Posted on 10/26/2016 12:07:39 PM PDT by ColdOne
The anchors of CBS This Morning expressed bewilderment on Tuesday at the sharp premium hikes in Obamacare insurance plans, with one asking for an understanding for “why this is happening.”
When Obamacare open enrollment begins in 2017, the cost of mid-level plans will rise by an average of 25 percent in the 39 states served by the federal online exchanges. In addition, major providers like Humana, UnitedHealth, and Aetna have scaled back or dropped out of the Obamacare exchanges, leaving roughly 20 percent of consumers with only one insurer to choose from.
After Charlie Rose read out the report, Norah O’Donnell said, “We need a bigger understanding of why this is happening.”
“We sure do,” Rose said.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Yep. And to be quickly followed by calls for "single-payer" health care. Otherwise known as somebody-else-pays healthcare.
The question there, of course, is who that "somebody-else" will be. The answer to that will be found in the works of Karl Marx.
Nope. They are actually trying to blame the Republicans. Not a joke.
Lock em up!
What happened? It passed. Now embrase the suck.
What happened is exactly what all the people who seriously looked at the plan said would happen - they even knew WHEN it would happen. Are these media morons absolutely brain dead or hypnotized? Will anything wake them up?
Your lies have been uncovered.
What happened? Exactly what millions of people (who you (the media) derided as angry mobs) said would happen.
its not “single payer” health care but “single non-paying few-participating-providers” health care
I would discount your explanation here, except that yesterday I got a letter from the Obama administration. It simply said "All your base are belong to us."
So you may well be right!
you mean the insurers read trumps book the art of the deal and the govt didn’t?
Liberals are just too dumbass to be trusted to run anything.
All of this leads directly back to Ted Kennedy in the late 60’s. Prior to the need for insurance, doctors would open up clinics to treat inner city poor at no charge but some ambulance chasing legal group figured the poor weren’t getting the same level of care as those who could afford it so they began suing for malpractice, so naturally the price of health care went up. Along comes Teddy and he starts pushing for HMO’s. But over the next 25 or so years the HMO’s were eventually demonized as some corporation that is making your healthcare decisions instead of the doctor, with Teddy banging the drum the loudest the whole time. Then Bill gets elected and Hillary tries to reform healthcare and from the rest is history.
Nora and Charlie...Paraphrasing Nancy Bugeyes Pelosi....
You have to pass it first to see whats in it.
How’s that working out for ya’ll?
That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most--pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, on the 19th.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
I'll 2nd that motion thrice!
It is actually a serious question, which is more reprehensible, the arrogant stupidity of the political Left or their lack of a moral compass. How did we ever fall so far, within so short a time frame?
thanks for that translation!
for a moment there i was finding it difficult to follow...
but it all makes sense now...
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.
