GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/07/journalists-incredulous-that-obamacare-means-higher-health-care-costs/trackback/

  1. Well, they do say laughter is good for the heart!

    Comment by flicka47 — January 7, 2013 @ 4:47 am - January 7, 2013

  2. Obama: “Spending problem? What spending problem?

    Comment by V the K — January 7, 2013 @ 6:35 am - January 7, 2013

  3. I find all this humorous, but sadly the people who find themselves priced out of the market and paying a new tax and having no healthcare are in trouble.

    Of course it is only a matter of time before we get the “Evil, profit seeking, corporations shifting full time workers to part time to make more money” reports and I promise you that most of those reporting will fail to connect this shift to the requirements of Obamacare.

    Obamacare may have been an act passed by congress, but it is going to make healthcare anything but affordable.

    Comment by Just Me — January 7, 2013 @ 6:51 am - January 7, 2013

  4. This probably doesn’t belong here, but I remember seeing this quote some time back and I just thought it would be good to repost it…

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work… We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau in 1939.

    Granted, Morgenthau’s greatest success was Social Security. But then, Social Security didn’t start out as the mountain of debt it is today. Morgenthau thought it should be paid for with a separate tax. He thought the rich didn’t pay their fair share of taxes. He thought a balanced budget was needed to improve the economy. At least one of those positions I can agree with.

    It’s ironic that Democrats keep thinking they’re creating some “Great Society” through benevolent policies and spending when all they are doing is making a large portion of society dependent on Government, creating massive debt and discouraging economic growth.

    Comment by David — January 7, 2013 @ 7:47 am - January 7, 2013

  5. Democrats keep thinking they’re creating some “Great Society” through benevolent policies and spending when all they are doing is making a large portion of society dependent on Government, creating massive debt and discouraging economic growth.

    Some of us tend to think that was the goal all along.

    Comment by V the K — January 7, 2013 @ 8:23 am - January 7, 2013

  6. But then, Social Security didn’t start out as the mountain of debt it is today.

    It also didn’t start out as replacement income, but as supplemental income.

    It also started out with a retired lifetime expectation of some 5 years, with roughly 7 workers for every retired person. The evolution of these demographics was something easily foreseen, even in those dark ages before television.

    Back on OP, unlike our host, I don’t find such…surprise…humorous, but rather insulting. There’s no surprise here; these folks–both the “journalists” who write about such things, and the politicians who pass them–are highly intelligent people. They knew the outcomes; they were after personal aggrandizement.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — January 7, 2013 @ 8:24 am - January 7, 2013

  7. Democrats keep thinking they’re creating some “Great Society”…when all they are doing is making a large portion of society dependent on Government….

    This is, in fact, their goal. It’s the modern version of bread and circuses. That they’re creating destructive debt and destroying the economy needed to support that debt is irrelevant to them: the disaster won’t occur during their lifetimes, but the votes to keep them in power will.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — January 7, 2013 @ 8:27 am - January 7, 2013

  8. So funny…then why am I crying?

    Obama is trying to Chicagofy the entire country. I don’t want to live in Chicago where criminals and cronies rule the roost.

    Comment by Con Man — January 7, 2013 @ 8:43 am - January 7, 2013

  9. I’d argue that Obamacare is working just as it was designed to. The real purpose wasn’t to make healthcare more available and affordable, the plan was designed to crush private health insurance and move us to a single payer system. I believe Obama alluded to this in a speech to the Teamsters. This may sound conspiratorial, but If you take a serious look at how Obamacare works it’s pretty hard not to see that it was designed to fail and collapse on itself. Once that happens we will be in “crisis” with the only solution being total government control.

    Comment by Hunter — January 7, 2013 @ 10:58 am - January 7, 2013

  10. Being in the industry, Hunter. I think you’re right on the nose.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 7, 2013 @ 11:00 am - January 7, 2013

  11. Total governmental control of Healthcare…brought to you by the same lovely people that run the local DMV office. \

    Gods, we are all so-screwed…

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 7, 2013 @ 11:14 am - January 7, 2013

  12. Hunter–

    that’s what I’ve thought all along. “Obamacare” was a Trojan horse designed to set the stage for so-called “Universal Health Care.”

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — January 7, 2013 @ 11:31 am - January 7, 2013

  13. This is part of the leftie mentality (including their journalists). “Hey, you know what? It would be neat if we cured cancer. Let’s pass a bill declaring that cancer should be cured. Maybe we could even fund it as a stimulus measure!”

    It never crosses their mind that declaring is not doing, doing is much harder than declaring, and the doers deserve much more freedom and opportunity for reward than the lefties are prepared to grant them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2013 @ 11:54 am - January 7, 2013

  14. One has to remember the basic flaw in government spending: in all cases, it takes money from those who are working, are producing value, and are paying taxes — to give to those who are none of those.

    Classic example:

    San Francisco has paid at least $150,000 for Kenny Walters in the past year. He isn’t employed, has an arrest record as long as his hair, and can often be found passed out in a doorway on Haight Street.

    Kenny Walters’ job is to get drunk.

    Oh, but there’s even more than that:

    They’re on the dole — and watching the pole.

    Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.

    A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

    That is what the Obama Party, including the screaming idiot Barack Obama, are talking about when they blabber on about “investments” and “infrastructure”.

    Simply put, they are taking money from working people and giving it to drunks and people who are spending it in bars and strip clubs.

    Why?

    Here’s your answer:

    Pelosi’s video then offered the perspective of those in the welfare line.

    “I’m here tryin’ to get some Obama bucks, that’s what I’m doin’, trying to get some Obama money,” said one man in a Yankees baseball cap.

    “I am here to get some benefits, you know I mean, I’m here to get a check,” said another man as he blew smoke in the air. “Bitch, I wanna check.”

    Everyone featured in the video promised to vote for President Barack Obama.

    “Cause, he gives me stuff,” a woman answered when asked why she likes Obama.

    “Cause he’s black,” said another man.

    That’s all this is. Obama supporters, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama are purchasing votes with working peoples’ money by giving it to those who want to live on the dole and don’t want to work.

    Any Obama supporter that shows up here should be asked that question point-blank — why does your Obama Party demand that working people pay higher and higher taxes so that Obama Party voters don’t have to work?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 7, 2013 @ 12:55 pm - January 7, 2013

  15. In a society dominated by liberals, the conservative’s only pleasures is the “I told you so” prize. I’d gladly relinquish that prize to save us. Liberal reporters should have more knowledge than those they’re informing, but they don’t. All graduates of liberal universities, they buy everything Obama says. I tried to explain to one of my liberal friends how Obamacare raises prices and creates job loss, but since I didn’t vote Democrat, my words were suspect and untrustworthy. We grew up together and have known each other for 25 years. To them economic facts are a consequence of a profit-driven, capitalist, patriarchy. No matter that they enjoy every American luxury. In their minds, once the socialist utopia is realized, their ideals will become the new truths.

    Comment by Stan Schulz (exleftist.com) — January 7, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - January 7, 2013

  16. that’s what I’ve thought all along. “Obamacare” was a Trojan horse designed to set the stage for so-called “Universal Health Care.”

    I think this is true and when various liberals are honest they admit it.

    Comment by Just Me — January 7, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - January 7, 2013

  17. Yes Ted B, we are so screwed. We all should be scared to death and very angry what is taking place. If you have people you now that live in Canada or the UK, ask them what their health care is like.

    If you want to get an idea of what we are headed for, please read this article from the Dailymail out of the UK.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2013434/Help-Im-starving-death-6st-woman-paralysed-stomach-refused-life-saving-operation.html

    I know this disease. 17 years ago my son was diagnosed with gastroparesis as described in the article. He has an implanted gastric pacemaker. He had this surgery that they WILL not let her have. She WILL die, and it ain’t pretty. Our insurance provider wouldn’t pay for the operation and device – they said it was “experimental,” which is the same excuse the UK is using, 17 years later. I had to pay cash or else he would be dead. It has been a 17 year odyssey I wish on no man. I grieve for this woman, but without the implant she will die.

    This is what the last 2 elections have been all about. Bring the big important systems to their knees and have the “little people” scream for help, for a solution. At that time they(the little people) will accept anything. They will give up their freedom for the solution. The select elites will have all the perks. Does this type of government system sound familiar???????????

    If I sound a little pissed you are correct.

    Comment by mixitup — January 7, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - January 7, 2013

  18. This just means that Obama has to “reform” healthcare again in his Second Term to solve the problem of rising healthcare costs.

    Comment by Mitch — January 7, 2013 @ 6:45 pm - January 7, 2013

  19. “Glenn Reynolds asked in a seemingly rhetorical tone, “Who could have seen this coming?”

    I think he meant to say; “Who, with a ivy league education and decades of academic experience, could have seen this coming?”

    Comment by JTwig — January 8, 2013 @ 9:32 am - January 8, 2013

  20. [...] Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels’ Nomination–Richard Nixon’s Centennial Edition — January 9, 2013 @ 3:26 am - January 9, 2013

  21. [...] Gay Patriot – Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – The King Lives Edition | askmarion — January 9, 2013 @ 3:28 am - January 9, 2013

  22. [...] Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations–The King Lives Edition | therightplanet.com — January 9, 2013 @ 6:01 am - January 9, 2013

  23. [...] Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — January 9, 2013 @ 6:02 am - January 9, 2013

  24. The fact that almost 1/2 of the country believes their ‘free’ cell phone is actually ‘free’ and that it appears through divine intervention with no one having to pay to create it proves to me, the democrats, lead by ‘Professor Obama’, depend on the uninformed for their support. “Why should I care since I don’t have to pay for it.” The original Obama phone lady from Cleveland sums it up. That is the Obama legacy, make people more dependent on government, cradle to grave. They don’t care about providing for themselves because the government not only gives them ‘free stuff’ but thinks for them as well. Life is much easier that way… very sad…

    Comment by benj — January 9, 2013 @ 6:11 am - January 9, 2013

  25. [...] Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Watcher Council Nominations! The King’s Edition | Independent Sentinel — January 9, 2013 @ 9:24 am - January 9, 2013

  26. I would be curious if Dan or any of the commenters could read the NY Times article and talk about why they interpret it as saying that the Affordable Care Act means, or is causing, the big premium increases discussed. For example, the article says big increases are happening in states (such as California) where regulators aren’t empowered by state law to deny excessive premium increases; I guess the ACA could have sought to override state law on this point, and maybe it should have, but I would guess that conservatives — who believe the law gives the federal government too big of a role already — would not favor that. The article also talks about the effect of medical underwriting, which will be banned under the ACA. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect — ironically, the penalty attached to the vilified individual mandate may turn out to be too low — but there is a tendency among some on the right to blame the ACA for preexisting problems in the insurance market that it had nothing to do with and might even alleviate. This blog post and the comments to it seem to be an example of that tendency. (By the way, I would urge conservatives to be willing to put aside their hostility to the ACA as a whole and be willing to work on refining it, the way we have often done with complex legislation as we gain experience with it. With the 2012 election results, the ACA is here to stay, and it would be better for everyone if it worked as well as possible.)

    Comment by Brubeck — January 9, 2013 @ 11:04 am - January 9, 2013

  27. [...] Gay Patriot – Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – The King Lives Edition — January 9, 2013 @ 1:45 pm - January 9, 2013

  28. The problem with the ACA is that the democrats had two goals in mind-write some kind of healthcare plan that got the government more involved, and to design it in such a way that it would fail but also kill the current insurance industry in the process so they could usher in a government controlled single payer system.

    The other problem with the ACA is that it was written without anyone actually voting for it having the time to really read it and evaluate the various implications of the law.

    Two huge problems already are developing. The ACA only requires employers to provide insurance for full time employees. Employers have already started to shift as many workers to part time as they can to avoid having to provide benefits. The other is that the IRS just clarified that employers only have to provide the employees benefits at an affordable rate-not their dependents. So an employee might get their insurance for about $200 or so a month, but may be asked to pay the entire cost of the dependent portion of the plan (my former employer did it this way-I paid about $75 a month for my insurance but could not afford to add my husband or kids to the plan because it would have been $1,200 a month (more than I was paid at the time).

    Comment by Just Me — January 9, 2013 @ 4:03 pm - January 9, 2013

  29. [...] Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council nominations for January 9, 2012 — January 9, 2013 @ 7:11 pm - January 9, 2013

  30. The biggest problem with the ACA is that its contents are not defined under law by the Act itself, but through regulatory rulemaking.

    San Fran Nan[cy Pelosi] famously said “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” It sounds so ditzy on the surface, but in many respects, she’s absolutely right. Unelected bureaucrats get to define what the inner workings of the law say, do, and how they behave. If they say Big Macs get a surcharge to help pay for the law, then they will—at least until Federal courts say otherwise.

    To that end, the current lawsuits over the ACA are only the tip of the iceberg which is to come. To suggest that people should “work with the law” is innane, because the law says what the rulemakers say it does. How does the average person (much less businesses affected) know which rules apply when? [Except for perhaps a new industry to provide subscription-based updates to the law as they are announced.] Plus, the Obama Administration is cutting down the time for public comment on many new rules so that there is barely 20 days in some instances before many rules take effect.

    In addition, many states (including my own) are considering opting out of the Medicaid expansion because the offer for the Federal government to pay for the exapansion is being seen as a bait-and-switch tactic which will become an unfunded mandate when the Feds decide that the budget deficit will be magically reduced by eliminating future Federal funding for the expansion.

    This law is a complete Trojan Horse in several respects. This is why it is so odiously obnoxious. However, the proponents only want to stress the sugar-coated glazed carrots in the Act, not the sticks in the eye which will come around later—and mostly after its principal supporter is out of office.

    Comment by RSG — January 9, 2013 @ 7:41 pm - January 9, 2013

  31. [...] Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by The King Lives Edition | — January 10, 2013 @ 12:35 am - January 10, 2013

  32. Don’t put “abstract theories” down. They predicted precisely what’s happening. If you increase the quantity demanded (covering more people will do that) and hold the supply constant or reduce it, all other things being equal prices will rise.

    Comment by Dave Schuler — January 10, 2013 @ 7:02 pm - January 10, 2013

  33. I would be curious if Dan or any of the commenters could read the NY Times article and talk about why they interpret it as saying that the Affordable Care Act means, or is causing, the big premium increases discussed.

    Comment by Brubeck — January 9, 2013 @ 11:04 am – January 9, 2013

    Very simple.

    From the article:

    The practice of medical underwriting — being able to consider the health of a prospective policy holder before deciding whether to offer coverage and what rate to charge — will no longer be permitted after 2014 under the health care law.

    Let us put that in terms of a different insurance type.

    The practice of risk underwriting — being able to consider the driving record, accident prevalence, and tickets received for a prospective policy holder before deciding whether to offer coverage and what rate to charge — will no longer be permitted after 2014 under the health care law.

    In other words, the insurance companies must now automatically offer the same level of coverage to a 50-year-old driver with a spotless record and a 16-year-old driver with two injury accidents and five speeding tickets — at the same rate for both of them.

    Since the rate has to cover the highest possible risk, the rate will rise to the level required to cover the highest possible risk for both individuals. Simple math. If before the sixteen-year-old would have paid $500 a month and the fifty-year-old $50 a month, then the rate will be tweaked to $275 each.

    Or put simply, Brubeck, congratulations; your support of the ACA means that someone like yourself who doesn’t drink, do drugs, eat too much, smoke, or have promiscuous unprotected sex, will now be paying the same premium rate as an alcoholic obese meth addict with HIV.

    Because you will be covering that person’s bills, and paying for that person’s lack of responsibility.

    In short, Obama sold you a bill of goods and put you on the hook to pay for other peoples’ bad decisions. Aren’t you proud of yourself?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 10, 2013 @ 7:20 pm - January 10, 2013

  34. Plus we will have IRS agents telling us if we can have surgery. Unless we are on Medicare, then we will have a 15 member panel telling us we can’t have the surgery.

    Comment by Sara — January 10, 2013 @ 7:51 pm - January 10, 2013

  35. [...] Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results—The ‘Mask Is Off’ Edition | therightplanet.com — January 11, 2013 @ 9:01 am - January 11, 2013

  36. [...] Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | Virginia Right! — January 11, 2013 @ 10:48 am - January 11, 2013

  37. [...] Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 01/11/13 — January 11, 2013 @ 1:48 pm - January 11, 2013

  38. [...] Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels Winners! Don’t Miss This! | Independent Sentinel — January 11, 2013 @ 7:08 pm - January 11, 2013

  39. [...] Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for January 11, 2013 — January 12, 2013 @ 7:07 am - January 12, 2013

  40. [...] Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Journalists incredulous that Obamacare means higher health care costs [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion — January 12, 2013 @ 10:48 pm - January 12, 2013

  41. North Dallas Thirty, sorry to come back to this so late. I think you overstate your case: For example, under the ACA, insurers will be able to vary premiums by age and tobacco use (within certain limits), and they can discount premiums for people willing to participate in wellness programs. Plus, payments to insurers in the exchanges will be risk-adjusted to reflect the health of their enrollees.

    Nevertheless, you raise legitimate arguments. However, your arguments pertain to what might happen in the future and don’t really have anything to do with the premium hikes referred to in the NYT story, hikes that have already taken place. My point was that those premium increases have very little if anything to do with the ACA. Dan’s post, which implied that they are linked to the ACA, was part of a regrettable trend on the right to blame every bad thing in the universe on the ACA, even with no evidence of a link whatsoever. That’s a trend that has more to do with politics than policy, and one that I don’t think advances the ball on making our health system better.

    Comment by Brubeck — January 19, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - January 19, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.199 Powered by Wordpress