Which prompts this response to government coffee…
Which prompts this response to government coffee…
It’s a well-known leftist tactic to change the language once something’s been exposed. In the early 20th century, the left called themselves “progressives”. When the public got sick of eugenics, prohibition and mass murder, they decided to call themselves “liberals”, despite being anything but liberal. When “liberal” began to get a bad name, they called themselves “progressives” again (note everything in that video is HRC denying that progressive and modern liberals are all big government, top-down authoritarian statists).
Now we see the same thing with Obamacare. The left is calling it by the bill’s official title: the Affordable Care Act, because it’s a failure and they don’t want Obama’s name associated with Obamacare. Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act and vice versa. But it’s time to hush up the failure by changing the language used.
(H/T Jawa Report)
From the Weekly Standard:
“Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21,” says a reporter for CNN from the White House. “That of course being just last month….”
Of course, she found out her coverage was being taken away by Obamacare and she can’t afford what she’s offered by Obamacare.
Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has decided to just sit back and enjoy watching Obama fail. After all, this was warned against for a long, long, long time. They were warned, they were told it wouldn’t work, they were told why it wouldn’t work, and they rammed it down our throats anyway… and now they get to fail.
If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place. …
The hubris of our ocean-commanding commander-in-chief surely isn’t news to readers of this website. He’s said that he’s smarter and better than everyone who works for him. His wife informed us that he has “brought us out of the dark and into the light” and that he would fix our broken souls. The man defined sin itself as “being out of alignment with my values.” We may be the ones we’ve been waiting for, but at the same time, everyone has been waiting for him. Or as he put it in 2007, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”
In every tale of hubris, the transgressor is eventually slapped across the face with the semi-frozen flounder of reality. …
During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of Healthcare.gov. In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”
This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.
Of course we’re all going to suffer for the government takeover of 1/6 of the US economy, but at least we can enjoy watching the left fail at it. We can enjoy some schadenfreude watching the leftist supporters have their hopes and dreams dashed as they look on in baffled confusion and pain like a dog who’s just discovered how skunks work.
A lot has happened in a week, as Krauthammer saying “the president now is toxic” seems to be getting proved more and more true. That’s because the Obama government is chosing winners and losers – the winners will be the recipient class of serfs and the big government autocrats, and the losers will be independent people who took care of their own lives.
And it keeps getting more and more notice.
Things like this gullible leftist couple getting hit with Obamacare bills is in no small part how (via HotAir):
San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.
This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”
The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).
And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.
So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.
That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.
“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”
They had a really good plan, they lived well, and now they’re being penalized for it. Their solution is to drop their income in order to get handouts from the government. They are willingly becoming serfs.
The problem is that the healthy and those who live healthy are just “genetic lottery winners” who were paying an “artificially low price” because of “discrimination” against the sick.
Obamacare is reverse eugenics. Live right, eat healthy, exercise, and you must be punished with taxes in order to pay for your unhealthy neighbor because it’s “discrimination” to recognize your success over their failure. It’s “health justice”.
Some, like the Hammacks, believe in the idea that genetic winners and those who live healthy must be punished – even at their own expense. Of course, they believe in it being a price levied against other people, and they’re personally going Galt.
Liar in chief:
Media stooge response of Mika Brzezinski hitting herself in the face (at about 1:35):
Not because it’s a lie, not because it’s hurting citizens, but because it’s “optics”. It looks bad for the president. They don’t want things to look bad for Obama because they love him and they support leftist ideology. They’re upset because they believed the lies, they still believe the lies, and now they’re having to somehow spin the lies again to make up for the reality of them all being lies.
The piece Scarborough references with regards to a cancer patient is this Wall Street Journal article.
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.
Chris Matthews lies when he decides to spin it by saying that a cancer patient would want Obamacare. You can read the whole article and see that the author, Edie Sundby, is losing her outstanding coverage solely because of Obamacare. Her health care plan paid out over $1.2 million to keep her alive without questioning her needs. She had a plan that fit her needs. Now, Obamacare is going to kill her.
It takes a lot of spin and lies to convince someone that their health care is being revoked for their own good… so they will die… for their own good.
Remember how people said the demonstrations in Iran over the last couple years were the result of Twitter and social media? Kinda important to remember that who controls social media makes a difference, too.
In the US, resistance to the state’s control of your health is being suppressed by social media.
Twitter has repeatedly suspended an account critical of the Affordable Care Act.
The account, @mycancellation, was just getting started when Twitter suspended it—twice—before reinstating the account late Saturday night.
The purpose of @mycancellation or mycancellation.com was to allow some of the millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance to post pictures of themselves with their cancellation letters. “Help us show Washington the faces who lost what they liked,” the account asked. “ObamaCare canceled your health insurance. Now, send us your letter,” the tagline for the website advertised.
Government doesn’t need to control Twitter. All that’s required is for the people who control Twitter to be ideologically in line with the government and willing to act on their ideology. They’re leftists, so the response is to crush dissent.
The Twitter account quickly gained steam and had over 1,000 followers before Twitter suspended it.
That may not seem like a lot, but it’s also a start. Much like how the “We Are The 53%” got kicked off and became a counterpoint to the welfare state begging of last year, things that get kicked off and begin to go viral can make a difference in the national discussion. Cutting off a voice (and a thousand voices with it) is just following the old leftist playbook of “Shut Up“. And cutting off something before it goes viral is quite effective.
Shutting down a website is likened by IT specialists to tearing down a poster in the days before the internet. They consider it to mean little. But tearing down a poster for a small band may mean half their audience never sees that they’re in town, because there’s no word of mouth, as there’s no poster to say they’re in town. It feeds on itself. It can never spread if it can’t start. Tear down the poster and put it back up later and a huge chunk of audience may simply assume the band’s never coming. Again, the word doesn’t get out to the same extent.
Here, it’s something people run with and create on their own and contribute to. Make it go away, and people simply can’t contribute to it to make it go viral.
The government doesn’t have to censor things in such a crude manner as they used to. Those in leftist ideological lockstep voluntarily censor things for the government.
It’s for your own good, of course. You’re too stupid to know you shouldn’t disagree with your betters. You’re going to be getting equal access to healthcare, so shut up about your problems because you’re the tight-fisted greedy capitalist pig that made it unequal. You’ll be made equal by your betters and you’ll be made to shut up by your betters.
That’s equality to the left.
Now, some more choice quotes. From a Yahoo piece titled “Health Care Shoppers Aren’t as Dumb as Obama Thinks“:
Jim Stadler is one of the “5 percenters”—the 5% of Americans with health insurance policies they purchased on their own—who got notified recently that their carrier was canceling coverage because it didn’t meet the tougher new minimum requirements of the ACA. Stadler, a freelance writer who lives outside of Charlotte, N.C., was laid off from a full-time job at an ad agency in 2009, at which point he became a freelancer and bought individual health coverage for him and his two kids.
Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month, with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned.
Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”
Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”
They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.
New Jersey built up a relatively extensive network of junior colleges in the 1970′s and 80′s. Now, ObamaCare is forcing them to drop cost effective insurance programs they had previously provided to students.
Many students have found themselves in health care limbo this semester. Community colleges in New Jersey used to offer cheap health insurance for hundreds of dollars a year but they had to drop the practice because Federal Law prohibits the sale of bare bones policies.
“I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.”
When Klinkhamer lost her congressional job, she had to buy an individual policy on the open market.
Three years ago, it was $225 a month with a $2,500 deductible. Each year it went up a little to, as of Sept. 1, $291 with a $3,500 deductible. Then, a few weeks ago, she got a letter.
“Blue Cross,” she said, “stated my current coverage would expire on Dec. 31, and here are my options: I can have a plan with similar benefits for $647.12 [or] I can have a plan with similar [but higher] pricing for $322.32 but with a $6,500 deductible.”
She went on, “Blue Cross also tells me that if I don’t pick one of the options, they will just assume I want the one for $647. … Someone please tell me why my premium in January will be $356 more than in December?”
The sticker shock Klinkhamer is experiencing is something millions of individual policyholders are reeling from having gotten similar letters from their private insurers.
“I am a Democrat and I believe in health care for all,” she said.
“And I was excited that previously uninsured people could now get insurance on the open market. But this is not affordable to me.”
The Democrat party’s chickens are coming home to roost.
The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT.
This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.
It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success.
It’s not a “trainwreck,” ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.
Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky — a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intentions.
To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.
He lays out the whole case, but the quick summary is that Obamacare is a transformative piece of legislation. It forces redistribution of wealth, from the productive members of society to the less productive (also regardless of what they did before – so rich older folks with low income but lots of savings get handouts, while poor young folks with higher income but no savings get taxed to pay for it).
Obamacare destroys the middle class by deciding who the winners and losers will be. As with the last post here, a lot of middle-class liberals are even astonished that they’re being targeted to pay for Obamacare. I guess they didn’t expect to be the ones being liquidated.
Obamacare destroys small businesses – Root suggests those are the supporters of the GOP, but they’re more the supporters of the Tea Party than anything. It does destroy ideological opposition through economic warfare.
Obamacare does give the IRS power over 16% or so of the US economy, moreso than it already has, and as an enforcement arm that garnish your wages, it can ignore the Fourth Amendment by just taking your property and earnings from you without your knowledge.
More suspicious voices on the right warned that the Left would use a collapsing Obama Care as an excuse for a single payer medical care system. The “train wreck” of the Obama Care roll-out has underscored its incredible complexity, contradictions, and peccadilloes, and we are just beginning to scratch the surface. Who knows what horrors lie buried in the thousands of pages of regulations that no one has read?
The warning that the Republicans will be blamed for the crash of Obama Care is already coming true. As ueber-Liberal Robert Reich writes from his Ivory Tower of Berkeley (Don’t Blame Dems. We Wanted Single Payer):
“Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public.”
The Left is champing at the bit to go single payer, even before Obama Care has begun. The employer mandate has been delayed and thousands of exemptions have been granted. Of the major provisions, only the individual mandate and fines remain, and even they may be delayed. But the liberals say: Let’s change the venue and the rules before the game even starts.
The objective was to create fundamental transformation. Also, the Forbes piece brings up Paul Krugman, who as we all know, is an idiot – but more on that later.
It is successful because it destroys the health care economy and sets the stage for single payer government socialist health care. It’s not good, it’s not successful, it’s not what we want, it’s not something that can even work, but it’s what they will force upon us.
A few choice quotes. The first from the LA Times:
Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don’t like what they see.
These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years. …
Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.
Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.
“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”
Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.
“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’” Kehaly said.
…many are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul.
“All we’ve been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it,” said Deborah Cavallaro, a real estate agent in Westchester. “I’m infuriated because I was lied to.“
Cavallaro received her cancellation notice from Anthem Blue Cross this month. The company said a comparable Bronze plan would cost her 65% more, or $484 a month. She doubts she’ll qualify for much in premium subsidies, if any. Regardless, she resents losing the ability to pick and choose the benefits she wants to pay for.
“I just won’t have health insurance because I can’t pay this increase,” she said.
And from the San Jose Mercury news:
Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.
“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
The hardcore leftists who believe in collectivism and destroying the individual for the common good still say it’s a good thing, of course:
Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, said the state and insurers agreed that clearing the decks by Jan. 1 was best for consumers in the long run despite the initial disruption. Lee has heard the complaints — even from his sister-in-law, who recently groused about her 50% rate increase.
“People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn’t have been part of the common risk pool,” Lee said. “We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better.”
Translation: “We are doing this to you. We do not approve of your choices. We will force you to change. We will transform the market into what we want it to be.”
And when it doesn’t work, as it always doesn’t, they’ll start looking for people to blame and more people to squeeze money from, just like happens in every socialist/communist utopia.
“The rates aren’t going up because insurance companies are pocketing more money,” Lee said. “That is what it takes to pay the claims and deliver the healthcare.”
That would be bad if those people with the cheaper “bad” coverage wouldn’t be part of the collective. So they are forced into the system in order to force them to pay for what liberals and leftists want to do with your money.
The same collectivist totalitarian logic would say that good cars are good, so everyone needs to drive a Cadillac. Thus Kias will be made illegal, and anyone not buying a Cadillac will be taxed for a Cadillac until they buy a Cadillac. Don’t need a Cadillac? Well then you’re one of the stingy people with cheap, bad coverage who doesn’t know what’s best for yourself, and who’s a greedy selfish asshole who won’t pay for litte Billy’s Cadillac. You must be punished because you resist the collective.
“We believe the prices are higher than they should be,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. “This is giving a bad name to the Affordable Care Act.”
Socialism gives socialism a bad name every time. Communism gives communism a bad name every time. That’s why socialists and communists always lie and say that socialism and communism work, that every time they were historically used “that wasn’t real socialism/communism”, and other such lies.