[grundle]

Oops! I forgot to include the link:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192081764514664

[A CA Guy]

Obamacare is going down.

[The Great RJ]

Nothing in this law actually designed by anyone with even a fundamental knowledge of insurance or health care. Obamacare is first and foremost about income redistribution and giving the government control of one sixth of the US economy. The convoluted design of Obamacare and the sinister regulations it has spawned are from the mind of academics woven together with a purely political framework. < p> What no one in the White House anticipated was that the whole scheme would so quickly collapse. Some believed that with enough lies and misrepresentations any problems would surface after the 2014 elections and that things would be too far gone by the 2016 elections to make any changes. A few like Nancy Pelosi were dumb enought to think this plan would work and create a groundswell of support. Most liberals even if they knew this was going to be a train wreck thought the American people would be too stupid to figure things out especially with the media being controlled by the administration telling them things were fine.

Now ordinary citizens, even those who supported Obama, are seeing first hand they we lied to by Obama himself and that things are just getting worse. Nothing Obama can do even unconstutionally altering the law by executive fiat can fix what is happening. Democrats running for reelection are already getting a firestorm from their consituants and will attempt to deny they had any idea this would happen. Only GOP ineptitude and poor leadership could stop a complete ouster of Democrats in Congress this fall.

[Bullish]

....ObamaCare's insurance costs more in return for worse coverage.

In other words, the exact opposite of what the liar promised, PERIOD!

[sheana]

This is what I’ve been saying since day 1 and I was able to look at the plans. Finally the media is catching on!

[gasport]

.

[Whenifhow]

Great video
C. Steven Tucker Deconstructs Obamacare in 25 Minutes sans Teleprompter
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2013/11/26/c-steven-tucker-deconstructs-obamacare-in-25-minutes-sans-teleprompter/

26:17 Minutes
C. Steven Tucker on Obamacare for AFP Indiana 93.1 WIBC and Chicks On The Right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZh5uYwdaj8

[entropy12]

I was against Obamacare (OC) right from the start, because it does NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to reduce cost of healthcare. US healthcare is one of the best in the world, if not the best. The ONLY problem is high cost.

OC is strictly a insurance program. People can get subsidized insurance, or free healthcare such as Medicaid through OC. However fewer and fewer doctors accept Medicaid patients because it pays less than their cost to provide care.

The subsidized part for poor people will turn out into much higher premiums and/or higher taxes for the middle class and above.

GOP needs to publicize their own plan which will actually reduce healthcare costs. Health insurance costs can drop only if healthcare costs drop first.

> Allow people to buy insurance across state lines
> Tort reform following example of Texas.
Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine for lack of tort reform. Not to mention high cost of malpractice insurance passed on to consumers.
> Health Savings account which puts the consumer in charge.
> Allow formation of group insurance outside of large employers control.
> Reduce restrictions on Physician’s Assistants.
> Give tax incentives to states to open medical colleges.

[Standing Wolf]

...the public is learning that ObamaCare's insurance costs more in return for worse coverage.

Ah. Another Marxist success story.

[Kickass Conservative]

Obama has turned Healthcare into Cable TV.

With Cable TV you have to buy all the Channels even if you don’t speak Chinese or Spanish.

With Obamacare, you have to pay for coverage you don’t want or don’t need, and they call those Plans “superior”.

Reminds me of the good old days when Medicare Part D was intended to help “poor” Seniors on Medicare. By the time the Democrats got done with it, Bill Gates was eligible.

[jetson]

I heard today on the radio that people are being advised to get any prescription refills they can before losing their doctor. Getting a new doctor and needed prescriptions could be a matter of life and death depending on what your taking meds for.

[RWB Patriot]

I wonder how long it’ll be before dear leader starts exploiting the new power the government has over our lives to keep people in check.

“Oh, you don’t like my new healthcare law? Well, we’ll just bump up your taxes for the privilege of being able to complain. Don’t worry though, you’re not alone.”

[savedbygrace]

Obama’s approval rating has gone South with “only” 5+ million people losing their insurance plans. Wait until it is clear that another 70 to 100 million people will lose their plans when the business mandates kick in, and the Dims will just barely retain enough Senate seats to avoid giving the Rs a veto proof majority.

I am pricing popcorn to stock up on before then.

[Liz]

Obama and his liberal allies connivingly called the cancelled plans "substandard" ..... by that he means people must grit their teeth and take plans he likes---plans specifically designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals. In Obama's calculated view, some Americans must now pay first-class fares for coach seats so that hand-picked Americans can pay less, and receive extra benefits.

Obama picking winner and losers raises questions whether Obamacare is an illegal lottery. B/c Obamacare specifically picks winners and losers, a court might deem this an illegal lottery.

EXAMPLE Everyone is induced into paying into the program. Some people win subsidies, tax breaks, deferments, etc.....while others are excluded from benefits.

REFERENCE: The following is an example of a Federal Statute defining Lottery:

According to 12 USCS § 25a, “lottery" includes any arrangement whereby three or more persons (the "participants") advance money or credit to another in exchange for the possibility or expectation that one or more but not all of the participants (the "winners") will receive by reason of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes--

(A) a random selection;

(B) a game, race, or contest; or

(C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. (SOURCE uslegal.com/lotteries)