Tag Archives: Affordable Care Act

Rising Obamacare premiums anger those paying full price

We tried to warn you.
From CNN Money: Shela Bryan, 63, has been comparing prices for individual health insurance plans since May, and she can’t believe what she sees. “They cost a thousand, $1,200 [a month], and they have a deductible of $6,000,” she said. “I don’t know how they think anyone can afford that.”
Bryan, who lives in Hull, Georgia, a hamlet of about 200 residents near Athens, was on her husband Tony’s insurance plan for decades. When Tony died in 2013, she continued his workplace coverage through COBRA, and she had to pay almost the full price of the insurance — about $800 a month. That was high, but it was “the Cadillac of insurance,” Bryan said, with low copays, prescription drug coverage and a $500 deductible. That option will run out in a few months.
Obamacare Screw U
So she is turning to the individual insurance marketplace in what is shaping up to be the most expensive year for the 400,000 or so consumers in Georgia who buy individual policies but don’t purchase them on the Obamacare exchanges.
About 10 million Americans buy individual insurance coverage either on or off the exchanges and get no federal subsidies to help bring down the cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About the same number get the financial assistance for the plans they purchase on the exchanges.
“For those receiving subsidies, the subsidy protects them against the increase. If they’re not eligible, they’ll be paying a lot more. And the more premiums go up, the higher the cliff,” said William Custer, a health policy and insurance expert at Georgia State University.
In Georgia, consumers who don’t get insurance through their employers or don’t qualify for tax credits to help pay for policies they purchase are facing double-digit premium increases. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, the only insurer offering plans throughout the state, received an increase of more than 21% from the state insurance commissioner. Humana was awarded a 67.5% hike.
Numbers like those are rattling other states too. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee was granted a 62% rate hike, while state officials approved a 46% increase for Cigna. Florida authorities gave plans there an average 19% bump. And last week, Minnesota officials announced that premiums for the seven insurers on the individual market are rising 50% to 67%.
The insurers are now adjusting for some miscalculations, said Graham Thompson, executive director of the Georgia Association of Health Plans. “The prices are up this year, but our hope is that things will settle down after this year,” he said.
While consumers have faced sticker shock, the insurers have faced what might be called “sicker shock,” which has sent their prices spiraling. They are adjusting premiums after finding that the pool of clients buying plans on the individual market were sicker and more costly than expected when the health law was implemented.
Judge Judy shakes head rolls eyes
Almost two-thirds of Americans get their coverage from plans offered through their workplaces. But those who don’t can buy either on or outside the health law’s marketplaces, also called exchanges. Those with marketplace coverage who earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level — $47,520 for an individual — are entitled to a subsidy, and federal officials say most will pay less than $75 a month for insurance.
Policies sold off the marketplaces must still meet health law standards and the same prices as plans offered on the exchange, according to Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. Federal and Georgia officials note that customers can change plans each year to find a better price, but that also can result in higher deductibles and may force a change in doctors to stay in network.
Bryan, a maintenance supervisor who makes just over the $47,520 limit for a subsidy, finds herself in that market now. She could end up paying as much as $14,000 in premiums for a pared-back policy the likes of which she had never imagined, she said, with no coverage for her asthma and high blood pressure medications. The cheapest policies amount to more than a quarter of her yearly income, or double her mortgage, she noted.  That total package would increase her premiums $4,400 over what she is paying for her COBRA plan and raise her deductibles by $5,800. And that was based on 2016 premium prices.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that as many as 2.5 million nationally may be eligible for a subsidy and not know it.

Bob Laszewski

Bob Laszewski

Bob Laszewski, a health policy strategist in Washington, D.C., said the Obama administration and health care advocates need to listen to the complaints of the those who do not receive assistance.
“These people are invisible,” Laszewski said. The ACA “is working very well for lower income people, but the Obamacare supporters missed the fact that if you’re raising a family of four on $100,000, you’re not rich. This is the … guy who remodeled your house, who drives a pickup truck and he’s wearing a Trump hat.”

Please follow and like us:

Aetna ditching 70% of its ObamaCare business

Obamacare: Going as planned.
tried to warn you
Via NY Post: Insurance giant Aetna won’t be offering coverage under ObamaCare next year in 11 of the 15 states it now serves — an announcement that instantly became an issue in the presidential race.
Aetna’s decision led Donald Trump to charge that President Obama’s health care reform was “imploding.” “Aetna’s decision to leave the Affordable Care Act’s public marketplaces is the latest blow to this broken law that is slowly imploding under its regulatory red tape,” said Trump campaign deputy national policy director Dan Kowalski.
Millions of Americans have lost their health coverage under this disastrous policy, eliminating their ability to choose their doctors. Thousands of businesses have been forced to cut employment or shutter their doors in response to Obama’s signature achievement,” he added.
The company had previously warned that it expected to lose more than $300 million this year on the 900,000 patients it covers under the Affordable Care Act. Aetna said it is pulling out of ObamaCare markets in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
Aetna does not currently offer the policies in New York. It does offer other medical insurance to individuals and small businesses as well as large employers in the state, officials said. It will continue to offer policies in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia.
ObamaCare is credited with expanding coverage to millions of previously uninsured or under-insured people.
O laughs
But insurers have complained they have lost money on the policies. United Health Group and Humana are other insurers exiting ObamaCare plans.
Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, in a statement, said there were not enough younger, healthier customers signing up to make ObamaCare policies sustainable. “The vast majority of payers have experienced continued financial stress within their individual public exchange business. Providing affordable, high-quality health care options to consumers is not possible without a balanced risk pool,” Bertolini said.
More than a dozen nonprofit insurance co-ops have shut down in the past couple years. The pullouts could spell trouble because competition is supposed to help control price increases.
Some states like Alaska and Oklahoma will be left with only one insurer selling ObamaCare plans to individuals in 2017. More densely populated states like New York say their ObamaCare markets remain strong.
But rates for customers are skyrocketing to maintain stability.
Obamacare Screw U
Citing increased medical costs, New York recently authorized insurers offering individual ObamaCare plans to increase premiums by an average 16.6 percent — the highest rate hike in the program’s four-year existence. New York’s small businesses will get hit with an average 8.3 percent rate hike.

Please follow and like us:

Insurers warn Obamacare is unsustainable and expect premiums to rise again

  • ObamaCare to reduce workforce by 2 million full-time jobs? Check.
  • Have to pay back your Obamacare subsidy? Check.
  • Restaurants adding a 3% Obamacare surcharge? Check.
  • Universities nationwide limiting employment to comply with Obamacare? Check.
  • Increase in non-group premiums in nearly all states due to Obamacare? Check.

What else could possibility go wrong?
We’ve been Gruberized
tried to warn you
From the Daily Mail: Health insurers are seriously concerned over the future of Obamacare as many insurers rapidly lose money. Some companies are talking about ditching their participation in the marketplace or dramatically increasing prices – and there is also the threat of a total collapse.
The CEO of insurance provider Aetna says it’s still too early to declare the federal health care program a failure but the company ‘continues to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges.’
Analysts had expected the program to become more stable as younger, healthier people purchased insurance, but that is not happening.  A report by insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield found health insurers gained a sicker, more expensive patient population after the Affordable Care Act expanded coverage in 2014.
Newer customers had higher rates of diabetes, depression and high blood pressure, among other conditions.  They also visited the emergency room much more frequently than people who had private, individual coverage before the law expanded.
Another report, by McKinsey and Company showed insurance companies lost money in 41 states in 2014, in the individual market, which includes Obamacare marketplaces. Blue Cross of North Carolina’s CEO Brad Wilson claimed a loss of $400 million. “There’s not going to be something magical happen that will cause this to turn around,” Wilson said to AOL. 
Researchers caution against drawing broad conclusions about the newly insured based on what amounts to a limited look at a still-evolving health care market. But the numbers show how gaining coverage is only part of a long journey toward the ACA’s other key goals of improving health and slowing cost growth.
‘The coverage is the first step,’ said Linda Blumberg, a health insurance expert at Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization. ‘Figuring out how to help these folks use medical care in the most effective ways is a real challenge.’
The association compiled its report from dozens of insurers that sell Blue-branded coverage in 46 states and Washington, D.C. It compared claims from newer customers with two populations: people who bought coverage before the law expanded and those who have insurance through an employer. Medical costs for new customers were, on average, 19 percent higher in 2014 and 22 percent higher in 2015 than for customers with employer-based coverage.
Health insurers expected their initial wave of patients from the ACA expansion to generate higher-than-normal claims because some of the uninsured had not used the health care system for years and were waiting for coverage to help pay for needed care.
Companies also have struggled initially to add younger consumers who don’t consume as much health care, and they have been hurt by expensive patients who sign up outside regular enrollment windows.
Basic economics also may be behind the higher health care use, since the law lowered care costs by expanding coverage. ‘If you lower the price of anything, people are going to use it more,’ said Blumberg, the Urban Institute expert who did not work on the Blue Cross Blue Shield report.
She added that it is too early to draw firm conclusions about trends in use, and the association’s report doesn’t include insurers that don’t sell Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. That includes prominent exchange participants like the nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc., Aetna Inc. and Molina Healthcare Inc.
Even so, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Senior Vice President Alissa Fox said their findings underscore a need for better care management. That means making sure newly insured diabetes patients get regular blood sugar checks, or those with other chronic diseases keep taking their medicine. It also involves basic steps like connecting patients with a primary care doctor and teaching them about preventive care like flu shots that can ward off more expensive treatments.
Many newly insure patients are used to simply waiting until they become very sick and then going to an emergency room, said Dr. J. Mario Molina, CEO of Molina Healthcare. His company offers coverage on public exchanges in nine states. Molina said earlier this year that they have been surprised with how hard it has been to draw new patients into a doctor’s office.
‘They had been uninsured for so long that they didn’t understand that this is what … modern insurance is all about,’ he said. ‘It’s about prevention and getting ahead of problems, not waiting until the last minute.’

Please follow and like us:

Mizzou grad students lose health insurance thanks to Obamacare

Campus Reform: The University of Missouri (UM) told its graduate students on August 14 that it would no longer be providing subsidies for the students’ insurance coverage because of a recent IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare.

In a letter sent to the graduate students, the university explained that the Obamacare “prohibits businesses from providing employees subsidies specifically for the purpose of purchasing health insurance from individual market plans.” The IRS, according to the university, is treating the university’s student insurance plan as an “individual market plan,” which thus prohibits the university from subsidizing the students’ health insurance.

The university’s Friday announcement left graduate students in a bind, as their plans were set to expire on Saturday.

Missouri explained on its website that university officials waited until the last minute to inform students because they “hoped the national groups lobbying on [their] behalf would motivate the IRS to issue an alternate ruling.”

Many of the university’s graduate students took to Twitter to voice their displeasure with the university’s decision.

Josh Bolton, Missouri PhD. student in Political Communication, tweeted at Missouri Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin to ask why the university’s decision doesn’t constitute “a breach of contract since [the students’] offer letters stated fully funded health insurance.” Chancellor Loftin did not appear to respond to Bolton’s question.

Mike Horton, a PhD. student in contemporary American fiction, tweeted that “The obvious response is for [Missouri] grad students to unionize.”

Even politicians got in on the action.Missouri State Representative Kip Kendrick (D-45) tweeted that he is “[t]rying to get answers and figure out what the heck is going on.” Rep. Kendrick later tweeted that many of his “friends [and] constituents are affected” by the university’s decision.

Clayton Coffman, a PhD. student in the Plant, Insect, and Microbial Science program, told Campus Reform that [m]any students, and their families, depend on the health insurance MU was subsidizing.” “All of the graduate students I know were promised health coverage when they were given their offers to attend here,” Coffman continued.

Moreover, Coffman said, this is just the latest roadblock the university has placed in the way of graduate students. “Recently MU dissolved the graduate school, replacing it with an administrative unit not able to represent graduate student needs.” Earlier in the school year, Coffman said, the university pulled tuition waivers from “many graduate students who don’t have ‘full-time’ appointments.”

“They’re systematically making it more and more difficult to go to graduate school here, even though graduate students perform the vast majority of the research which comes out of this campus.”

Coffman aired his frustration on Twitter, tweeting a warning to incoming graduate students, “. Welcome to MU new grad students! Remember that health insurance we promised you? Well we can’t, because of Obama!

And because the IRS and Obamacare isn’t at fault (somehow), Coffman later tweeted, “I should say that the was sarcastic. I don’t blame the ACA, I blame Mizzou for treating its employees the way Walmart does.”


Please follow and like us:

Don't call it Obamacare. It's Obamafraud

Obama yucks it up
If ever a federal government policy deserves being junked, it’s Obamacare:

  • The federal government website for Obamacare, HealthCare.gov, was plagued with problems for MONTHS after the law went into effect.
  • President Ebola lied when he promised the American people that “If you like your [pre-Obamacare health insurance] plan, you can keep it.” Instead, millions of Americans discovered their health plans were cancelled.
  • President Ebola lied again when he promised the American people that, after Obamacare became law, our medical insurance costs would go down. Instead, they went up. Way up.

The latest: Fake Obamacare applicants got healthcare subsidies, that is, free medical care paid for by already beleaguered taxpayers.
How do we know that?
Because the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm and government watchdog, recently conducted undercover testing of Obamacare enrollment. GAO pretended to be Obamacare applicants and succeeded in obtaining healthcare coverage subsidies for 11 fake applicants.
Obamacare provides subsidies through the marketplace to eligible applicants, at significant cost to taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the estimated net cost of coverage provisions to the federal government is $36 billion for fiscal year 2014, and $1.4 trillion for fiscal years 2015 through 2024— with subsidies accounting for most of the cost.
The GAO investigation was requested by House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.); Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee; and Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah).
Laurie Ure reports for CNN that the GAO created 18 fictitious applicants to test the Affordable Care Act’s “front-end” controls for verifying an applicant’s identity or citizenship status:

  • In 12 cases, the “applicants” applied online or by telephone. Eleven obtained subsidized coverage. One was denied because the “applicant” did not provide a Social Security number.
  • Six other fake applicants used, or tried to use, in-person assistance. Five were unable to obtain such help, and the 6th was correctly told that the applicant’s stated income would not qualify for a subsidy.

The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on oversight, which commissioned the GAO study, presided over a hearing on July 23, 2014, on the GAO test’s results.

As of the committee hearing, coverage remains in effect for all 11 approved fake applications, according to the GAO’s investigations director Seto Bagdoyan.

Rep. Charles Boustany said, “Sadly, this should not be terribly surprising. The question is whether the (Obama) administration is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars and is putting in place adequate controls to protect those dollars from fraud, waste, and abuse. The history of the health care law’s implementation suggests the answer is no.”

Knowingly providing false information is a violation of federal law, subject to a $25,000 fine.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) oversees online marketplaces, which are in turn required to take several steps to verify application information.

In a statement, CMS spokesman Aaron Albright said the Obamacare exchange marketplace has “several layers of safeguards” to verify applicant information, including a requirement that consumers submit accurate information when applying for health coverage, and insisted that “the steps we take to ensure that . . . no one receives a benefit they shouldn’t, are ongoing and have not concluded.”

Blah. Blah. Blah.


Please follow and like us:

Obamacare is disincentive to work; will decrease workforce by 2.5M

inflatable poop

Yet more evidence that Obamacare is a giant piece of turd.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just crunched its numbers on the disastrous economic impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better and more accurately known as Obamacare. Human nature being what it is — selfish and self-interested — Americans are expected to reduce the number of their work hours so that they’ll qualify for Obamacare subsidies. In other words, Obamacare is a disincentive to work.

The CBO estimates the result will be 2.5 million fewer workers by the year 2024. Fewer people working, in turn, means:

  • Less tax revenue for the government
  • More government spending on “entitlements” welfare
  • More government deficits and higher national debt
  • Higher taxes on those who still work and pay income taxes

Here are excerpts from the CBO’s report, “Appendix C: Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates“:

The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less laborgiven the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.

reduced incentives to work attributable to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)with most of the impact arising from new subsidies for health insurance purchased through exchanges—will have a larger negative effect on participation toward the end of that period.

The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5  million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA.

The number of people who will receive exchange subsidies—and who thus will face an implicit tax from the phaseout of those subsidies that discourages them from workingwill be smaller initially than it will be in later years. The number of enrollees (workers and their dependents) purchasing their own coverage through the exchanges is projected to rise from about 6 million in 2014 to about 25 million in 2017 and later years, and most of those enrollees will receive subsidies. Although the number of people who will be eligible for exchange subsidies is similar from year to year, workers who are eligible but do not enroll may either be unaware of their eligibility or be unaffected by it and thus are unlikely to change their supply of labor in response to the availability of those subsidies.

CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce aggregate labor compensation in the economy by about 1 percent over the 2017–2024 period—compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the act—is substantially larger than the estimate the agency issued in August 2010.

H/t ZeroHedge


Please follow and like us:

Todays Obamacare Socialist Screwing. "Cadillac Plans"

ObamaCare, We take from the working, and give to the slugs!

If you have good health insurance you probably won’t for long. The idea here is if you have better coverage  than someone else, well that’s just not fair. So there will be a 40% penalty.  sangry_group_100-100
The only bright note will be when all these professors at small liberal arts colleges (Read Flaming Libs) Who usually have very good plans start getting these notices…well we’ll have some new Conservatives.

You know “A lib is a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet” 

By Talesha Reynolds and Lisa Myers
NBC News
Video Here
For 75 million Americans who get their insurance through large companies, the Affordable Care Act is a mixed bag.  Experts tell NBC News the new healthcare law is only slightly increasing premiums next year, but causing some companies with the most generous plans to reduce their employees’ benefits.
Aaron Baker, 36, his wife Billie and their two young children are covered under a generous health insurance plan offered by the private Midwestern university where he’s worked for 10 years. When they opened their benefits notice this year, they were pleased to see their $385 premium is only up by four dollars next year. However, they were shocked to discover that instead of covering the first dollar they spend with no deductible, the Baker’s plan now includes a $1,000 deductible and a $2,500 out of pocket maximum. They also will still have small co-pays for services.
According to the enrollment notice, the changes are “to relieve future health plan trend pressure and to put the university in a position to avoid the excise tax that becomes effective in 2018.” The 40 percent excise tax—often called the “Cadillac tax”— is part of Obamacare and is levied on the most generous health plans. It’s designed to bring down overall health costs by making companies and workers more cost-conscious. The thinking is that if consumers have to pay more expenses themselves, through higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, they’ll avoid unnecessary or overly costly procedures. And that is supposed to make care more affordable for everyone.
Billie Baker doesn’t think much of that concept. “I think that saying that your insurance is too good so we’re going to give you a penalty,” she said, “is sort of outrageous to me.”
Said Aaron, “You would think the government would want employers to offer good health care packages to their employees. It seems like that is not the case.”
A survey by the International Foundation of Employees Benefits Plans (IFEBP) released in August found that 16.8 percent of respondents had already started to redesign their health plans to avoid the “Cadillac” tax and 40 percent said they are considering action.  A survey of Fortune 1000 companies by Towers Watson, a top benefits consulting firm, found a much higher number. Sixty percent of the these major companies, which employ about 20 million American workers, say the looming excise tax is already having a “moderate” or “significant” influence on benefits decisions for 2014 and 2015. Though the tax doesn’t take effect for years, some companies are starting to make gradual changes now so as not to make dramatic changes at the last minute.
The tax will require a company to pay a 40 percent levy, starting in 2018, on the amount by which the total costs of health plans exceeds an annual limit of $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family.
“There are many factors that result in health care costs going up at certain levels,” said Ron Fontanetta, a director at Towers Watson, “but there’s no question that we’ve seen some action on the part of employers in part because of the concern of a looming excise tax.”
“We’ve had employers shifting costs to employees for some time. But this is really very different,” said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms.
“This is more of a seismic change, because most employers are looking forward to this Cadillac tax in 2018 and realizing they’re going to have to get ready for it now.  And you can’t just shift costs to avoid it; you have to cut benefits.”
The President’s top economic adviser, Jason Furman, says only a small percentage of plans will be hit by the tax once it takes effect four years from now. He disputes claims that the Affordable Care Act is causing employers to put more financial burden on employees.
“There is nothing in the law that tells you you need to raise copayments or deductibles.” Furman told NBC News.  “In fact, the law limits your ability to shift costs to your workers.”
Furman told NBC News that “for the most part, very little will change for people getting their insurance through large employers.”
The new healthcare law is having much less impact on health care premiums than on benefits. Towers Watson estimates it’s adding an average of 1 to 2 percent to what premiums otherwise would be next year. The administration claims the impact is “negligible.”
But that has not kept some companies from instituting double-digit premium increases. Andrea Caulfield of Alexandria, Va., who says she’s had great health benefits for the past five years, was so stunned when she opened this year’s notice that she says she thought it was a misprint.  She now pays $313 a month for herself, her husband Rick and their 13-year-old son Patrick. Next year, it would be $825 a month. That includes a new premium “surcharge” because her husband could get coverage through his own employer.
She says that’s not remotely affordable. “Neither one of us is getting pay increases or even cost of living increases, so there’s no way we could budget for this additional cost,” Caulfield said.
Her employer cited multiple factors that led to the change – the rising cost of healthcare and “significant” costs under the healthcare law, including a temporary $63 fee that must be paid for each covered employee, spouse or child starting in 2014. The fee is intended to fund a program to help spread risk for insurers participating in the exchanges.
Other companies also are charging more for spouses. Xerox has had a surcharge for spouses for the past three years.  It’s rising to $1,500 in 2014. Earlier this fall, UPS told employees it will exclude spouses who have access to coverage elsewhere altogether in 2014.
Caulfield credits the Affordable Care Act for added benefits like guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but she wishes she didn’t have to pay for it.
“I know we all have to work together to help each other, but sometimes they have these big ideas but they really don’t think about the little person, working really hard and each spouse working one job and we still can’t quite make it.”
The family will now purchase coverage through Rick’s employer. It will cost $70 more per month than her current plan. It is not their preference, but Andrea says they don’t have a choice.
“I’m part of that percentage that was told, you’re gonna be able to keep your coverage, but that’s really not what happened.”
Robert Laszewski says the bar for employer-based healthcare plans has moved.
“In the past, employers compared their benefits to each other,” said Laszewski. “And they had very rich benefits. Now we see a real phenomenon where employers are comparing their benefits to Obamacare and that’s the new reference point. So it’s really about, ‘I have better benefits than Obamacare.’ And of course many of the Obamacare deductibles are 2000 dollars.”
Jason Furman says the real story is how much the growth in health care costs and cost sharing have slowed in the last few years.
“This past year, adjusted for inflation, premiums rose 2.3 percent. That’s one-third the rate that they were growing a decade ago,” Furman said.
“You just can’t blame everything in the health system on this law.  It had a lot of problems before it, and it’s actually helping to make them better.”

Please follow and like us:

More evidence that Americans are scary stupid

These Americans don’t know the (un)Affordable Care Act *is* ObamaCare LuciferCare




As described by the Daily Caller, last Monday, Sept. 30, 2013, ABC’s late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel trolled the streets of Los Angeles to ask people to choose which health plan they preferred: Obamcare or the Affordable Care Act. These are, of course, the exact same thing. But that didn’t stop people in L.A. from pontificating on the various pros and cons of “two” policies that are the SAME THING.

One guy called Obamacare “un-American,” but the Affordable Care Act is “more American.” Another thinks that Obamacare is “socialist,” but the Affordable Care Act is not.

From their asinine responses, however, I think I now know why the POS has told the lapdog media not to call the (un)Affordable Care Act by the more commonly-known name of Obamacare.

The Obama brand name is now soiled, but the Orwellian Newspeak of “Affordable Care Act” isn’t. The stupids in this Kimmel video actually think just because it’s called “Affordable Care Act,” that means LuciferCare actually is affordable!

God help us.


H/t FOTM’s Miss May

See also:


Please follow and like us:

Poll: 56% of Americans don't want Obamacare

But does that mean Congress or the useless GOP will repeal it?


new+medical+symbolDana Blanton reports for FoxNews.com, May 22, 2013, that a Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that while 26% of voters say their health care situation will be better under the new Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, twice as many — 53% — say it will be worse.  Another 13% say it won’t make a difference.

Here are some of the poll’s other findings:
  • 85% of Republicans and 51% of independents say they will be worse off under ObamaCare, but nearly half of Democrats expect to be better off (48%), while 24% of Democrats believe they will be worse off.
  • Young voters and seniors are pessimistic about Obamacare: A majority of those under age 35 and those 65+ think things will be worse under the 2010 health care law.
  • Overall, a 56% majority of Americans want to go back to the health care system that was in place in 2009, including 30% of Democrats, 55% of independents, and 85% of Republicans. That majority cuts across income, gender, education, and age groups.
  • Asked why the economy is not doing better under Obama’s leadership, 49% say Obama’s ideas have been bad and too many of them have been implemented, up from 37% two years ago. But 41% still think Obama has had good ideas, and too few of them have passed.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,013 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 18 to May 20.  The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.


Please follow and like us:

Obamacare offers free sterilization to teens

Do you remember then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling on Americans to support the massive Obamacare bill that no Congressperson had actually read, saying that “we must pass it to find out what’s in it”?
Every day since the passage of that monstrous piece of legislation, we are finding out exactly “what’s in it.”
Here’s another “what” that’s in the abomination of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare:

Did you know that Obamacare offers free sterilization to teenagers?

That isn’t actually in the Orwellian-named “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare is anything but affordable). The devil is in the detail — in the many administrative rules and regulations conjured by the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government to implement Obamacare.
Elizabeth Harrington reports for CNSNews that the preventive services regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has issued under the Obamacare law requires health care plans to offer free sterilizations to girls as young as their teens.
The HHS mandate, which took effect last August 1, requires nearly all health care plans in the United States to provide, without cost sharing, “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity, from menarche to menopause,” which means all females who have begun ovulating, including teenagers.

POS and SibeliusPresident Lucifer and his henchwoman, the nominally-Catholic HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. (AP Photo)

The National Institutes of Health says that U.S. females usually start to menstruate “around age 12.” Thus the HHS-mandated insurance coverage providing sterilizations without cost-sharing would apply to girls as young as 12.
The Obama Administration announced in March that the preventive services mandate would also apply to college and university health plans, “to ensure students enrolled in these plans benefit from important consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act,” an HHS Fact Sheet stated.
H/t FOTM’s Sunny.

Please follow and like us: