Posted on 09/29/2013 2:15:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Obamacare is a gigantic shell game. Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act would lower health costs by $2,500 a year for the average family, provide coverage for tens of millions more Americans, and do all of this while reducing the federal budget deficit. It would be accomplished through 2,800 pages of legislation, tens of thousands of pages of regulatory directives and an interlocking network of new federal mandates. Many Americans were skeptical that this unprecedented effort at government re-engineering could succeed. Their skepticism is justified.
Still, the Obama administration continues to try to convince us that all is well -- most recently announcing that premiums are going to be lower than expected in the federally run exchanges.
But the administration is using as its baseline what the Congressional Budget Office expected health insurance to cost after the law went into effect -- $2,100 a year more for an individual policy -- versus prices that consumers experience in the real world....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Lord only knows how many bureaucracies in addition to the IRS will be added into the mix between doctor and patient. How often does anything get cheaper when more middlemen are added into a transaction?
It’d be better to spend the time impeaching Zer0.
NYT?
The question to be asked is: “If it is in the Nation’s best interest to shut down the Government, then why are there only TWO Federal Politicians, Obama and Reid, loudly advocating shutting down the US Federal Government?
Obama has MANY reasons to shutdown the Federal Government such as:
1.) A headline grabbing story that will distract attention from the Impeachable scandals of:
Benghazi Massacre Dereliction of Duty by Obama as CIC;
Obamacare Insurance managed by the corrupt IRS;
IRS harassment of political opponents of Obama;
Use of the NSA by Obama to spy on everybody in the USA;
etc, etc.
2.) The use of fear of a shutdown might help to protect defunding and eventual abolishment of Obama’s narrowly focucused ideological agenda of an European-style, failure-prone, Marxist, monopoly of the US Medical Insurance Industry.
3.) Spreading fear and blame might also preserve Obama’s power to increase Obamacare Insurance premiums on an annual basis.
*This would be highly advantageous to Obama as the increase in mandatory insurance premiums would not be a tax, as the “unexpected market conditions” would be given as the reason for the increase.
*Also there would be no need to ask for the “Advice and Consent” of Congress, as the IRS would be in complete control of all income and medical records.
4.) The last reason is the most important for Obama, personally: America would at last no longer be a Nation where the Liberty to choose ones own family destiny could ever exist again.
As for Reid, the best guess I have is that he wants a Government Monopoly of the Medical Insurance Industry. Well, to be fair, Reid calls for a “single payer” system.
My guess is that multi-millionaire Reid, nearing Federal retirement, owns a lot of stock in some companies that are tied to a “single payer” system.
Maybe the NSA, or the IRS can find out for us?
I’m going to as my US Senator from TEXAS, The Esteemed Senator John “To Hell with my voters” Cornyn to check on this for me - - - .
First off—— New York Times!? Did I just enter an alternate Universe?
Laugh or cry.........hmmmmmm
None of it is constitutional. The House must never fund it.
Might'nt THAT be why they're pushing so hard?
They can't disarm us on a mass scale, unless a mass scale is used.
Ignoring their wishes also is justified, according to the elites who will have exempted themselves from it.
Just got my notice of Cancellation yesterday from Blue Cross. Effective 1-1-2014. Was paying $300 per month for My Wife, my 25 yr old daughter and myself, with a $10,000 deductible.
-— Was paying $300 per month for My Wife, my 25 yr old daughter and myself, with a $10,000 deductible. -—
That seems really good. And with the high deductible, it sounds like real insurance.
Well it’s not a NYT editorial, it’s more like a blog post that they print as a sop to “impartiality”.
The NYT knew all this from the beginning.
This is the NYT breaking off a piece of sagebrush and hiding their tracks.
Good luck & Godspeed Jim on your journey to better health!
I may be getting paranoid in my old age, but I think Obamacare is less a shell game than it is a Trojan Horse for single payer.
-Get the ACA established enough that pulling it out by its roots is next to impossible. It can’t be killed then, only “improved.”
-When Obamacare begins to founder, argue that it’s the “free market” insurance exchanges and private business that are failing to hold up their end of providing health care coverage.
-Ram home the idea that the logical course forward is just to have government step and take full control of insuring people.
Start out strong, and predictably goes limp at the end with the last paragraph. Whatever imaginary “compromises” are made by Congress and the Bambi Administration will only serve to buff up the image of the Dems and their dear Leader and their Affordable Care Act. They will thereby reap ALL the credit for whatever this new Massive Bureaucracy manages to “accomplish”. If this (very brief) statement winds up providing the basic mindset of how the ACA is finally disposed, it serves as a good argument for putting up NO resistance to the ACA and just letting it lumber on, and wend its way toward disaster. I never thought I’d come to that conclusion, but there it is. It probably WON’T help the Republicans win anything, though, so that’s one element of it that completely works against the practical benefits of this Establishment Republican “tactic”.
Did Blue Cross give any reason for cancellation?
The NEW YORK TIMES published this???!?
Just, wow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.