Obamacare. Obama Lied. Period.

After receiving two notices this past summer from my insurance company letting me know “changes” were coming, I didn’t quite hold my breath but wasn’t surprised when I finally received the “changes” that President Obama promised over and over and over ad nauseum wouldn’t happen.

My husband (now retired) was a sole practitioner.  I worked for him.  For over fifteen years, we bought our own health insurance.  When he applied for Medicare, I had to get my own policy in 2011 which cost me $491 a month.  I was pleased with the policy and coverage and I could live with the premium.  Now, leave me alone.

Well, my pleasure didn’t last two long because in January of 2012 – just three months later – my monthly premium went up $30 to $521.  Although the letter I received with the rate increase read, “Most of the rate increase will be used to cover rising medical costs.  The rest of the increase will be used to cover other business costs and our contribution to the Washington State Health Insurance Pool (WSHIP), which offers health coverage for purchase by state residents who’ve been unable to buy it,”  my broker said the rate increase was due to Obamacare.  Okay.  First lie.  My premium went up.

Fast forward to October 2013.  For the new “comparable” plan, my premium goes up to $551.51, another $30 increase.  I called the company and the very nice gentleman (who probably knew more about Obamacare than the bozos in Congress who passed it) explained that, yes, the premium went up but my total out-of-pocket expenses will be lower.  Well, I don’t care about that because I’ve never met the threshold and I’ve never even come close to the new lower out-of-pocket expense maximum either.  The new policy also requires me to make co-payments when I visit my doctor which I never had to do before.

Despite assurances from the President who rammed this crap down our throats, I still have to pay more each month even though I was happy with my previous plan which he said I could keep.  Lie #2.

The “bronze plan” I have to accept (unless I want to pay even more for a silver or gold plan), includes maternity and newborn care, as well as pediatric services, which I’m never going to use.  The representative assured me that the premium has been adjusted to reflect my age and the fact I won’t need these benefits.  (So why include the information and premium table in my paperwork?   If the premium listed reflects my age correctly, then the brochure shouldn’t include those benefits.)

More importantly, I’m also unsure whether I’ll be able to keep my doctor under this new plan – he may make a business decision that the “bronze plan” just isn’t going to pay enough.  Keeping my doctor was also something President Obama also promised.  Potential lie #3.

I never believed President Obama when he was forcing Obamacare on all of us.  I knew he was lying because none of what he said made sense.  So, lie to me once, twice and possibly three times, forget it.  I don’t believe a word he says now about anything.

Why I’m stuck with this increase in premiums when I was perfectly happy with my old policy, yet a whole lot of corporations and other entities are exempt from participating in this fiasco, is something I don’t get.  Maybe if I knew for which one of these policies the Obamas are signed up, I’d feel a little better.  But probably not.

Most importantly, from a constitutional point of view, I’d like to know where in the Constitution does it authorize a President to grant exemptions to certain individuals/corporations/entities when a bill has been legitimately passed by Congress, signed into law, and determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be constitutional.  How does a President, who swore to uphold the laws of the United States, get to pick and choose which parts of a law he will enforce?

I say, “Repeal the whole thing or enforce it in its entirety on everyone.”  I’d love to hear one Republican in Congress say it.

Bottom line is I’m now paying $60 more a month for something Obama said wouldn’t happen.  I get it.  He lied.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • HBI

    Love the two wrongs make a right logic. Nobody likes being lied to and for every winner, there is a loser having to pay for it. Instead of boo hooing, you should be thanking them.

  • Mkk

    Remember when malpractice premiums were supposed to stabilize or decrease because of pain and suffering limits in med malpractice cases? That didn’t happen either. Lies from the right too. Fact is congress passed aca. Before aca my husbands illness would have caused skyrocketing premiums or cancellation of coverage. I love aca. Boo hoo sixty bucks a month, less than your cable bill.

    • Jeff Webb

      >>Boo hoo sixty bucks a month,<<

      Obama considered these sorts of things a huge enough deal that he repeatedly stressed they would never happen, so go throw your attitude at him.

  • D Parri

    Leona,
    I see that you have Legal Weasel as a contributor. Not only is he a liar, but he is an admitted pervert also. That is one of his tactics as a robo-attack democrat. He has nothing useful to say and I refuse to answer any of his comments directed at me.

    What you related here was your actual experience, and you were honest about it. The thorny opposition is determined to attack for any reason and their attack is invariably off-subject. This always happens when those who present such drivel have nothing worthwhile to offer. Politics, ya’ gotta’ love it!

  • Jon Slater

    video on how obama makes sure the public accept obamacare – http://youtu.be/52aFfMCYTrQ

  • Roger Ward

    In the early days of the ancient Roman republic, the Romans came to be known as master road builders, with the benefits of their expansive network accruing to everyone in the Empire. Before the Senate became corrupt and changed the practice, it was the Roman policy that people should have some skin in the game if they were to be allowed to play. Whenever they completed a new bridge or overpass, they would test it for durability by gathering the architects and builders beneath it and then marching a legion across at a quick-step. The obvious philosophy was that the constructors had to stand up for their projects — with their lives. Can you imagine any member of our corrupt, evasive Senate putting some of their skin in the Obamacare game? They are willing to create and pass crushing legislation which will bankrupt the country and not achieve their stated goals — all the while exempting themselves from the same laws that will cripple us. For shame!!

    • Ron F

      Roger, I could be wrong but it is my understanding that Congress persons and staff are not exempt from the Affordable Care Act. They have to participate in the exchanges. The difference between them and other participants in the exchanges is I believe Congress and staff will be reimbursed for 75% of the cost. Since most employers pay 70% – 80% of the cost of health insurance, they are not being treated differently than other employees. This does show how confusing the Affordable Care Act is because none of us are sure about what is in it.

      • Roger Ward

        Ron, my principal points regarding Congressional exemptions are: (1) when this whole thing shakes out, Congress and staff will have a deal that is loaded in their favor, exclusive to them, and unavailable to the public, (2) Congress, right from the inception of the ACA, has made it clear that they don’t want to be included in any program offered to the average citizen, (3) Congress protected their perks early on by writing into the initial legislation that they are to be judged differently from the great, unwashed masses. and (4) there is no basis for your belief that most employers pay 70%-80% of the cost of health insurance (or that employers will be obligated to pay any part of such cost, going forward.)

        • Ron F

          Roger, i was off but not by much. According to a study of family health insurance benefits between 2003 and 2013 62% of employees received employer paid for family health insurance benefits and the average employer contribution was $11,786 of a $16,351 premium, or 72%. I agree that Congress has had carve outs for itself and staffers and have exempted themselves from most legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. But as I understand it, members of Congress and staff will have to join the exchanges and we will reimburse them for 75% of the premium. I do not know if most private employers will make their employees join the exchanges instead of participating in a company sponsored group plan and not pay a portion of the premium. Maybe they will but we do not know yet. If not members of Congress and staff are not being treated differently than most private sector employees under the Affordable Care Act. But who knows if down the road they find a way to exempt themselves from having to participate in the exchanges.

        • Ron F

          Roger, in my below post I should have added that the figures were for 2013. The study compared changes from 2003 to 2013. What was disturbing in the study is premiums went up 80% in the ten years and the employers’ contributions dropped slightly from 73.4% to 72%

  • D Parri

    Repeal ACA? How about impeach Obama.

  • D Parri

    Leona,
    I don’t think that Obama could care less about whether you are better off with the ACA or whether you like it or not. He is so far removed from those who will be hurt the most and he cannot relate to the average person except in terms of PR.

    • legal eagle

      Leona,
      D Parri knows as much about the law as Sarah Palin….Ignore his stupidity…

  • D Parri

    Leona,

    You asked about where it is in the Constitution that authorization to grant exemptions, waivers, and subsidies is given to the president. Well, did you get a copy of the new Obama Constitution? There are not many out yet. As a matter of a fact, Obama might have the only copy. You’ll need to look at a copy of his version to find the provision to grant such authority.

    You see, without being able to cite from the Obama Constitution it is impossible to give you a good reference to his new self-assigned authority. For this reason I can only give references to other pertinent information using the old U.S. Constitution. Things like this…

    “…it is a breach of the National fundamental law if Congress gives up its legislative power and transfers it to the President, or to the Judicial branch, or if by law it attempts to invest itself or its members with either executive power or judicial power.” http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation04.html#f51

    and…
    “…a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.” (SC decision in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), a case whereby the SCOTUS repealed the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996)

  • D Parri

    It will be quite interesting to hear the defense of ACA proponents a year from now. More and more real-time data will be available and the veil of misinformation will be removed for all to see.

    I predict that at that time the defense will shift to something more like, “Well, we now have 1,ooo consumers signed up and covered who could have never obtained a policy anywhere.” How about, “The package of benefits that I now have is just what I needed. As a 48 year old male I had never dreamed that I would be able to get maternity benefits. It’s great!”

  • Ron F

    President Obama also said that the Affordable Care Act would cause the increase in medical costs to decrease. This is more important to me than the cost of insurance since I think the costs have the potential to bankrupt the country. I think since before 1990 medical costs have been growing at about double the increase in growth in GDP so that medical costs are now approximately 18% of GDP and are projected to reach 20% before 2000, I think. I think he is wrong on this prediction as well since medical costs in Massachusetts, with its health care program, have increased at a faster rate than national health care costs.

  • Ron F

    I don’t know if being wrong with a prediction as to what private insurance companies will do is a lie. If the Affordable Care Act does not turn out to be as bad as pundits are predicting, it does not mean the pundits are lying, just that they are wrong. If every Act that Congress passed which was supposed to save money in the long run or increase economic activity which would increase taxes paid did what it was supposed to, we would not have a deficit today. Very view Acts of Congress have done what was promised. It does not mean the proponents lied, only that they were wrong. I had a private plan with my employer. The yearly increases, on a percentage basis, prior to the Affordable Care Act, were much larger than the two increases in your case. In addition, the deductible was raised from $500.00 to $1,750.00 and the co-payments were increased. If an insurance company changes plans or if doctors retire, it does not mean the President was lying except to the extent the plans have to include benefits that were not included before. Group health insurance plans have always included benefits that not everyone could use. On the other hand, I also think the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster. I may not think the President lied, but I think he is wrong. I also think the President has no authority under the law or Constitution to grant waivers or to suspend a portion of it. I wish the Republicans would stop saying the President should negotiate with them or talk to them. If the President did not have the power to change the laws by granting waivers and suspending a portion of it, the Republicans should just take the position that they will not fund the law until the law is being enforced as written.

    • legal eagle

      “you think the ACA will be a disaster”? Quite a generalization based upon what facts?

      • Ron F

        Legal Eagle, that is why I said I think it will be a disaster. It hasn’t been in place long enough for there to be any facts to show that it will be a success or failure. The main reason I think it will be a disaster is based somewhat on the Massachusetts plan in which I understand medical costs have risen at a higher percentage than nationally. With medical costs approaching 20% of GDP I do not think we can continue to have medical costs increase at a faster rate than GDP. Second, if the ACA was so good, why has the President had to grant so many waivers and postpone the implementation of the employer mandate and removal of lifetime caps. Third, the projected costs are now much higher then what they estimated when the ACA was enacted. On the other hand, according to Paul Krugman, as of 2009 medicare costs rose less that premiums for private insurance plans. I think something has to be done about health care costs and I do not think the Republicans in Congress have offered a plan that would work as well.

        • D Parri

          This guy is an idiot and he always has the same attacks. He’s just cutting and pasting the same comments over and over again in various blogs. He is also a pervert freak.

          • legal eagle

            Too logical for you? I thought so..

          • D Parri

            Well, isn’t that odd…that’s exactly what I thought you would think–just as I intended! LOL!

        • legal eagle

          I hope the ACA works out as well as Medicare and I believe it will….Time will tell, so lets discuss it in 2018…

          • Ron F

            Legal Eagle, in response to my post you said “based upon what facts”. Your response to my response was you hope the ACA works as well as Medicare an you believe it will. At least you admit at this point in the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, there are no facts and that we are all making arguments on what we think will happen. As you say, time will tell.

          • Ron F

            Legal Eagle, there are some facts that would indicate that the ACA will be a disaster, the number of waivers the President has had to give and his postponement of the employer mandate and I believe the removal of caps. Further, I do not know of what authority he has to grant waivers to an act of Congress or to postpone enforcement of a portion of it.

          • legal eagle

            You can read what you want into the waivers…whether they were for political purposes, operational purposes or other purposes I have no idea…
            As an attorney I can speak to the issue of Presidential authority. Unless the ACA explicitly states so, HHS has the right to administer the act any way it deems best.
            If there is a dispute about Presidential/Government agency powers the Courts are the one who decide the dispute. Trust the fact that if HHS had exceeded it’s authority, an action would have been brought long ago by a right wing group. To the best of my knowledge, no litigation has been brought because the law was passed and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court….
            If you believe that HHS has exceeded it’s authority the Courts are the trier of fact not the political pundits or other politicians…

          • Ron F

            A right wing group would not have standing to bring an action alleging the President exceeded his authority. And what law or Court case allows a President to grant waivers to a law unless the authorizes the President to grant waivers? And what Constitutional provision, law or case allows the President to suspend the implementation of a portion of a law when the law specifies the date of implementation?

          • legal eagle

            Standing is for the Court to decide…. First you file the suit, in the name of an individual then you see how the ruling goes on standing….
            Again, the fact that a right wing legal organization has not brought suit mean to me that there is no case against HHS administering the program as it sees fit….

        • legal eagle

          It “may” be a disaster, it “may” not……………

    • D Parri

      The ACA will be one of the worst programs in history to fail. I’m willing to wait a year for proof of that. However, it probably won’t take that long.

  • TOMMY FREEDOM

    He lied ? What a Shock ! See what the Book of Revelation states about
    All Liars !!!

  • Wheels55

    I buy the insurance for my company. Every year lately there is a increase. We shop around and at times change carriers – usually resulting in level or lower premiums. I always ask my current carrier why the increase. The answer is broken down between our group experience, general medical cost increases and the effects of Obamacare. That’s right, there is always a portion of the increase due to Obamacare. Thanks Obama, you just made it tougher for business to provide healthcare for its employees and their families.

    • legal eagle

      and why did insurance premiums go up before Obamacare?
      Do you think the company would have told your insurance premiums increased because of corporate greed?

      • Wheels55

        Those of us with business minds do not think in terms of corporate greed. The reason is due to greed alone is not rewarded in the market place.
        Consider that insurance carriers average only about 3 to 5% on the bottom line. The government is not in business to make a profit. Now imagine what percentage of tax dollars are wasted by the Feds (I imagine at least 20%) and you can see how a single payer government run health insurance option will cost us much more than we now pay in today’s markets (the 20% waste replacing the greedy 5% bottom line). Dealing with insurance companies is not perfect, but better run than government insurance.
        Also remember, by buying insurance, you are asking the carrier to share your risk. There is a price for that – deal with it.

        • legal eagle

          I would respectfully disagree with your estimate of insurance company profits…..

        • Ron F

          Wheel a year ago the average return was something like 4.4% but the health insurance industry had a very high return on investment

          • legal eagle

            I stand corrected….The net profit percentage is correct….Somewhat similar numbers to the oil industry…

        • legal eagle

          Are you going to cite the basis for your estimate of insurance company profits ?

          • Ron F

            Legal, you disagreed with the estimate. What do you believe health insurance company profits are and what is the basis for your belief?

    • D Parri

      Facts don’t bother Legal Weasel. He’s just an attack idiot.

  • chief98110

    Remember the, “Bush Lied” bumper stickers. Where can I get my Obama lied
    sticker? Oh, I forgot Obama gets a pass on everything he gets wrong
    because the press loves this moron.

    • legal eagle

      The slogan was “Bush Lied and People Died”…..it was the truth wasn’t it?

  • legal eagle

    So you blame Obama for your insurance premium increasing? Can you tell us the last year insurance premiums did not increase?
    Now I understand the talking point…every time insurance premiums increase it’s Obama’s fault…When premiums increased annually before 2009 they were the insurance company’s fault…

    • Jeff Webb

      At least you didn’t try to claim he wasn’t a liar.

      • D Parri

        But Legal Weasel is a liar. It does no good to debate him honestly. Take a look at any one of his posts. They’re all the same. Some kind of a robo-pit bull attack freak.

  • Roger Ward

    You should be happy you’re only paying $60 a month more. I guarantee that in a year or two, when this law is fully implemented, you’ll be paying much more …. and with less coverage. You can rest assured that your representatives in Congress will have favorable terms …. terms that are not available to you or to the American public. Although he lies about specifics, there is one thing Obama never lied about: he said he was going to fundamentally change America …. and he has!

  • G. Daylan

    The President, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid constantly interchange the terms “Health Care” and “Health Insurance” when talking about the ACA. Indeed, the C” in ACA stands for “Care” but the Act only provides for insurance. Is this lying or parsing?

  • gold7406

    ACA = New Coke
    just a matter of time.