Obamacare Debacle Is Non-Partisan

Obamacare Debacle Is Non-Partisan

People can spin the Obamacare issue any way they like, but the Obamacare debacle is non-partisan. And that should bother everyone. Let's face it, it isn't just a botched roll-out that should concern people it should be the fact that Barack Obama, the President of the United States, stood in front of the American People and flat out lied!

You know I have always said that I was not opposed, per se, to the idea of a National Health Care Plan but I also did not think it was something that should be turned into a one size fits all or an all or nothing type of thing either.

I mean what is the point of mandating pregnancy and prenatal coverage to women beyond their child-bearing years or an aged man getting vasectomy coverage? Yet President Barack Obama would have you believe that the tailored health plans many enjoy today are somehow substandard while trying to justify the higher rates or higher deductible plans people are now seeing under Obamacare. Yeah right.

And what about this illusion that the majority of people will be reimbursed or even qualify for tax credits? Hell most folks already have a difficult time reaching the 7.5% Internal Revenue Service threshold for itemization on medical deductions and if memory serves me correctly - that threshold will be going up to 10%. And if tax credits are to be strictly based on income, well we all know how that works - at least those of you who have had to deal with filling out FAFSA applications for their children going to college. In short, unless you are way below the poverty line you won't qualify for any substantial credits because government formula tend to ignore the most basic of realistic family living conditions.

Hell, by the government's standard my wife and I make way too much money despite our "real life" circumstances. And as such our son had to think long and hard before committing to taking out the student loans he needed to get a higher education. Yeah I know, woe is me and my wife and I should have done this and done that - blah blah blah - I  have heard it all. But guess what? The majority of us are one calamity away from financial ruin despite doing all the so-called right things.

And just so you know we did everything right as millions of others have!

It still bothers the hell out of me how Wall Street speculators and derivative bundlers and re-bundlers remain unjailed after millions of us have lost substantial values in our homes and/or whatever investments we were able to tuck away for those rainy days. Hey we didn't do anything wrong you sons of b*&#$es - you did! And yet the markets move ever on protected by powerful lawmakers on both sides of the aisle firmly entrenched in the envelope swapping carousel known as Capitol Hill.

So did we really think, or expect, government to get Health Care right?

Really?

But you know I really have to wonder what the Average Joe's who were heaping praise on a president were thinking as they ignored all the obvious signs that the politically connected were singing a much different tune? Namely one that included the lyrics of "there is fricking gold written into those unread pages" of what will become known as the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Look it was no accident that the health care industry was quietly going through a metamorphosis with mergers and consolidations prior to full implementation of the law.

It seems everyone connected with the healthcare industry as well as the White House already knew that the cost of insurance would go up for most people and that those Obama campaign-speak comments of "if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan” or "if you already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance” were outright lies!

So guess what? It doesn't really matter what side you stand on when it comes to Obamacare. Because lying to your face is non-partisan!

Wake Up America!

Comments

Leave a comment
  • What is amazing is the level of denial that is going on in the media and amongst Donkey and Elephant politicians.

    Another frightening aspect is that now that the federal government is the largest customer of most health care insurance providers, is how they are being told to praise the Emperor and his new clothes.

    Welcome to a Brave New World, indeed.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard, as the person on www.Huxley.net wrote: "Brave New World is an unsettling, loveless and even sinister place"

    Thanks for reading and commenting, yes it is very sad this level of denial. But even more disconcerting is the fact that President Obama and members of his administration have shown us a pattern of lying whether it be about Solaris, Benghazi or Obamacare. And if that doesn't bother the average person then I just don't know to what they believe in or where their moral compass lies.

  • I was going to stay out of this, but will post a link to what I think is a fair summary of what is really happening.

    I questioned earlier BCBSIL saying reenrollment was required in new plans which seemed to have higher deductibles or very limited networks, but I wonder if the prior scum who tried to raise me 35% just decided to cancel everyone. I wasn't around to find out. In any event, the administration didn't explain the BCBS phenomenon noted with respect to the Philadelphia BCBS carrier in that article. Of course, Richard had to admit that he was not "forced into the exchange," like he first posted.

  • In reply to jack:

    Hiya Jack, you know I am not sure about the BCBS phenomenon either, but the more I read it seems the East Coast (in particular) has had different types of coverage they make available for consumers than maybe what they offer in other parts of the country or states that have more stringent regulation. New Jersey residents, for instance, are not as well protected as even those of us here in Illinois. And that seems to be across a wide variety of insurance. There have been some real horror stories re: Sandy Hook residents. So maybe someone at BCBS just decided hey if we have to comply at a different level than they need to cancel. That of course also allows them to charge higher premiums. So perhaps that's the deal in Philly (and why Obama made the remark about "sub-standard" policies? But that isn't the case all over nor does it explain why POTUS lied - which in this post is the bigger issue for me. Obama just didn't level with people and that includes his staunchest supporters it seems - and they should ask themselves a few important questions about that.

    As for being forced into the exchange, I am not sure about Richard's circumstances but I do know once I became disabled I was forced to take Medicare as my primary and our original insurance became secondary (for me anyhow). And I didn't think that right given we are still paying that policy for the rest of the family. So for us - it is double zap in that regard.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Blue Cross-Blue Shield was originally a collection of local cooperatives, but somehow (like the Auto Clubs) were taken over by various companies, and hence there is the tag line here "a division of Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company," while the article I cited mentioned "Independence Blue Cross," Pittsburgh has Highmark, etc., and most use the tagline: "an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association." Also, originally Blue Cross was not considered insurance, but similar to an HMO that put the risk on the doctors, but insurance laws were soon amended to recognize that it was insurance.

    The only reason I cited Philadelphia Blue Cross was that the description there was similar to what happened here, i.e. people had to reenroll instead of the prior plans being grandfathered. As I mentioned, the administration did not address that through its "substandard policy" remark.

    As far as different states having different coverage laws, that appears to have always been the case, as I previously received letters about my right to mammograms under Illinois law, even though there is not a female on the policy.

    I understand your description of your situation, but I would inquire in such a case whether the law changed the prior result that private insurance is secondary as to you, if preexisting conditions no longer may be considered in determining eligibility. However, someone obviously has to pay for the rest of your family, although I don't know if only your wife can be listed as the "named insured," and that would save you any money.

    My understanding of "being forced on the exchange" was like if an employer dropped coverage because it had under 49 employees, Emanuel saying that the city wouldn't cover retirees under its plans, etc. Even in that event, it appears that one can get the subsidy and then take it to any health insurer willing to sell policies in Illinois, rather than be forced to buy the insurance on the nonworking exchange.

  • In reply to jack:

    Wow Jack you definitely know your BCBS - thanks for sharing to those of us who may have forgotten (or didn't know). As for my situation, I don't think Obamacare negates the Medicare rules and they remain. I did, however inquire with Illinois and they are in lockstep with Federal rules governing the disabled & Medicare. As for our longtime policy well at least the wife and kid are still covered and they too will comply with the prevailing Obamacare rules - nothing has changed from the paperwork my wife received from her retirement plan administrator and even the premiums for the next year remain about the same as this years. By the way, if something catastrophic or major surgery were needed for me the insurance even as secondary kicks in immediately so I suppose we are more fortunate than some as ComEd has kept its promises to retirees although who knows what is down the road as companies reevaluate their plans vs obligations under the law.

    And already we are hearing about those who aren't. Businesses are reducing work hours to limit or deny coverage to force people onto the exchanges is just the tip of the iceberg as employers look for an Obamacare work around. Naturally, that will just wind up costing taxpayers more. Especially after states must go it alone after the initial period. I just don't know how this will all work out in the end but I can already see that the younger folks that much of the figures are based on will opt to pay fines rather than buy costly plans with high deductibles. There goes the key metrics they were counting on?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Medicare wouldn't have been affected. My only question would have been if the eligibility requirements for the private policy were. Other than that, I don't want to get into your personal business.

    With retirees, the issue is that ERISA only covers pensions, not health insurance, and most companies sent out letters that retirees don't have a contract right to it. Apparently, this also applies to state employees, if we believe anything about the negotiations over the nonexistent pension reform bill.

    Given that the states have already been given the opportunity to opt out as a result of the Supreme Court opinion (10th amendment stuff), the only question is what states like Florida do to cover increased Medicaid (not Medicare) costs that the feds would have covered, at least for the short term, while it still appears to be the law that hospitals are not allowed to turn away anyone who makes it to the door.

    Your last point is the one everyone else who has doubts about the program has,and gets down to Roe Conn's point that the tax penalty won't work, and then the government will have to go to single payer, which, surprisingly, Republicans say is clearly constitutional.

  • In reply to jack:

    The only requirement was that the annual Medicare out-of-pocket deduction be met (as well as their own) before they begin paying as secondary. Of course their out-of-pocket is higher so that can become a double edged sword but I suppose their reasoning is that Medicare covers x amount negotiated rate anyhow. As for the ERISA yeah I hear you but ComEd has, at least thus far, kept their promises. But we will have to wait and see what, if anything, pops up under regulations buried deep in Obamacare down the line.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    On your last point, it was mentioned on one of the talk shows today that the reason that the employer mandate was put off was whether plans purchased by employers from insurers could be made compliant in time. However, unlike that health care, someone said that self administered employer plans came under ERISA rather than ACA.

    ComEd may also raise the issue whether the health care program is part of a negotiated union contract, as opposed to employers in nonunion shops, which pretty much can offer what they feel like.

  • In reply to jack:

    Interesting makes sense though I guess since our ComEd plan is part of a negotiated union contract. Thanks.

  • To get back to something we discussed about a year ago, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the tax dodge used in Channahon and Kankakee, holding that Illinois does not have a sales tax but a retailer's occupation tax, and that is collectable where the company has sufficient business operations. So, your instinct that United's fuel operation had a taxable situs near O'Hare turns out to be correct. Sun Times.

    Also, in the opinion, the tax is abbreviated ROT. Bit of irony there.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, thanks so much for that update as well as your tax abbreviation. Seems to me ROT is not only ironic but apropos. Have a great weekend. Sorry haven't posted in awhile - just not feeling 100% these days.

Leave a comment