UPDATED! "Yes, You Can Keep Your Health Plan" or, What Part of *Screw You* Don't You Understand?

Note: This post was updated at 8am ET on October 30. Scroll down for latest.

Via the Twitter feed of Matt Cover (and National Review's Jim Geraghty) comes a link to this 2010 blog post by then-Obama special assistant and now CNN Crossfire host Stephane Cutter:

Yes, You Can Keep Your Health Plan

...A key point to remember is that while the Act makes many changes to the individual market, it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so.  Most of the Act’s protections apply only to new policies, allowing people to stick with their current plan if they prefer.  It is true that a few protections apply to all plans, both new and old, but these protections—like limiting the share of premiums that insurers can devote to administrative costs—are designed to help consumers and cut health care costs.

The bottom line is that the Act allows people to keep the insurance they have, while also providing more and better options for all.

How important was it to the passage of Obamacare that you could keep your coverage if you liked it? Pretty damn important, I'd wager, since it offered comfort to vast majority of folks who were happy with their insurance and rightly feared that the president's transformative, sweeping reform would wipe out a lot of stuff.

Which is exactly what's happening. Check it out, via CBS News:

People across the country are finding out they're losing their existing insurance plans under Obamacare because requirements in the law, such as prenatal and prescription drug coverage, mean their old plans aren't comprehensive enough.

In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.

That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette. Last month, she received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she's being offered would run $591 a month -- 10 times more than what she currently pays.

Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

But hey, Obama won the election. Get over it. What part of screw you don't you understand?

[Update: Mediaite reports on further reporitng by Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren and The Washington Post's Erik Wemple that complicates Dianne Barrette's story above. Barrette's insurance plan has in fact been dropped because it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for individual coverage under Obamacare. While it cost very little, it also covered virtually nothing as well and, in an interview on Susteren's Fox show, Barrette displayed effectively zero knowledge of her plan and what it covered. After factoring subsidies in, her premium costs would be around $200 a month. All of that was left out of the original CBS News report, which is not so much wrong as lacking in meaningful context.

For clearer, more-informed cases of how Obamacare has stripped people of existing plans in the individual market, read David Frum's "The Obamacare Ripoff" and the story of Sue Klinkhamer, an Obamacare supporter and former staffer to a Democratic congressman who has been forced to buy more expensive coverage for next year. End update]

And here is an NBC News report that argues

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”  

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. 

Nancy Pelosi be damned! It sure seems as if the O-Team knew what it was doing all along. And it had nothing to do with keeping your health plan if you liked it.

Time to bring in, you know, The A-Team to fix it all (watch this 15 second vid):

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MJGreen||

    It is true that a few protections apply to all plans, both new and old, but these protections—like limiting the share of premiums that insurers can devote to administrative costs—are designed to help consumers and cut health care costs.

    Well that's all that matters. They intended it to cut health care costs. Don't blame them!

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    From a Huffington Post Information Commissar Community Pundit:

    DESPITE THE "BEST EFFORTS" OF THOSE OPPOSED TO ACA IT'S GOING TO WORK.......HERE IS WHY..............................
    1) It's working in the states where the state has chosen to run its own exchange....even in Red States.

    Gov Bashear of Kentucky whose state had a very successful launch of the marketplaces Kentucky has 620,000 uninsured. 26,000 have now enrolled (about half in private insurance and half in the medicaid expansion). 50,000 more have applicatins started and there the numbers are 60/40 medicaid/private insurance. Another 300,000 have registered on the site.400 businesses have accessed the ACA Shop to find group insurance for their employees. The story is the same in every state that has done what Kentucky has done.

    2) The insurance companies are coming on board.

    You have probably heard the horror stories about those who have their policies dropped. Let's look a bit closer. Florida Blue (Blue Cross Blue Shield) has let it me be know that 300,000 Floridians will find that their policies are being dropped. Bad news, right? Won't new policies cost more or even be unavailable? CEO and Chairman of the Board of Florida Blue Pat Geraghty has offered the following explanation.
    First, the policies that WILL NO LONGER BE OFFERED do not meet the more comprehensive benefit requirements of the Affordable Care. He noted that Florida Blue fully endorses this enhanced coverage.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Second, 300,000 will have their policies phased out across the year but this will be an incremental change with 15,000 to 30,000 policy holders informed of the change and offered comparable and often better policies.
    Third, Mr Geraghty pointed out that his company is solidly behind these changes. He is holding 3000 education seminars, doing a massive mail out and phone campaign and a serious of e mail blast to assist Floridians in a transition from outdated to better insurance. Florida Blue is featuring ACA expansion on its website and is a member of several private marketing sites like e-health.

    Fourth, Geraghty has made it clear that most Floridians are going to find that the new insurance is much better and of the same price or less than their old policies thanks to the subsidy system. A small minority will not because they were underinsured and/or were unwilling to invest reasonable in their own health care insurance.

    Praise be to Obama for He is great! He liberated people from the chains of health insurance plans He, in his infinite wisdom, deemed unacceptable and rescued the 'underinsured' from their own ignorance.

  • PapayaSF||

    He noted that Florida Blue fully endorses this enhanced coverage.

    So an insurance company is OK with selling more expensive policies? Shocka.

    300,000 will have their policies phased out across the year but [...] holders informed of the change and offered comparable and often better policies.

    You are all being evicted, but you will be offered comparable and often better accommodations elsewhere, so don't complain.

  • Generic Stranger||

    You are all being evicted, but you will be offered comparable and often better accommodations elsewhere, for a much greater price, so don't complain.

    FTFY.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Wow that is some mendacious shit.

    "You have probably heard the horror stories about those who have their policies dropped. Let's look a bit closer. Florida Blue (Blue Cross Blue Shield) has let it me be know that 300,000 Floridians will find that their policies are being dropped."

    This is true, but it's incremental! And if you end up paying more it's because the policy you had before was substandard!

    I'm gonna fuck you up the ass, but I'll do it gently and slowly!
    And if you don't like it, that's because you've never been fucked up the ass properly!

  • Finrod||

    Don't forget "And it's your own fault if you don't like it!"

  • Carolynp||

    And, it's already been decided, so when are you going to quit complaining?

  • Brett L||

    "Just the tip"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So the Kentucky statement is a flat out lie. Suderman's earlier story linked directly to this:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....structure/

    Hardly half-and-half.

  • ||

    I didn't actually absorb any of the content there, all I could see was "applicatins" (no red squiggly huffpo?) and "invest reasonable in".

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I see they're going with the "if you're losing your insurance plan, you really didn't have insurance" bullshit that sociopath Ezekiel Emmanuel was running with this weekend.

  • Finrod||

    That and I saw one leftist troll still trying to claim that everyone will save money eventually from the better coverage, though of course they were completely lacking on any details.

    Trust us! We're the government. We know better.

  • Juice||

    If I didn't really have insurance then why are the plans being offered worse? I guess these Obamacare plans aren't really insurance.

  • ||

    You see, we're still at the stage where denial works for these people. But as time goes on, it's going to get harder and harder for them. Like certain cheeses or wines, denial only gets better with age. This is going to be delicious in a few months.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'm actually surprised at how much of a clusterfuck this has been already. I knew the law and the exchanges would never work as intended, but I didn't expect the disaster to be too big to be ignored by the major media, this soon.

    And it's hard to see how it'll get better anytime soon. The end of November deadline for "fixing" healthcare.gov seems overly-optimistic, to say the least. The rate shock stories aren't anywhere near over. The "successes" of the state exchanges seem over-trumpeted. And lots of people don't follow the news: they'll just discover the IRS has docked their refund next year for not having insurance.

    One thing I look forward to: Congresscritters campaigning in 2014, having to explain how they and their staffs got special subsidies to be able to "afford" Obamacare, which the average voter did not get.

  • ||

    Unless the administration suddenly gets vastly more competent than they have been so far, this clusterfuck should just get better, especially if you look at how quickly it already went into super-fucked territory. Anyone competent enough to fix this would have been competent enough to not have this happen in the first place.

    It's not boding well for the administration or ACA supporters, but man it's boding well for my entertainment prospects as this continues to unravel.

  • Finrod||

    Invest in popcorn stocks.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm actually surprised at how much of a clusterfuck this has been already.

    I knew from the beginning it would be, but figured they'd at least cover their asses by delaying the inevitable shit storm. Then I got my letter from the insurance company letting me know that I was being dropped (which through my class unconsciousness I actually liked) unless I upgraded to a plan that I didn't want.

    My plan wasn't some homedepot-buttplug bullshit plan, it was a good catastrophic plan for a young healthy person with little money. I knew that they were probably sending out many of those letters and that people would be pissed. I also figured that the geniuses in the administration wouldn't be able to hide the custerfuck they created.

    Then the exchanges went online.

    I'm really enjoying the piled up failure drowning this administration and its lackeys.

  • PapayaSF||

    I am having some schadenfreude because I know freelance writers and adjunct professors who are total D partisans, and I suspect they will be suffering a bit from Obamacare. You voted for this, fools.

  • John Thacker||

    You want schadenfraude, you want this former Dem staffer who lost her job when her boss lost his seat over Obamacare (he regained his seat two years later but didn't rehire her), and she had defended Obamacare a ton-- only now is not so happy with what it's doing to her premiums.

    She liked her coverage, the new coverage is unaffordable. She says it should be the "Available Care Act," since it isn't affordable.

  • Jordan||

    "Available Care Act". Hmm, not bad. But it doesn't quite fit, since Obamacare does nothing to improve availability of health care. How about the "Obama Pretends to Care Act"?

  • SweatingGin||

  • ||

    ...and she is still getting it wrong. Affordable = Available. Not affordable? Not available.

  • John Thacker||

    “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.”

  • PapayaSF||

    Atrocious Care Act.
    Afflictive Care Act.
    Aching Care Act.
    Amiss Care Act.
    Awry Care Act.
    Abominable Care Act.

  • Finrod||

    Agonizing Careless Act.

  • Carolynp||

    That seems awfully close to just calling it Obamacare...

  • John C. Randolph||

    She's one of the people who actually deserves to get screwed over by the government.

    -jcr

  • Faceless Commenter||

    She still believes in government-administered healthcare for all. She won't get it until she's gasping her last due to strep throat while lying under a barefoot doctor who's waving the Little Red Book in one hand and a manure-smeared knife in the other.

  • ||

    Yeah, seriously the people who are going to get ass-raped the worst by the ACA are self-employed middle-income young people.
    Just EXACTLY the kind of people who live in San Fran or on the East Coast who probably voted for Obama in droves.

  • ||

    The end of November...

    You men like the weekend after Thanksgiving? That weekend?

    Does anyone ever finish anything at the end of November?

    The end of November is the three days after you get back from a five-day weekend when you are usually still trying to remember what your job is.

    Nevermind that literally EVERYTHING is closed on Thanksgiving, so even if they wanted to work through the weekend, they couldn't even order a pizza. They would have to park themselves in a Starbucks and code from their laptops because facilities locked the building and turned off the heat.

  • Brian||

    They just want to set the deadline to a time when no one will be paying attention.

  • Brett L||

    The have to have it fixed before Thanksgiving. Have you ever tried to get three managers into a meeting between Turkey Day and New Years Day? It is literally impossible. So their options are fix it by Thanksgiving or wait until after the first of the year.

  • ||

    I love how they always excuse people having their plans terminated or being forced to buy more expensive insurance with "But the benefits will be better!"

    As if anyone wants to pay an extra $300/month for insurance just so they don't have a co-pay for a mammogram.

    What benefits does the ACA offer to people who are healthy and have few annual medical costs? Lower deductibles don't mean shit if you don't meet the deductible anyway. Free birth control pills? No lifetime maximum? Seriously, you expect people to be happy about having their insurance costs double for that bullshit?

  • Ted S.||

    Allowing women to choose for themselves whether they want to pay more in premiums every month so that they don't have to give any money to the radiologist, or less on their premiums and pay the radiologist at the time of service means you want to take mammograms away from women and want them to die.

    Why do you hate titties so much, Hazel? This is why there are no female libertarians!

  • ||

    Sadly, many women I know are fucking retards. They consider their employer-based plans their personal property so the employer has no right to decide what it covers, and simultaneously think of them as free benefits paid for by someone else.

    It's as if when I give you a lollipop, I have no right to decide what flavor it is. I demand fucking lollipop, and I want it blueberry flavor, otherwise you are imposing your flavor-preferences upon me, you patriarchal goon!

  • ||

    Sadly, many women I know are fucking retards.

    That's a strange way to spell Americans, Hazel.

  • Ted S.||

    Many men are fucking retards, too. It's just that we call those retards "trophy wives".

  • ||

    I have a trophy boyfriend. Er kept man. Concubine. Gigalo.

  • ||

    Is there a waiting list for them? Or do I just have to hunt them in the wild? I end up paying for everything whenever I'm dating anyway.

  • Ted S.||

    I'm sorry, Jesse, but I don't think Hazel has gay gigolos. Unless you want to wind up with something like Robert Downey's character in Less Than Zero, giving blowjobs to pay off his drug debt.

  • ||

    I don't think it matters that much once you're paying for them, Ted. Your link intrigues me, but I don't think I have a way to trap someone in debt peonage to be paid off in blowjobs, though I will keep an eye out for opportunities.

  • Ted S.||

    Ask them "Why should I be forced to pay for your birth control?" I'd love to hear how they respond.

    Better yet, tell them to go up to a random stranger and tell the stranger that he should be forced to pay for her birth control.

    Yeah, I know. They think the money is only coming from some amorphous "the rich".

  • ||

    They will insist that you aren't paying for their birth control. Their insurance coverage is part of their "total compensation" so they paid for it themselves.

    I mean, it's cool they they actually compute the cost of health insurance as part of their income, but (A) I doubt they actually have any clue how much it costs their employer, and (B) if they did, I doubt they would prefer to receive that compensation in the form of health insurance if they had a choice.

    Let's see, would I like an extra $500/month in income or some free birth control pills. HMMMMMMMMM.

  • ||

    I still can't fathom why birth control isn't OTC. Even if you kept some of the propietary blends for controlling acne or PCOS symptoms behind the counter, there's no good reason to make it a employer-provided benefit.

  • Ted S.||

    there's no good reason to make it a employer-provided benefit.

    Because it gives government control, and allows the left to stick it to those evil fundies who don't want to pay for such stuff.

  • ||

    It's funny how progressive always accuse people on the right of being all "I got mine so screw you!", but that is exactly the attitude they promote on the part of their own constituencies.

    "I got my free birth control and mamogramms, so screw you, men, employers, religious conservatives. "

    They actually have arguments with eachother about how terrible it is that poor people don't "vote their self interest". As if their ideal society would involve everyone voting for as much free shit as possible for themselves.

  • John Thacker||

    The annoying thing is that Obamacare took away the ability to use HSAs on OTC things. So if birth control were OTC, you couldn't buy it with HSA money.

    For my wife, and most women I know, scheduling the doctor's appointment to get the prescription and taking time for that is way more than the cost of the pills.

  • KimInGA||

    I've always figured it's because going OTC would mean they couldn't force you to get annual pap smears before they'll write the scrip for your pills. I wonder how many women only go annually for that one reason? I know I did.

  • DenverJay||

    Duh, because of Boosh and the evil Rethuglicans!

  • LarryA||

    Better still, ask them if they realize that whoever pays for their birth control will get to choose what method will be funded. So if mostly-male members of Congress think sponges sound icky, women who want them (or can't use other methods) will have to get them on the regular market.

    Only since no manufacturer can compete with free government stuff that market will disappear.

  • Carolynp||

    I assure you, there are a few of us female libertarians. Either that, or my gyno is quite confused.

  • JeremyR||

    It's a running joke (mostly)

  • KimInGA||

    There are a good number of us. I think. We just camouflage well. That and women overall tend to be more bleeding heart liberal and it just gets to the point where you don't want to argue with your female friends/family/coworkers any more. They're so irrational. It does get annoying when they just assume you agree because you're female though. I've had more than a few "huh??" looks when I say that no, actually, I'm libertarian. "What's THAT?"

  • SQRLSY One||

    You healthy “young invincibles” shouldn’t gloat so much; you never know when utter catastrophe will randomly strike you, and then you’ll be SOOO thankful for that gold-bricked insurance policy! Like that mandate for covering space alien abduction therapy… I used to sneer at those sniveling babies whining and bitching and moaning about being abducted and anally probed in the middle of the night on a deserted highway, and then it happened to ME!!! And since I was too cheap to have bought an Obama-approved plan, I am forced to sniff and snivel about my anal probing, all by my lonesome, never professionally sniveled over by professional expertologists of sniveling… Take it from ME & my hard-learned lessons… Don’t be so un-snivel to people like me, or possibly YOURSELF in the future!

  • ||

    But with ObamaCare, Now you can get your annual anal probe for FREE! For the low, low, price of only $300/month extra in insurance premiums.

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else had a plan they had to lie about to get passed?

  • Tonio||

    Every politician ever?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Stringer Bell?

  • General Butt Naked||

    +1 (sell it for 2)

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    so "protection" is another one of those words that don't mean what they used to mean.

  • Penis Carrot||

    I means what it has always meant in New Jersey, by way of Rocco and Guido.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    And here is an NBC News report that argues

    Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

    Thanks for being all over this NBC!

  • SweatingGin||

    "Normal turnover" already makes it sound like some weasel wording. I'm sure a lot of it is about plans grandfathered or something, but it really sounds like they weaseled it even then.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Fuck it, better late than never, I guess.

    This is turning into a dogpile now. Even the HuffPo piece above unwittingly reveals the fatal flaw in these exchanges--most of the enrollees are signing up for Medicaid, and will pay little to nothing into the system. This is going to absolutely nuke the states' Medicaid budgets, and they're going to sit around and ask themselves what the hell happened when it does blow up.

    Well, you dummies--stop trying to nurture and grow the Free Shit Army, a la Detroit, and you won't have to worry about it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

    Oh Dianne, the answer is quite simple: because fuck you, that's why. Obama knows what kind of coverage you need, so shut up and pay.

  • Dweebston||

    But hey, Obama won the election. Get over it. What part of screw you don't you understand?

    Erections have consequences, bitch. Now bend over.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Erections have consequences

    Lacist!

  • Sevo||

    For whom did Ms. Barrette vote?
    If Obo, fuck you with a shovel, lady.

  • ||

    From the Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc in an earlier thread;

    "Comrade Obama's glorious new healthcare plan has liberated you from the chains of your old insurance plan and given you the freedom to choose a plan that has more 'options' than you had before."

    Earlier today I had the tv on for noise and there was a debate about obamacare. Someone was complaining about how people were getting dropped and prices skyrocketing. The smug, smirking liberal POS on the panel responded almost word for word with what RHSM, Visc said, presenting that as a serious argument. He also assured us that we are gonna love it.

    I would have paid nearly any amount of money to jump through the screen and punch that sanctimonious fucker in the mouth.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    It's true Newspeak: "increased access to healthcare" is Obamaspeak for "we're going to force you to buy shit you neither want nor need."

  • Brian||

    Pretty soon they'll just be down to "We're trying to give poor people health care, so shut the fuck up, mean people!"

  • ||

    Just using the term 'mean people' pushes my buttons.
    I remember from college campuses all the 'mean people suck' bumper stickers. I used to write 'fuck you' on them every chance I got.

  • Finrod||

    These jackasses remind me of brain-dead versions of Loki from The Avengers, here to free us from the problems of freedom.

  • Carolynp||

    Oh, hey! Maybe you've come up with a serious way to pay for the ACA. I'd pony up to smack several smug liberal pols around.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette.

    Every 56 year old needs the prenatal care option, and sex should not be a determining factor.

  • Brian||

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's like every fucking day is Christmas.

    I wake up, and I laugh, and I laugh, and laugh...

    Stupid progressives.

  • ||

    I would laugh too, except I know where this road invariably leads.

  • Brian||

  • RG||

    "Oh the humanity!"

  • ||

    Almost, but not quite. It needs an MSNBC newscaster telling us how wonderful it all is, how obumbles the genius really planned it this way...etc etc.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    A lot of blimps don't land exactly right on their first try, you have to give them time to work the kinks out.

  • SweatingGin||

    Maybe get some Potempkin enrollees out. Pick some town in Indiana, say everyone got through to the exchange and had great success. Bring the reporters by to see.

    Could even have a fainter in there to bring back some of that first term magic.

  • Jordan||

    Didn't they already try that with Chad?

  • SweatingGin||

    Yea, but now we need a whole village of chads!

  • Bobarian||

    Hanging Chads?

  • SweatingGin||

    I always forget that was during the day -- the flames were so bright, it looks like night on film.

    Somehow I bet they'll manage a few more FYTW before they hit the ground.

  • Jordan||

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    It does convey a more appropriate level of gravitas, i.e., none.

  • PaulW||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2EOees58eQ

    This is the Obama Administration in a nutshell.

  • PapayaSF||

    As someone wrote about the Martha Coakley campaign: This isn't the Hindenburg or the Titanic, it's the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.

  • Nobamunism||

    With complications yet.

  • Finrod||

    ... crashing into the space shuttle. Both of them.

  • Bramblyspam||

    Meanwhile, they're fiddling with the deck chairs while the Titanic burns. Or something like that.

  • DenverJay||

    "We have met the enemy, and he is us"

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

    Because that's the entire basis of the whole scheme dearie. Did you not get the memo?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now is the perfect time for journalists to look into the legislation and the claims that got it sort of passed.

  • SweatingGin||

    Too much work. Just say the website is screwed up.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    I guess it took the obstructionist teathuglicans at CBS longer than planned to stage their coup.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    It does seem as though journalism is breaking out in some of the unlikeliest places -- like CNN, CBS, NBC, and the Washington Post.

  • DenverJay||

    Of course. They have almost used up their "serious journalist" credits, so now that they have secured a second term for Obama, they can report all the stories that would have cost him reelection, his first election, or hell, his nomination in the first place.

  • OldMexican||

    Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"


    Because in Our Eyes(*) you're no better than an imbecile, a moron, someone that was lobotomized by nature itself, which means you can't know what you like or don't like so We, The (*)Government, decide for you.

    That is what I gathered from all those liberal pundits that have been invited to those 2-minute "fair and balanced" debates in Fox News, after the host and the other side pointed out the obvious: that the president lied about being able to keep the plan one likes. The liberal pundits bloviate about those plans being so bad and terrible and gouging us and we should be so lucky to have new and better plans under the ACA, blah blah blah. Ergo, we're too stupid to have free choice.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    There was an asterisk whenever that claim was made, it was just silent.

  • SweatingGin||

    "Ergo, we're too stupid to have free choice."

    Seems to be a theme of early 21st century progressivism.

  • Redmanfms||

    Seems to be a theme of early 21st century progressivism.

    When has progressivism ever been about choice?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I was watching Imus the other morning and Alan Colmes stated that Obama would be remembered as one of our best presidents. When prompted to list Obama's accomplishments, he mentioned killing al qaeda, lowering the deficit to $900 billion and "healthcare".
    Everybody on the show mocked him, and I was left to wonder if he actually believed what he was saying.

  • John Thacker||

    This one is the best.

    “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.”

    ...

    “And I was excited that previously uninsured people could now get insurance on the open market. But this is not affordable to me.”

    Klinkhamer suggests renaming the Affordable Care Act.

    “Just call it,” she said dryly, “the Available Care Act.”
  • Ayn Random Variation||

    no sympathy from me

  • SweatingGin||

    It's her fault! She's the one that didn't believe hard enough!

    She lost her faith when they cancelled her plan! If she had kept her faith through it all, Obama would have rewarded her and the entire country!

  • ||

    I think all of the previously uninsured people could get insurance, mostly they just chose not to.

    And, as I pointed out above, unaffordable means unavailable.

    I hope this bitch has not reproduced. Perhaps she should do the gene pool a favor......

  • John Thacker||

    She's 60 years old, so she's probably not reproducing any more. Though she does get maternity coverage now and birth control pills, thanks to Obamacare!

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    That is outstanding.

    Except for the "Available" part, which seems like a big goddam assumption. Still, it does little to water down the concentrated schadenfreude.

    If only we could contain the impacts of their idiocy to those who labored so tirelessly to thrust it upon us.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    From the comments on that:

    Sherry Brockett2 hours ago

    This is all bull. The only ones that will benefit from obamacare are the poor. My employer informed all employees that it will not offer qualified insurance as of Dec. 31st. We must find our own. Even with the tax credit that I would qualify for the insurance is 678.00 a month with a 6000.00 deductible. There is no way I can afford this. I have a disabled husband at home and he is covered by medicare so I don't have to worry about him. But because I have to add his disability as income it puts me in a higher income bracket so I have to pay more for insurance. I for one at this time will opt to pay the fine. I can go to my doctor and pay 50.00 for a visit when paying cash. A lot cheaper than 678.00. I honestly considered divorcing my husband so that we could afford this.

    This really does have the potential for some ugly media coverage.

  • John Thacker||

    The people who are going to end up paying for this are people who already had individual plans, who are mostly middle-income. ($46k/year for singles.)

    I'm expecting that the liberal Dem response will be to increase the subsidies, and fund it through taxes (supposedly on "the rich.") I can't see another D path other than that. Going single-payer is only a variant of that path.

    There's always price controls, but considering that the "doc fix" didn't take in Medicare, I'm not sure that would work.

    Smart Republicans, should any exist, should try to outreach to at least these people.

  • Ted S.||

    Single-payer legal care.

    Every single regulation these people want to put on doctors ought first be tried on lawyers (since they make up a disproportionate percentage of legislators). Fuck them all.

  • John Thacker||

    Public defenders for all?

  • Ted S.||

    There's not one single lawyer out there who's worth anything more than minimum wage.

    Hillary would be drawing up wills for little old ladies in Watertown, NY.

  • ||

    The potential for ugly media coverage existed all along but the media chose, and is mostly still choosing, to cover for them.

    Had the media chosen to they could have sunk this administration with Fast and Furious. That they got away with that is unfathomable to me.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    True of course, but the number of people directly affected by F&F was virtually zero. I'm wondering if maybe the number of people screwed *right now* by Obamacare, in extremely quantifiable terms, might make this too hard to just sweep under the covers as run of the mill partisan political nuance.

  • John Thacker||

    Right now, journalists are having an easier time finding people who are pissed about canceled policies and higher premiums than people who are getting insurance through the exchange.

    If the exchanges get fixed, the Administration will look to feed reporters with success stories. But right now, even the "success stories" behind Obama last week hadn't even gotten the site working, they were just "planning to use it."

  • Faceless Commenter||

    I get a little queasy thinking about our marchers meeting their marchers.

  • Brian||

    Sue: "I lost my insurance! And how I have to buy really expensive insurance"
    Progtard: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
    Sue: "But, more people are losing insurance than signing up for Obamacare!"
    Progtard: "The needs of the poor outweigh the needs of the rich."
    Sue: "Rich? I'm a fucking secretary! And the people who are signing up are going into medicaid! Couldn't you find a way to expand medicaid for the truly poor without screwing up my insurance?"
    Protard: "Obama works in mysterious ways."

  • Libertarius||

    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

    Ahh, Spock's classic encapsulation of utilitarianism. I wish the libertarians would understand the impossibility of this philosophy, and that it is much more consistently applied to statism and leftoidism than to *anything* close to liberty. It is no accident that Bentham ended his life as a socialist.

  • ||

    It's amazing how little negotiating power people have when they are forced to pay for things. Who could have predicted this?

  • Rich||

    it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so.

    "To do so" meaning, of course, "to want to keep their current insurance".

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    That is some fine parsin', Rich. You may be qualified for a career in politics.

  • Rich||

    I've been studying Obamaese for quite some time now, so I'm probably *overqualified*.

  • SweatingGin||

    A couple weeks ago, as the first enrollment numbers were trickling out, I saw something indicating that insurers could withdraw from the exchanges up until October 31. I'm not sure if that is true or not.

    Has anyone else seen anything on that? I haven't been able to find anything, or even remember the original source. I figured last Friday would have some withdraws if many were going to.

  • John Thacker||

    I think that's correct, which is why the White House wasn't going to announce a delay of the individual mandate before then-- the insurers would scream, because it would mess up their pricing.

  • SweatingGin||

    So we get another present Thursday? A few of the states are at 2 or 3 providers already.

  • John Thacker||

    Probably not; the White House invited all the insurance co CEOs over for a big chat last week, probably to tell them that they'd be bailed out if necessary and not to leave the exchanges.

  • SweatingGin||

    Not sure how much they can expect a bailout, though. That's just more embarrassment, and it needs to go through a Republican house and a senate filibuster.

    I'd imagine a bit of strong arming, though.

    The insurance companies know how many signed up, and how many more have to for them to make a profit. I'd imagine they all went in there with that number right in the front of their minds -- "are you going to get me 400k customers by January 1?" (Or whatever the number is).

  • John Thacker||

    Until 2016, there's a lookback provision that allows the insurance companies to be reimbursed if claims come in too high (and they have to pay in if claims come in too low.) It's not full reimbursement, but it covers a good 80% of it.

    CBO priced it as budget neutral, assuming that insurers would on average hit the right target (since it's not a full reimbursement.) But with a mandate delay, could end up being a huge insurer bailout.

  • SweatingGin||

    Gotcha, thanks. I only caught a little of that provision. So not an immediate death spiral.

  • John Thacker||

    Right, it probably greatly lessens a death spiral, at the cost of indirect subsidies.

  • ||

    That was before they hired a man who would swear, on national TV, that the exchanges would work by the end of November.

    Whether he can actually acomplish that is another thing. The key point is that he's willing to swear to it. With a straight face. That's what they pay good money for.

  • John Thacker||

    Well, if he didn't, even Dems were starting to ask for a delay. I assume that they're hoping that everything will be too fucked up to repeal even if it doesn't work by November 30.

  • ||

    I wonder how much extra they paid him to be convincing.

  • DenverJay||

    Exactly. By then, millions of people will no longer have their old policies, employers will have changed or dropped their plans, insurance companies will have completely re-vamped what they offer, doctors and hospitals will have changed there billing procedures, medicade and medicare will have changed their policies, the billing codes will have all changed, and the software companies that supply all of the above will have released their 2014 versions that assume an ACA.
    Way too late for the government to say "Oops, never mind"

  • ||

    Also "bailout" = nationalization.

    The government will buy stock in the companies much like they did with GM.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    You know why American journalism sucks? Is the worst in the world? Is populated by retards with a liberal agenda?
    It's because any actuary, or programmer, or mathematician, or practically anybody who can think beyond the next day's headlines KNEW this was a corpse covered in shit the second it was enacted.
    These fucking fucktards in the media are now chasing the shit coming out of their own asses like dogs to their tails.
    Obama is the worst president in U.S. history. The fuckhead is so beholden to his bullshit -- with the Senate and the media in tow -- that he believes his own salty dick snot should be explored as an alternative fuel.
    We need to impeach this stupid ass-clown. This country is dead.

  • ||

    Look Habeas, this is H&R. We dont sugarcoat things here.

    Dont hold back, tell us what you really think.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    There's no sugarcoating it, Habeas has some concerns about this plan.

  • ||

    Mild concerns, but they're there nonetheless.

  • Brian||

    There's no sugarcoating it: some adjustments may be required for Habeas' health insurance compliance.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has anybody seen Tony lately?

    I haven't seen him around in a long time.

    I wonder if his insurance got canceled or something.

    That would be hilarious.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    He popped by earlier on a Bailey abortion post to call Rand Paul an associate of neo-Nazis.

  • croaker||

    Seems to me the real neo-Nazis are certain government employees in Wisconsin.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that Chad Henderson is the same Chad that used to post on these boards.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Heh.

  • SweatingGin||

    He did kind of have the air of a 15 year old or so.

  • ||

    I think he also mentioned that he lived in Michigan.

  • Sevo||

    HazelMeade|10.28.13 @ 9:55PM|#
    "I'm pretty sure that Chad Henderson is the same Chad that used to post on these boards."

    Interesting.
    'Bout the first time I posted here, I asked for cites from Chad who had made a specific claim.
    His response was 'you look it up', which seemed pretty 'adolescent'. And stupid, as I mentioned.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Rather curious, isn't it. Seems like he disappeared right around the time that the news pivoted from shutdown-apocalypse to obamacare-apocalypse.

    Maybe he's part of the A-team?

  • Brian||

    Has anybody seen Tony lately?

    I haven't seen him around in a long time.

    I wonder if his insurance got canceled or something.

    That would be hilarious.

    I'm pretty sure that public middle school English teachers are covered (for now).

  • SweatingGin||

  • gurlfriday247||

    Animal Farm reloaded.

  • lap83||

    http://media.kansascity.com/sm......St.81.jpg

    This cartoon, which ran in the KC Star over the weekend, to me sums up the liberal position right now. Yeah, they are panicking and Obamacare is not going well....but they will keep desperately lashing out and blaming the usuals until the very end.

  • Finrod||

    The cartoonist forgot to draw the part where the boat was radioactive, on fire, and filled with hungry zoo animals.

  • John||

    I keep telling you guys everyone is going to hate this. The only people who are getting free shit are the poor and they are getting health insurance. But the poor don't want to buy discounted health insurance. They want cash. They don't give a shit about health insurance. Everyone else is getting fucked. Lobs a is such a moron he managed to create a welfare program that gives people shot they don't want. This is going t be the death of these clowns. I love it.

  • ||

    So on Facebook the other day, I posted that Kathleen Sebelius should have been shit canned over this fuck up. This guy who I did my undergrad with at DePaul and got his MPA from Northwestern basically argued that despite the government shitting away a crap ton of money and having 3 to 5 years to make this website great and failing, no one needs to get fired and damn it we should appreciate the efforts of Obama and his team for giving us a chance to get insurance. He made every excuse in the book possible and even gotten angry that I dared demand that someone be held accountable for this fuck up.

    I explained to him that insurance means shit if costs for health care are still rising, why health care is so expensive, and how Obamacare is basically a system doomed to fail based on it's dependence on young healthy people and the cronyism. This dude who calls himself an intellectual centrist couldn't refute any of my points and actually said that it didn't work because it's hard for the government to do all of this, especially for millions of people. He also then went on a rant about how health care is a human right and how bad the GOP have been.

    You couldn't make this shit up,

  • lap83||

    It's like talking to someone in an abusive relationship.

  • sasob||

    Ironic how health care is supposedly a human right according to some, but the freedom to keep the fruits of one's labor or to choose how one lives one's life is not.

  • ||

    One day the same guy tried to show how openminded he was by posting an article from Reason bashing the GOP. I asked him has he ever read any articles that bashed the Dems and he grew quiet. I used to think that at the very least he thought about politics in a very constructive way. As I got to know him better, he is nothing more then a full on statist. That guy defends Obama no matter what he does and loves the government.

  • John||

    Guys like your friend are why the are going to play hell disowning this. They won't be able to do the usual "it only failed because we had the wrong guy in charge" routine because so many progs have such a cult like devotion to Obama. They are going to have to die on this hill, no retreat.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And sooner than later they'll get bitter about the people rejecting their glorious leader an his plan - which will further alienate them from the public.

  • ||

    He has an MPA which is the divinity school for government. This guy already thinks that he and his ilk knows better then most Americans. The path to Progressive ideology is paved with arrogance.

  • ||

    Let them die on this hill.

    My grandfather told me that the last time the proggies had power, by the time they were out people were so sick of their shit that if you announced on the street that you were a prog you would be lynched.

    I so look forward to that.

    The same for the nazis. After they were out of power they just looked like the lunatic fringe that they really always were.

  • ||

    The 2016 Democratic Presidential primary will be entertaining.

  • ||

    Absolutley. I pointed out to him that as a fan of single payer he should be the angriest because this proves the government's inability to implement single payer care.

  • JeremyR||

    Almost every other 1st world in the country (and many 3rd world) have single payer. It might not be perfect in other countries, but they also somehow manage to pay much less money than we do.

    Obamacare doesn't work because it's corporatism.

    It's forcing people to get health care from insurance companies. How on earth does getting health care from insurance companies make sense?.

    You're basically paying the salaries of all those insurance company's employees, not to mention all the profits that go to the shareholders.

    And it's rigged. If you go to the doctor, you have have to pay full price. But the insurance companies don't, they only pay a fraction of the bill. The government reimburses even less. So the hospitals and doctors jack up the prices to compensate.

  • John Thacker||

    No, many countries have universal health care systems, but they aren't single payer.

    France is not a single payer system. Germany is not a single payer system.

    There's a difference between a universal health care system, and a single payer system.

    Every system where the person who goes to the doctor doesn't pay the full out of pocket costs has employees that do a job similar to insurance company employees.

    What's notable about the US is that people actually pay a much smaller fraction of out of pocket costs than in other systems.

  • Sevo||

    "You're basically paying the salaries of all those insurance company's employees, not to mention all the profits that go to the shareholders."

    Yes, and the profit motive makes that THE most efficient method of arranging for something to get done.
    Consider that the employees are paid regardless and gov't (or 'non-profit') employees are paid 'what is fair'. Consider that profit is good if it returns 5-7%; far less than gov'ts (or 'non-profits') waste.
    Sorry; fail.

  • DenverJay||

    No this is where you are wrong. The progs will NOT EVER concede that they were wrong. I will bet that before Thanksgiving the story line will change to "this isn't working because of those mean old Republicans" coupled with "This proves that we need a single payer system, not one where we use those greedy insurance companies."

  • buybuydandavis||

    " but these protections...are designed to help consumers "

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. -- Ronald Reagan

  • ||

    Damn scandalous liars.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    All the administration's mouthpieces and MSM lackeys sound like used car salesmen being confronted with the fact that they sold a lemon and are trying to spin their way out of it.

  • burserker||

    Joe Wilson was right

  • Zoobs||

    Charlie Rangel was interviewed and asked why he and other members of Congress and staff should get subsidized healthcare premiums to the tune of 70%. He responded that it was part of his total compensation so why would he not be allowed. Incomprehensible. They don't understand that companies don't reimburse their employees who opt out of insurance coverage when their spouse's employer has a better plan. Where's the reimbursement in that scenario? Isn't the healthcare part of my "total compensation". They don't live in the real world.

  • XM||

    Michael Hiltzik of the LAT also says don't believe the cancellation hype, because people like Diane made uninformed decision, she deserves to have her plan upgraded.

    http://www.latimes.com/busines.....z2jExSpsnm

    What happens if a minority of people buy insurance without inquiring about coverage? Why, you make everyone else abandon plans they like for a more expensive plan

  • carminakaka||

    my friend's aunt makes $73/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her pay was $14848 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it
    =========================

    http://www.works23.com
    =========================

  • mckeeg1||

    The "affordable goatfuck act".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement