’ve dealt with the deaths of my parents and the poor health of a sibling. My wife and I have both created Advanced Healthcare Directives. I know what they look like and what they do. They have been an integral part of health care for decades and I doubt you could provide one example of misuse.

            No version of the ACA and it’s predecessors ever required anything more than payment every five years for a voluntary consultation to develop advanced care directives or similar plans for life sustaining treatment. The only “intrusion” is the “intrusion” of paying for the consultation.

            This consultation benefits EVERYONE involved: the patient, the patient’s family, the patient’s health care providers, the patient’s insurers including Medicare, and the tax payers who foot the bill for life sustaining care that the patient might not want.

            They eliminated the provision from the bill because the lies told by Palin, Bachmann, Grassley and others, and the complicity of the media by allowing them to tell those lies was eroding support for the bill. They tried to reinsert it because they knew it was good for the country and everyone in it to do so.

    • JMax

      Does anyone actually believe that prior to ACA each and every insurance company didn’t have a “death panel” to decide what they would or wouldn’t pay for? And that those “death panels” weren’t based on profit?

      • legal eagle

        They were not called death panels….they were call insurance company cost benefit analysis……LOL

        • sjangers

          The “death panels” part of this discussion is an unfortunate example of how far both left and right are willing to go to distort debate in their efforts to win support for their respective positions. Conservatives use the frightening image that “death panels” conjures up of people lined up, shuffling toward faceless bureaucrats who will either point them silently toward the hospital entrance or a fiery pit. Liberals scoff at the image of death panels in order to hide the reality that greater government involvement in, and control over, the nation’s health care system will inevitably lead to bureaucrats making decisions about how critical health care services will be provided and who will get them.

          Wealthy as we are, this country still lacks the resources to provide all the health care the all our citizens want. There have to be reasonable limits on when care is appropriate and how much care should be provided in those circumstances. Presently, that decision is made by private citizens and their insurance companies. People decide what kind of health care policy they will purchase based on those offered by competing insurance companies, based in part on the cost of the respective policies and the services promised in return. Government helps ensure that private citizens receive the levels of treatment that insurance companies have contracted to provide.

          As government becomes more involved in the process of determining those health care services that will be available, when, and to whom- whether through greater government encroachment on the private market or through government assumption of full responsibility for providing health care to citizens- citizens will find themselves with one less layer of protection for their individual health needs.

          Instead of appealing to government for help getting the medical care that insurance companies have contracted to provide, private citizens will have to appeal to government for services when the federal cost-benefit analysis has determined that there’s not enough money to give everyone the health care they want, wile still financing “fair” salaries for bureaucrats, providing their comfortable surroundings, and paying for the conferences in Hawaii that they just can’t function without. Anyone who has ever been involved in the appeals process when government denies services for which it is the sole provider, knows just how hard bureaucrats work to protect their own interests, as opposed to those of the public they are hired to serve. That same tendency of bureaucrats to protect themselves will work against individuals when they’re asking for an internal reversal of a determination, rather than help getting an insurance company to fulfill the terms of their agreement.

          Sure, death panels aren’t real. But arguments that people won’t have fewer protections for themselves when government becomes more involved in that necessary service are just as unrealistic. Neither side helps their credibility with their deceptive claims.

          • legal eagle

            With all due respect, Medicare has been around for 50 years….Are you saying that for the past 50 years Medicare has approved all procedures requested by patients and their doctors?
            I’m not clear on what your point is regarding senior citizen health care?

          • sjangers

            Was I making a point about senior citizen health care?

            One aspect of the Medicare system that has made these single-payer issues I addressed in my previous post less of a burden is the availability of supplemental forms of insurance. Those things that Medicare won’t cover are often covered by supplemental plans for those with the resources to access them. But if you’ve ever spent any time in a nursing home, you might have some understanding of the unfortunate plight of individuals who have been abandoned; not just by their families but by the system that promised to provide an adequate level of care for their final years.

            Medicare isn’t a great system. Fortunately, there are still resources available within our health care system that help disguise the shortcomings of that system. If we ever end up under a single-payer government system we’ll see all those flaws in bold relief.

          • legal eagle

            The faux outrage referenced in Goldberg’s column involved a senior citizen….who I assume is on Medicare…
            I have spent too much time in nursing homes both from a family and friend perspective and on legal matters.
            Are you saying that the Medicare system is the cause
            for the plight of individuals in nursing homes? What’s your point?

          • sjangers

            Don’t assume it was faux outrage, Eagle. And sorry I missed your point. Apparently the discussion has gone on long enough for me to forget much of the original column.

            Making my point would probably take a bit of time. But yeah, I do think the failure of Medicare to fully deliver on its promise is sometimes tragically evident in nursing homes. And while I should probably do a thorough analysis of the cost-to-benefit ratio in Medicare service delivery, my years of experience with Medicaid and the HHS system lead me to assume that our Medicare-dependent seniors could be getting much more service for the dollar if it wasn’t being delivered by such a wasteful system.

          • legal eagle

            Can’t disagree with the waste and fraud argument….I am still unclear as to why you are linking Medicare and nursing home care? To my understanding, nursing homes were never covered under Medicare….What am I missing?

          • sjangers

            My error for not being more clear, Eagle. I was referring to quality of health care for elders- i.e., those on Medicare- and made the nursing home connection because that’s where I most frequently encountered that population and had the opportunity to observe the inadequacy of the health care they were receiving.

            Fwiw, and not really germane to my point, some nursing home coverage is provided under Medicare Part A. It just doesn’t pay for the custodial care that those facilities provide.

          • legal eagle

            I hear you….Every time I visit one of these facilities I rethink my opposition to assisted suicide…nothing is more depressing than seeing older people “warehoused”…sad…

          • sjangers

            I agree with the sentiment, Eagle, but let’s not be in any rush to legalize assisted suicide. Once it’s legal, as the Dutch discovered, it might even become desirable, but not for the reasons we assume when contemplating the humane nature of such a policy.

        • JMax

          Precisely!

  • dennis

    It really doesn’t matter if it is 7 million or 70. The problems with this Mount Everest size clusterblank are still there. Premiums going up for everyone except those with pre-existing conditions, even those whose pre-existing conditions are self inflicted due to life style decisions (i.e. smoking, drinking, drugs, over eating, a total disdain for exercise, Bob Beckel et al) and the poor. Also, lost doctors, hospitals doubling and tripling of deductibles all to get insurance for roughly 1.5 million people who did not have insurance before. Did we really do this to insure 1.5 million people? And this is what Team Obama is doing a victory dance over? This guy is the greatest con man since PT barnum.

  • voters25

    He has told so many lies ,this is just another on. I don’t watch him anymore cause all he does is tell lies

  • gold7406

    In grand fashion, the upshot will be more uninsured after ACA than before.
    The star in this administration’s portfolio is a financial sinkhole. Look and the time,money, debate, controversy that has surrounded this mess. Billions spent and the results will be pitiful. Sort of emblematic of the entire administration.

  • Harold429

    Come on now – does anyone, anyone, really believe the administration when they say 7M? Not me. I’ll eat my hat if they didn’t cook the books. How are we ever going to know if they did or didn’t? “Can you tell us who, specifically, signed up?” “Oh, no, there are privacy concerns. There are HIPPA concerns.” There are concerns that the American public will finally figure out that we’re the most dishonest administration since, well, ever.

    http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VhSNkNw/0/O/i-VhSNkNw.jpg

  • Darren Perkins

    If someone has already posted this: how many of the 7 million are people who checked a box on the website saying that they would sign up… maybe.

  • brickman

    I saw the graph on Fox News and it looks like they only signed up a third of their goal.LMAO.

    • JMax

      Hopefully you are joking just like the graph. 6M is 85% of 7M. Fox does crap like that all the time. Suckered you? LMAO.

      • brickman

        I was mocking Fox News. Sorry that you didn’t get it.

        • JMax

          Well I did suggest that you might be joking. But most people on this site would be serious. My bad.

          Fox News has corrected the graph on their website.

          • brickman

            Isn’t it funny that the absurd can be taken seriously these days?

          • JMax

            Funny and tragic. Most of the people here take Palin, Bachmann, Grassley, and Gohmert seriously.

  • kayakbob

    What is interesting, as Bernie points out, is this Administration doesn’t know any of the demographics of these so-called ‘sign ups’. Yet every milestone..4 million
    ! 5 million!..6 million! came in breathless tweets and press releases. They know the exact number, but don’t have a clue about demographics? I think not. (Netflix knows everything about me there is to know based on far less information than is required to sign up for Obamacare.)

    But beyond the obvious ruse that is Obamacare, what is most disappointing of all is the reality that very few people know:

    a. what a deductible is
    b. what an annual deductible is, and
    c. how a & b affect the practicality of their so-called “insurance”.

    • MontanaMade

      Oh no- they know alright! The insurance companies know who each person is and if they paid or not, if they had insurance before or not, if they are young or old, what conditions they may have, etc… And it’s all reported back to the WH.

      They know- they just aren’t saying. The numbers are NOT in their favor by a long shot- every poll that’s been done says so. We’ll see how long this Ponzi scheme lasts. Social Security has been going for a while, so maybe they’ll keep this afloat as well, we just have to pay for it before we can see the results… to coin a phrase we all know.

    • D Parri

      I think that Obama and crew had it planned this way all the time. Don’t forget that this is April Fool’s Day, and they’ve planned the biggest hoax of all. It’s called ObamaCare. Who cares?

      They will actually change the name later on today to “Obama Cares?” That way whenever the program is brought up or referred to by anyone outside of the WH, then the reply will be a standard, “Obama Cares? Why, hell no!”

      This will also be used in the new stand-up comedy routine that Obama has been working on for the last five years. Expectations are for this comedy act to be recorded as the longest, most expensive act in history, at a cost of well over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money.

      Ain’t it just amazin’ that ObamaCare enrollment figures have miraculously made it to the projected ‘goal’ of 7 mil enrollees? How accurate is that?

      I don’t know anyone that is that good at predicting the outcome of a competitive stream of activity involving more than 7 mil people–especially someone as terrible at sports brackets as Obama.

      I’m not positive, KY, but something sounds verrrrry suspicious to me. Oh, why hesh my mouth! Those folks wouldn’t lie…, would they?

      • kayakbob

        Well at the risk of “telling” you something that you already know, they were going to celebrate ‘success’ regardless of what the number was at midnight last night. If a total of 64 people had “signed up”, that would have been hailed as “success, and Obamcare is here to stay!”

        Today I heard the statement, “a lot of people still haven’t figured out how hosed they are under Obamacare”. (Perhaps “hosed” is another accounting term..I guess.)

        But back to the thing that has most troubled me, for 4 years, and certainly the past 6 months. Apparently few people really understand the (very) high deductibles have to be met before one dime of “coverage” is paid. Since they are annual deductibles I can only assume they reset every January 1st. With deductibles north of $5K (Bronze), the vast majority of people hailing their “coverage” may need years – or should I say ‘age’ – before they reach a point where the actual insurance p-a-y-m-e-n-t kicks in.

        It is deeply disappointing to see so many people that don’t understand, Obamacare has put them into a system where they don’t have insurance, as a practical matter, because the chance of incurring cost, on covered(!) medical needs above that limit is slim-to-none before they reach 50 or 60 years of age. A lot of 25-35 year old people are going to be paying their monthly premiums AND out-of-pocket for perhaps 15-20 years before they see a dime of so-called coverage. (And think about how bad their health must be when they have hit the deductible limit at age 40 or 45? That’s awful.)

        And according to several medical websites, the Bronze plans will pay 60% of cost after the deductible is met. So, even after they exhaust their annual deductible, and their monthly premium, they will still have to come up with 40%.

        I take no joy in this perspective. I just wonder: how many more “good deals” can we take from this administration?

        PS. It’s not a “lie”. My mentor, former DC Mayor Marion Barry, taught me the phrase is ‘situational ethics’.

        • D Parri

          Yes, very interesting if you crunch the numbers with reality in mind.

          For a 60 year old single male in Florida earning $26,000 ann inc, an HMO or EPO plan would cost from $127 to $526 in monthly premium costs, and the deductibles would range from $850 to $6,000 annually.

          That would make the lowest deduct/highest prem plan total $7,162 for premium and deductibles, and the total costs incurred would be $8,347 before all deductibles and premiums would be covered and the plan paid out 100% for eligible costs.

          A plan that costs $127/mo and carried a $6,000 deductible would total $7,524 after all premium costs and deductibles were added. The maximum of $16,524 in premium and co-payments would be needed to reach the $6,000 deductible, at a 40% co-payment rate.

          This is based upon an income of $26,000, making the total healthcare costs range from 29% to 32% of that individual’s total annual income.

          It is expected that the premiums will increase each year.

          An alternative for many individuals, especially the younger group, will be to ‘roll the dice’ and gamble that their healthcare costs will be somewhat less than the 29% to 32% of income coverage demanded by the law’s mandate. This is generally based upon the understanding that the younger groups will need less attention paid to health and will choose to divert that income to other uses. That will hold true even with the requirement to sacrifice 1% of their income in order to retain 29% to 32% of their income, outright.

          Adding to this scenario will be the ability to declare personal bankruptcy in the case of a catastrophic event based upon their healthcare needs.

  • helplessinil

    So what if 6 or 7 mil “signed up”, I thought there were 30+ million uninsured? If half of the people who signed up are people who lost their insurance, then that number for the uninsured group might have grown. Oh and I thought the Prez was honored if we wanted to refer to it as ObamaCare, why are all the Dems running from that name now?

  • Brian Stover

    My wife and I made sure our kids read “Animal Farm” when they were growing up. I’m sure that if Obama read it, he thought it was a textbook.

    • legal eagle

      Anything else you made them read? Drudge Report, National Review etc…LOL

      • Brian Stover

        It’s good to hear from you again, Legal Eagle!
        As a matter of fact, our daughters were reading before they were in kindergarten. They read many books on their own through the years. We encouraged them to think for themselves.
        During the re-election campaign of W, one had her bedroom door covered with pictures of John Kerry, and her sister had hers covered with pictures of W.
        I think that showed that my wife and I were successful in teaching independent thought.
        I think you will agree that the skills of reading and independent thinking are attributes that all should acquire.

        • legal eagle

          Independence is great until kids reach their teens…Then it’s a large headache for their parents…..LOL

      • Lc Goodfellow

        Crow is back, Question, ” .. have you checked for diaper rash …? “

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Obamacare was never the plan. The solution will be single payer. (European style) That constant drool dripping from Harry Reid’s and Joe Bidens lips, that you thought proof of their inferior intellect? Wrong. They’re simply salivating at how close they’re getting to single payer, and another step closer to their Marxist utopia. Remember, you heard it here first.

    • Kathie Ampela

      I welcome the day when Hillary and the dems offer single payer as a solution to Obamacare. The GOP could run Lassie as their candidate and win by a landslide. You’ll never see single payer in this country, it will never happen. People love their choices too much, especially in healthcare.

      • Wally C

        You underestimate the desire of a portion of our population that desire complete dependence on the government for ALL THEIR NEEDS & WANTS.

        • Kathie Ampela

          Too many bad consequences to accomodate the wants and needs of a few, that’s why we’ll never see single payer. Herd the entire population into Medicaid? Gut Medicare to pay for it? Hillary won’t even try, she’s tried it before and we know how it worked out. She won’t disrupt the political eco-system, she knows better. A system like that is top heavy, it would collapse, she won’t risk it.

          • Wally C

            Don’t mistake my last entry as support for this. I am just saying it because they were able to hoodwink enough people to pass O’care. The American people never fail to amaze me as to what they think the real purpose of govenment is supposed to be.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        You mean choices like “if you like your health you can keep it period”, or if you like your Dr. you can keep your doctor”?

      • legal eagle

        Medicare for all…..What a terrible concept…..LOL

        • sgthappyg

          I actually support the idea of single payer as a base line insurance for everyone. And the deduction for this should be taken out of paychecks just like the FICA tax for Social Security. This shouldn’t matter if you work one hour or 30 or 40. That way employers can not dodge the requirement by cutting the number of hours a person works.
          This insurance should be the minimum and people wanted additonal insuance or the “Cadillac” plans, that could be bought on an individual basis or employer assisted. I don’t think ObamaCare should be thrown out. Adjusted and improved – yes. When I hear the Republicans talk about Repeal and Replace – I have not seen what they want to replace it with.

  • Cheryl

    I had to buy a new ACA policy because my other one, which was perfect for my needs, is no longer considered acceptable under the new law. The new policy costs twice as much, for half the insurance. Aside from the cost, it pained me to buy the policy, because I don’t want to be used as fodder for the administration showing how “successful” the program is. The numbers alone do not tell the full story of how people feel about the law. I absolutely hate the fact that the government has the right to force me to buy what they think I need for my own health care. It feels very un-American!

    • Dennis

      Cheryl
      Sorry but you must understand something. Obama and the libs you are simply not competent enough to decide for yourself what you need for health insurance. Clearly, thanks to their genius, they are saving you from your ‘substandard’ policy. Never forget, libs always know what is best for everyone and we should all be thankful.

  • sjangers

    The biggest problem I have with the ACA, beyond even the lies the American people were told to get the legislation passed, is the amount of time it’s taking to fully activate the provisions of the law. By the time enough of the law and regulation is sufficiently engaged for Americans to determine what it really is- i.e., whether or not we’ve turned our health care system over to Dr. Barnard or to Dr. Kevorkian- it may be more harmful to undo the ACA than it will be to live with it, even if it proves to be as large a disaster as many of us have been predicting for years that it will be.

    • legal eagle

      Let’s root for failure…If Obama is for it, I’m against it…..

      • JMax

        Yes! Did anybody think that we could implement a 2,500 page law (it’s actually 906 pages) in six months or a year?

        • Mark W.

          Where did the other 1,594 pages go?

        • sjangers

          Or even fully implement it in four years?! How unreasonable! For that matter, what’s the current projection for full implementation of ACA now, Jim? Seven years? And what will that projected goal be in another three years?

          • JMax

            Why does any of that matter? How long did Social Security take to fully implement? Medicare? Medicare Part D?

            Do we want people to get insurance or not? Are we to believe that the “GOP alternative” would take less time to be implemented?

          • sjangers

            I’d say it matters for political reasons. It’s pretty obvious that the roll out of the ACA has been slow because its supporters really don’t want people to experience the provisions prior to critical electoral events. Rather than drag the implementation out to the point where there’s no reasonable way to go back, I’d prefer to get it out there and let the American people decide whether or not it was a good idea while there’s still time to put some or all of the genie back in the bottle. It doesn’t appear that the ACA supporters want to take the risk that could happen.

          • JMax

            ” It’s pretty obvious that the roll out of the ACA has been slow because
            its supporters really don’t want people to experience the provisions
            prior to critical electoral events.”

            I reject that argument. If I’m not mistaken the roll out is taking place during an election year. Secondly, it is unrealistic to think such a law could be rolled out any quicker that it has.

            ACA supporters just want to get on with it and for all the subterfuge and sabotage to end.

          • sjangers

            If ACA supporters want to get on with it, Jim, then why does the President keep pushing back deadlines for aspects of the ACA that might prove less-than-palatable politically? Words are words. Actions speak truth.

          • JMax

            It’s not that they are less than palatable. It’s that he wants to give time for businesses to prepare to comply without penalty. Why is this a problem for you?

          • sjangers

            To respond to your question, I’m afraid I’m going to pull a line out of your playbook, Jim. When he makes this claim, I don’t believe him. It’s not consistent with his previous claims and behaviors.

          • JMax

            ” It’s not consistent with his previous claims and behaviors.”

            Really? How so?

          • sjangers

            Jim! Seriously?! Playing dumb is no way to make a point in a discussion. And if you’re not playing, well… you have my sympathy.

          • JMax

            So you throw out these vague and unsubstantiated assertions but have no answer when I ask you to back them up? I’m supposed just accept the idea of these “inconsistencies” because they “support” your position without any foundation?

            I don’t like having someone asking me to accept an undemonstrated assertion and then say I’m playing dumb if I don’t.

          • sjangers

            Jim, this is a game you play repeatedly in this forum. You make nitpicking demands that any post that leads to conclusions you don’t like be supported by well-documented evidence, even in cases where the evidence has been plain to see for anyone paying more than passing attention to the issue. If someone cites any authority as evidence on a point you dispute, you attack that authority’s credibility, airily dismiss their opinions, and refuse to accept the facts they cite or their conclusions. But if you offer general opinions and are asked to support them with specifics, you usually just walk away and attack somewhere else. You try to place an intellectual burden that you won’t accept for yourself on those who post opinions with which you disagree. It’s a tiresome, trollsome game. But I’m willing to play it with you one more time if the stakes are really going to make it worth the effort.

            Do you want to insist that the delays the President has unilaterally imposed on ACA implementation over the past eighteen months have all been about giving businesses time to comply without penalty with the provisions of the law, as you suggested in your earlier post? Do you insist that all delays and re-writes of the rules have been about making it easier for the law to work for people and have nothing to do with the President and his party playing politics for their own gain? Do you want to insist that the President’s justification for those delays has always been clear and consistent? Do you want to insist that any other explanation for those delays is unreasonable and is no more than partisan politics being played by those who oppose the President and his party? Those are four reasonably clear questions and each one should be answerable with a simple yes or no.

            If you want to make those claims, please state your position clearly right here and now. I’ll do the research and make the arguments necessary to prove exactly what you’re full of. And then that conclusion will follow you closely whenever you engage with other posters on this site. And it won’t matter if you change your user name again, I’ll put the time and effort into making sure you get limited satisfaction out of any future trolling here.

            So take a minute to think about it. Decide whether you want to fully embrace and own your inner troll or will simply settle for being a liberal gadfly in our indifferent soup. Then let me know how you want it to be. I don’t particularly enjoy being an arsehole, but I think I’ve finally had about enough of the nonsense and will do what I believe needs to be done.

          • JMax

            “this is a game you play repeatedly in this forum.”

            I’m not playing any games. I’m refuting nonsense or at least inaccuracies.

            “You make nitpicking demands that any post that leads to conclusions you don’t like be supported by well-documented evidence, even in cases where the
            evidence has been plain to see for anyone paying more than passing attention to the issue.”

            The evidence is NOT plain to see. You can’t expect to be able to make wild claims about what Obama thinks or what his motives are or that Obamacare after 90 days is failing and saying this has been plain to see when it is not plain to see but is the “conclusion” of someone with ODS.

            “If someone cites any authority as evidence on a
            point you dispute, you attack that authority’s credibility, airily dismiss their opinions, and refuse to accept the facts they cite or their conclusions.”

            Not true. I accept an authority’s credibility if their credibility is recognized by a diverse community and if they aren’t consistently an Obama basher or hang out with Obama bashers. That doesn’t mean I have to accept their opinions or conclusions if they are based on unprovable assumptions or assertions. If Thomas Sowell says that Obama is leading the US based on a socialist agenda, I’ll dismiss him in a heartbeat. If D’Sousa claims that Obama is possessed by a burning desire to carry out the anti-colonial agenda of his drunken father, I’ll call him an idiot with complete justification.

            People on this site are constantly saying “the evidence is plain to see”. No. It isn’t. And I am completely justified in asking for the proof. It never comes.

            “But if you offer general opinions and are asked to
            support them with specifics, you usually just walk away and attack somewhere else.”

            I usually? Examples?

            “You try to place an intellectual burden that you won’t accept for yourself on those who post opinions with which you disagree.”

            I reject that.

            “It’s a tiresome, trollsome game. But I’m willing to play it with you one more time if the stakes are really going to make it worth the effort.”

            Your call.

            “Do you want to insist that the delays the President has unilaterally imposed on ACA implementation over the past eighteen months have all been about giving businesses time to comply without penalty with the provisions of the law, as you suggested in your earlier post?”

            Yes. It is a reasonable conclusion. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

            “Do you insist that all delays and re-writes of the rules have been about making it easier for the law to work for people and have nothing to do with the President and his party playing politics for their own gain?”

            Yes. It is a reasonable conclusion. Do you have any proof to the contrary? Anybody could say that the president and his party’s desire to make the ACA work for people and business will bring political gain and I see nothing wrong with garnering political gain from helping people. I understand that the GOP operates from the opposite position.

            “Do you want to insist that the President’s justification for those delays has always been clear and consistent?”

            I don’t see anything particularly unclear or inconsistent. Maybe it’s just over some people’s head.

            “Do you want to insist that any other explanation for those delays is unreasonable”

            Unreasonable? No, but they are usually just speculation.

            “and is no more than partisan politics being played by those who oppose the President and his party? ”

            Primarily, yes.

            “Those are four reasonably clear questions and each one should be answerable with a simple yes or no.”

            I did but I elaborated. My call.

            “If you want to make those claims, please state your position clearly right here and now. I’ll do the research and make the arguments necessary to prove exactly what you’re full of. And then that
            conclusion will follow you closely whenever you engage with other posters on this site. And it won’t matter if you change your user name again, I’ll put the time and effort into making sure you get limited
            satisfaction out of any future trolling here.

            OK. My position is that most comments here are speculative and hyperbolic in nature and are based primarily on Obama Derangement Syndrome rather that fact. It is usually a simple task to refute them and that’s what I do. People shouldn’t be allow to get away with s**t without someone calling them on it.

            “So take a minute to think about it. Decide whether you want to fully embrace and own your inner troll or will simply settle for being a liberal gadfly in our indifferent soup. Then let me know how you want
            it to be.”

            I pick neither as I am neither.

            “I don’t particularly enjoy being an arsehole, but I think I’ve finally had about enough of the nonsense and will do what I believe needs to be done.”

            Knock yourself out.

          • sjangers

            I considered a comprehensive response to your last post. There was certainly enough absurdity deposited throughout it. Some of it was even rather unsanitary. But I’m going to limit this post to the salient points of contention from the origin of this thread. I think I have a better plan for the rest of your nonsense. But more on that later.

            This thread started with my complaint about the amount of dishonesty behind the political campaign that sold Obamacare to the country, as well as my frustration with the excessive number of delays that the Administration has imposed unilaterally during the implementation of the law. You suggested that delays were irrelevant. I said I thought they were relevant because they were about politics and had little to do with the stated intent of the law, as described by its supporters. You “rejected” my contention, disingenuously pointing out that the roll-out of the law is taking place during an election year (‘forgetting’ , perhaps, that several key provisions have been pushed off until after the election, as well as the fact that every second year we have general elections and that at least part of any multi-year roll-out is bound to occur in an election year). We had some more low-minded back and-forth that eventually ended with me challenging you to put your money where your keyboard is- figuratively speaking, of course- and come out with some plain answers to some straightforward questions. I asked four fairly simple questions of you and received moderately clear answers in response. So let’s consider them in order.

            First, I asked if you wanted to double down on your earlier contention that the Obama Administration’s delays in implementing the ACA hadn’t been about politics but had been about making it easier for businesses to comply with the law. Your response, in what appears to be a dull troll version of Ockham’s Razor was: “It is a reasonable conclusion”. And surprisingly, it is. But it’s not the most reasonable conclusion. Politics is actually by far the most reasonable conclusion. There’s really no comparison.

            Consider first that probably the only accurate claim we’ve heard about the ACA from its supporters is Nancy Pelosi’s too-honest assertion that we would have to pass the law to find out what’s in it. Just about everything else claimed by supporters- from projections about the impact of the law on health care costs, government expenditures, the number of people who would benefit, to the President’s insistence that if people liked their health care coverage they could keep it (he eventually had to admit rather sheepishly that he’d misspoken and meant to say “if I like your health care coverage you can keep it”), and if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor, and that families could expect to save an average of $2500 each year on their health care costs- turned out to be inaccurate, if one were inclined to be charitable. If inclined to be cynical, one might view them as deliberate deceptions to gain popular support for the law, or at least acceptance. So the first reasonable conclusion we can make about the Administration’s claim that delays were intended to make it easier for businesses to comply, is that if they said that’s the explanation then it’s much more likely that the actual explanation is something else.

            In assessing this claim, we should also consider
            the track record of the Obama Administration for taking into account the concerns of busines. Early public debate about the ACA, then discussion after the law was passed, unearthed a lot of opposition in the business community. Large businesses were less concerned about the law’s impact on them, but did warn about the disruptive impact on other businesses and on the economy. Small and medium-sized employers were much more vocal with their concerns about the impact the law could have on their business. But with the exception of two low-profile meetings with members of the business community, the President never reached out to them to hear their views. His public comments often sounded dismissive of business concerns about the law. The 2013 HR2667 that was intended to codify the Administration’s announced initial delay of the business mandate, designed to allay any business concerns that they could still face legal liability for deadlines in the ACA despite the Administration’s announced delay, was stalled when the business-loving President threatened to veto the bill if it reached his desk.

            Now we’re told that the Administration is delaying implementation of the business mandate again in order to make it easier for businesses to comply. Even if the suggestion didn’t strain credulity, there’s ample reason to question whether or not that’s even necessary now. More than ninety-five percent of businesses have fewer than fifty employees and won’t fall under the mandate to provide insurance for employees. Most large businesses already offer ACA-compliant health insurance policies to their full-time workers. Many medium-sized businesses have had plenty of time to prepare for the law. There’s only a relatively small number of businesses that will even be affected by delaying the employer mandate. Is it really about these few businesses? Or is it about the modest number of people who work for them who might have their coverage disrupted when the mandate kicks in?

            What would be the political fallout if there were a number of reports in the media about some workers receiving notices and facing uncertainty about their health insurance right before the election this coming November? Lots of Democrat Senate seats at stake. Obamacare unpopular. More scary stories about Obamacare causing disruption to workers’ health coverage. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen. But let’s do it for the employers. Because it’s the right thing to do.

            Boy! It seems awfully cynical to suggest that our President and the benevolent folks who brought us this wonderful health care upgrade would ever play politics with our lives, doesn’t it? We should probably dismiss that idea permanently from our thoughts, except… well, there are some curious coincidences about other delays and their timing. I mean, this employer mandate is being kicked down the road for the second time, and this time it won’t kick in until after voters go to the polls. The Administration and the Dems were pretty unnerved by the public fallout when the private insurance mandate went live this past fall. Kicking the employer mandate down the road is probably about settling unease, but it makes a lot more sense if it’s about settling political unease than about reassuring employers.

            And then we have the curious case of the push back of the second round of enrollment scheduled for later this year. Initially scheduled to begin on October 15 and to run through December 7, this period won’t start now until November 15- with the general election long over. And the end of the period has been pushed back until the middle of January. That’s slightly inconvenient timing (but probably necessary if enrollment doesn’t start until November 15). And there’s been no particular explanation for this delay, unless Kathleen Sebelius has made plans to be away working on her tan in late October- and I guess it could use some work. I can’t imagine why we would need to delay the second round a month. Except… oh!… Now there’s no risk that people will have trouble with the website until after the election is over, so frightened Dems don’t need to fear another round of negative news about Obamacare before the election. That might be it! Or maybe our business-loving President just decided to give average folk a delay so it wouldn’t look like he was giving businesses preferential treatment in delaying their mandate again. He probably just didn’t want people getting unfairly annoyed at his good friends in the job-creating sector. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it!

            So which explanation makes more sense? Would it be my cynical assessment that this Administration has never showed much concern about private enterprise- unless it was filling their campaign coffers- and that there are certainly some very direct political explanations that would make sense of some otherwise-unusual decisions to push back provisions of the ACA? Or does the Troll’s Razor lead to the more “reasonable conclusion”? Perhaps when pigs fly.

            In my second question I asked if you were sure that the many delays implementing the law, as well as changes to rules and regulations, were really about making it easier for the law to work for people and that they have nothing to do with the President and his party playing politics for their own gain. Once again you reached for the Troll’s Razor. You’re nothing if not consistent.

            I guess there’s probably no need to spend much time examining the number of exemptions that have been granted the President’s political allies. There’s also little need to dwell on how inflexible the President has been about responding to the legitimate concerns of religious groups that employ people to run charitable institutions. There’s also probably little need to go into the President’s assurance that people would be able to keep their health insurance plans, despite the fact that he already knew that wasn’t true years before he was making this pledge on the campaign trail in 2012. But it may be instructive to do so.

            I suppose I could offer some cynical speculation about what that campaign promise was really about- I mean, aside from the votes- but Charles Krauthammer has already hit the nail much more squarely and forcefully than I ever could. The worthy Dr. K noted in a column late last year that the promises of Obamacare- that another thirty million American would receive health care, that all sorts of additional free benefits would accrue to every one of us, and that it wouldn’t add one dime to our federal deficits- were utter nonsense.

            As Krauthammer observed, there was no way all those elements could coexist. There had to be a catch. And the catch was that implementation of Obamacare was actually intended to throw millions of Americans off their existing health insurance policies and into the health exchanges, where they would be forced to buy much more expensive coverage than they wanted or previously had, in order to help pay for the new people who were coming onto health insurance rolls. But if people were dumb enough to believe his weasely explanation that it had only happened because their bad apple insurance companies had been offering them sub-standard insurance policies, well so much the better.

            Obamacare was a cynical disruption of the existing health care system and it has already had a negative impact on millions of Americans. Whoever benefits from the ACA will necessarily do so on the back of someone else. The way Obamacare was sold and has been implemented was designed to hide that unfortunate truth from those who have paid that price or will soon do so.

            Next, I asked if you were sure that the President’s explanations for the Obamacare delays and changes had always been clear and consistent. You decided to mix things up a bit and play the patronizing card, suggesting that anything that wasn’t clear and consistent was only unclear because it was “over some people’s head”. Thanks, I think.

            I’ve already addressed a number of the ways that explanations for changes in the law have been unclear and deceptive. I should probably at least consider offering more evidence to support my position, but screw that! Everyone who has read this comment this far, and for whom it wasn’t over their head, has seen a number of examples. Anyone who’s been paying the least bit of attention over the past few years has seen it. Anyone who doesn’t have the hand of someone from the DNC up their butt, offering direction, will acknowledge the dissonance between the Administration’s claims about changes in implementation and the reality of the situation. They may attribute to ACA supporters less cynical motives than I do, but they know that justifications for changes and delays have been anything but clear and consistent.

            Finally, I asked if you thought that people who didn’t accept the Administration’s explanations for changes in Obamacare were being unreasonable. And you generously conceded that they probably weren’t being unreasonable. Again, thanks. Perhaps. You do apparently believe that their conclusions are no more than speculation, although you don’t reveal here the weight you would place on the validity of their speculation. Which seems to be a nice way of saying, if you’ll pardon my cynicism again, that we can think what we want but there’s no way we’ll ever prove it. And depending on the evidentiary standard required, you may be right. But since this case is being tried in the court of public opinion, where evidentiary standards aren’t always as strict as they may be in a court of law, I think there’s a pretty good chance that enough people will eventually see through the most transparent administration in history.

            I’m sure that your attempts to defend the President are honorable, particularly if you’re doing it for free, but by any reasonable standard they certainly appear to be misguided. The accumulation of Administration rationalizations for changes in the implementation of Obamacare, while certainly audacious, pale in comparison with the weight of rational assessment of the actual impact of the changes within our society. Taken in context with the Administration’s lengthy history of political manipulation, the conclusion becomes almost certain. What the Administration says it intends when it modifies the ACA will usually be, at best, no more than a partial explanation of their actual intent. Opinions may differ on the malevolence of that real intent, but I think more and more Americans are coming reluctantly to the realization that truth, like transparency, is in the eye of the beholder. And that President Obama and his political allies adhere to a lower, or at least more flexible, standard for truth than we’re used to seeing, even in our political leaders.

            Anyway, in closing- and to get briefly back to something I promised in my opening that I’d return to- we do have the matter of responding to the remainder of your post. I’ve decided that can wait. I suspect that you’re probably not through trolling at this site. I also plan to continue hanging around. I think that any time I find you getting too trollish with another poster, that I might juxtapose some of the more interesting claims you make in your last post with other posts you’ve offered here previously. There’s a really interesting inconsistency between the standards you claim to support and the standards to which you hold yourself. And it might surprise you, perhaps not in an entirely pleasant way, to learn that I’ve a record of all our exchanges, as well as a modest accumulation of some of your more memorable exchanges with others. In the future, posters being annoyed by your presence might appreciate the opportunity to consider the nature of the source of their frustration. That may make it easier for them to move on. Perhaps it will do the same for you.

          • JMax

            Troll:

            “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]”

            This is not me.

            I was in the process of answering your post point by point until I realized I was addressing someone who thinks I’m a troll and someone who thinks ill of Democrats in general and the president specifically so much that he can’t find anything good to say about them and their policies.

            We fundamentally disagree on pretty much everything.

            So I’m going to continue to post to Bernie’s blog because I have something to say, not because I want to stir up arguments.

          • sjangers

            Interestingly enough, that was exactly the definition of internet troll I used when I identified you. Of course, that definition goes on to add that not all trolls intend to troll, so perhaps that- and a disturbing lack of self-awareness- is why you say “(t)his is not me”. But despite your bald assertion, you are a troll.

            Your presence in this forum is disruptive and contributes nothing of value to the discussion. While you may really believe that all you are doing is calling other posters on speculative and hyperbolic comments, you do so in a nit-picky manner that makes it difficult to have any reasonable exchanges in the forum once you interject yourself. Posters who disagree with your positions are confronted with: skeptical challenges about facts from a poster’s personal story, blunt assertions that they are “ignorant” or that those they are listening to are “lying”, condescension, misdirection, unsupported assertions, rationalizations, deliberate incomprehension of posters’ intent, harassment, insults, vapid rationalizations for Democratic politicians and their policies, repeated assertions of information that has already been discredited in other posters’ exchanges with you… well, that seems enough for now. And that’s just a sample from posts you made to one of Bernie’s recent columns. You are a troll.

            When confronted by other posters with information that contradicts your “queries”, your usual response, aside from more of the above, is: to challenge the authority of the questioner’s facts, outright rejection of their information, facile rejection of their sources, refusal to accept the legitimacy of their argument based on your “moral principles”, in short, anything that dismisses the information you don’t want to be bothered with in a manner that doesn’t compel you to put much effort into justifying your response. You are a troll.

            I’ve noted in my previous post your tendency to try to hold other posters to standards you make no effort to apply to yourself. Somehow or other, your inconsistent standards of behavior and accuracy always seem to correspond to your needs. You are a troll.

            Your contention that you don’t have to accept the credibility of another poster’s authority unless “their credibility is recognized by a diverse community and if they aren’t consistently an Obama basher or hang out with Obama bashers” is a standard response when a poster confronts you with authority. Now that’s a conveniently flexible standard. Any inconvenient information can be dismissed in any number of ways. Claim that the authority’s credibility isn’t recognized by a diverse community. Claim that the authority is a consistent Obama basher. And if that charge won’t hold water, claim that they hang out with Obama bashers. Depending on how you choose to apply those standards, there are darned few credible authorities left out there. You don’t have to accept anything from anyone unless Chris Matthews lose his mind- or finds it- and offers an uncharacteristically trenchant observation. But then I suppose you’d probably just claim that Matthews has been known to have an occasional drink with Rachel Maddow, who has been known to have an occasional drink with Alan Colmes, who used to co-host a television show with the known Obama basher Sean Hannity- and there goes Matthews’ credibility. You set up insuperable conditions for any other poster to disagree with you. You are a troll.

            You suggest that your presence on this forum is merely to raise the standards of posters. You said: “People on this site are constantly saying ‘the evidence is plain to see’. No. It isn’t. And I am completely justified in asking for the proof. It never comes.” But it does come. Sometimes you just ignore it. Selectively, of course. You are a troll.

            For example, in my last post, I offered you a lengthy assessment of the unlikely reasons offered by the President and his supporters for changes in the implementation of the ACA. Rather than make an attempt to respond to some very clear and specific information, as well as the conclusions I reached based on that information, you responded: “I realized I was addressing someone… who thinks ill of Democrats in general and the president specifically so much that he can’t find anything good to say about them and their policies”, and declined to address the specifics of my post. In addition to not having the intellectual honesty to impose the same standards on yourself that you insist others adhere to, you and I have had enough exchanges over the past six months for you to know that your assertion isn’t even true. Making this allegation is a deliberate deception. You are a troll.

            Anyone who doubts the assertions I just made about the nature of your presence here can look over your past posts by clicking on your user profile and will clearly see that your claim isn’t true. If you have any doubts, you can check it out yourself. But if you do, you’ll no longer have the excuse that you don’t intend to troll because you didn’t know that’s what you were doing. Not that it matters. As that definition you provided goes on to point out, you don’t have to intend to sow discord and be disruptive to qualify for the label. You are a troll.

            Taking money, or even just pats on the head from the DNC, makes no difference to the definition. These days it won’t even affect your Olympic eligibility. Professional or amateur, you are a troll.

      • sjangers

        I’m not rooting for failure, Eagle, although I do think that’s more likely than not the outcome of the ACA. But what’s the point of taking us so far down this road without any clear sense that it will work? Or of any honest way of measuring whether the ACA is really achieving what it was purported to accomplish? Dishonest claims of success while we stall implementation so that the flaws don’t become too obvious isn’t real success. That’s just failure wrapped up with a pretty pink bow. And by the time Christmas finally gets here, so we can unwrap the present and see what it really is, it will be too late to return it and get our money back.

        • legal eagle

          You are making the classic argument against “change” in any government or personal decision….The previous system was not sustainable because costs were out of control..
          the ACA may work out well and it may not. Adjustments will be necessary …Change is a bitch particularly if it doesn’t suit you political ideology….

          • sjangers

            Do you know why there might be such a thing as a “classic” argument against change, Eagle? Because we have ample evidence throughout history that change isn’t always a good thing.

            The simple fact that we’ve identified a “problem” doesn’t necessarily suggest that any plan we devise to address that problem is a good idea. And sadly, that often appears to be that pathetic defense offered by the supporters of the ACA. To paraphrase your closing line: Change is a bitch; particularly if the change you embrace only ends up making things worse than they would have been had you done nothing at all.

          • legal eagle

            I don’t disagree…Change is not always good but it’s always inevitable….My question is why your complaining about ACA and not complaining about the outrageous system of hospital costs that exist in the U.S.?
            My other question is why the Republicans haven’t proposed a viable alternative?
            I would suggest you do some research on how Medicare Part D, which was passed by a Republican Congress and POTUS, became a cave-in to the drug industry….FOLLOW THE MONEY….

          • sjangers

            I complain about both, Eagle. This forum tends to foster discussions about public policy. But I’m perfectly willing to criticize the greed of private and corporate health care providers, pharmaceutical and medical device providers, educational institutions that make it increasingly expensive for people to become health care providers, that portion of our legal system that preys on the anger, frustration and greed of private individuals who may have been inadequately served by the health care system, and the unreasonable expectations of each of us.

            As I’ve said before, I think in conversation with you, the Republicans have probably been reluctant to propose a viable alternative because there really is no clear solution. There may be many solutions proposed that will clearly be counterproductive, but productive solutions have been a little harder to come by. I think that if Republicans could come together around a plan that seemed likely to meet the nation’s health care needs, and that didn’t look like political suicide, we would hear from them.

            I’ll speak a little heresy here to help foster discussion, and hope that’s all it fosters. Personally, based in part on a crude assessment of functionality and in part based on my assessment of what the public is coming to demand of its government, I think we might begin to consider an annual citizen benefit based on a rough cafeteria plan. We ought to come to some general consensus on the fundamental “rights” all citizens should have in order to promote “life” in our society. Basic food, shelter, clothing, and health care seem like a reasonable place to start. Determine an average cost for the subsistence level required in each area for people living in units of four or more individuals. Make that amount the value of the annual citizen benefit, provide each individual that benefit in some form that makes it difficult to use the benefit in any other way (EBT card, housing voucher, health care voucher), and then let people make their own decisions, and agreements with providers, about how best to satisfy their needs with the resources available to them. Everyone would have the resources to achieve at least a basic level of existence. Those who wanted to contribute private resources might improve on that basic level. Government would serve as a facilitator and not as a provider.

            I won’t get any more long-winded than that with a starting-place suggestion for discussion, but I think it’s worth considering. But as you look around this forum- and perhaps as posters begin to respond to this post with reckless speculation about my birth, mental health, loyalty to country, etc.- you’ll probably also be reminded of how difficult it is for anyone to build political consensus for solutions to social problems. Which is one reason I often find myself criticizing extreme solutions of left or right, and making occasional efforts to keep discussion civil. We really need to be reminded that we are all in this together. Pushing solutions that will satisfy one special interest and enrage another, using dishonest or inflammatory arguments in debate, or demonizing those who don’t share our point of view, are things that will only continue to divide us. And that’s only going to make it even more difficult to focus the political will to build consensus around finding solutions for shared problems.

  • Roy

    How am I counted? I signed up and was turned down by PA Medicaid…..out of work. Zero income.

    • JMax

      Turned down for what reason?

      • sjangers

        He may have used you as a reference, Jim. ; )

        • JMax

          LOL

      • legal eagle

        Think Roy will actually tell you?….LOL

        • JMax

          Doubtful.

  • Concernedmimi

    Yeah, Bernie; these are the death panels Sarah Palin warned us about, remember?! Unlike democrats who ALL voted for this monstrosity of a bill, some people actually READ it.