Woebamacare: 3.5 Million Have Already Lost the Insurance They Were Promised They Could Keep, And That Data Is From Only Half The States

The other half haven't provided data yet.

Democratic Representative Steve Cohen tells everyone who's been lied to to "Get over it." He also adds that Heathcare.gov isn't like ordering a "Tickle Me Elmo" doll from Amazon.com -- which is strange, because President Obama promised the website would be just like ordering a TV off Amazon.com.

Of course everyone getting his insurance cancelled is now facing much higher rates.

The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.

They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.

Yeah, this part about "because the new policies don't meet the higher benefit requirements" is flat-out untrue, and the media keeps repeating Obama's spin. In most cases, people are being offered less generous insurance at higher rates -- because the main increase in cost (and raising of deductibles) comes from a forced subsidy to the uninsurable, not from an increase in benefits.

It's scandalous that the AP and other outlets can keep claiming this even as their own reportage in the same article contradicts it. For example, just before claiming this guy was getting his policy cancelled because it wasn't good enough, AP actually revealed his old policy was strictly better:

The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia on the Delaware border, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple wouldn't be able to see the doctors in Delaware whom they've used for more than a decade.

So let's check:

Old premium: $770/month. New premium: $1,275/month. Old is better.

Old deductible: $2500 -- a pretty darned low deductible. Ne deductible: $12,700 -- a pretty high deductible. This is basically catastrophic coverage at very high comprehensive coverage rates.

Old network of doctors: The client had his pick of all the doctors he wanted. New network of doctors: He doesn't have his pick of the doctors he wants.

How can the media continue claiming, again and again, that the new insurance is "better," just because it offers maternity care and substance abuse counseling to 65 year olds?

When are we going to see some pushback against this ludicrous water-carrying by the media on Obama's behalf? I want to see advertisements all over the airwaves directly contradicting this risible claim, comparing Old vs. New, just as I did above.

It's not just that "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy" that was a complete lie. Also a gigantic lie: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.

By EDIE LITTLEFIELD SUNDBY

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.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

A patient whose doctors helped her to beat the odds and survive a cancer that is 98% fatal is a patient who'd really like to keep her doctors.

But she can't. As Obama might say: "It's. The. Law."

It's the law that she will be forced to find inferior doctors who might wind up killing her. It's all for the good, you know. Omelet, eggs.

I know that it makes little sense for the RNC and conservative outlets to run a major advertising campaign so far out from the 2014 elections, however: The media is lying right now. They cannot be permitted to set this narrative that people are paying more "but for better insurance." If we do not push back vigorously, the great majority of those who are not directly affected (and those who do not know better by their own personal experience) will believe this lie.

We have to push back on this, with commercials featuring Edie Littlefield Sundby and other victims of Obmacare. If the media is not forced to confess its new Obama-protecting lies, it will of course choose not to.

Money spent now will bear fruit down the road.

While the media continues to lie about the reasons for the skyrocketing premiums and reduced benefits, they are at least doing stories about it. Except for one "news" outlet. Gabriel Malor writes in an email:

Unreal. The Obamacare story of the day, carried on the WaPo front page and with variations in USAToday, WSJ, LATimes, Bloomberg, and also covered by Reuters and AP (which means a lot of local papers), is Obamacare sticker shock. The only paper to buck this trend is the NYTimes, which ran a front-page above-the-fold article on "free policies" in the ACA.

"Free policies." As they kept saying: If you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.

Of course, the New York Times embarrassed itself again by opining thus on Obama's gigantic, cynical campaign of serial falsehoods: "He misspoke."

And what's coming next? Every socialist initiative requires even more socialism to "make it work." That's the iron rule of socialism -- every theft of liberty requires even more theft of liberty to make the corrupt system work.

So a state Virginia Democrat is now floating the next logical step -- if Woebamacare isn't working, perhaps those greedy tonsil-stealing doctors are just charging too damn much money.

So let's force them all to work for the low compensation afforded by Medicare and Medicaid.

Baseball Crank Dan Loughlin looks at the Vermont exchanges "success" story, and finds that it cost $272 for each and every person in the state-- all for a $170 million website that "inevitably" offers an error message when people attempt to access it.

Meanwhile, David Fredoso crunches some numbers and finds that you could have just taken the $1 billion that it cost to set up the 15 semi-working state exchanges and used that money to insure all the people who they've managed to enroll, at least for a couple of years.

Finally, and possibly the most scandalously, Dianne Feinstein offers some egregiously awful apologism for Obama's Big Lie. She now adds this gloss to the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period," promise:

ROTHFLMAO! Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein on Face The Nation: "You could have kept your health plan up until Obamacare was passed." Wow!

Wow, indeed. She says this after a question which begins at 1:20. This answer makes no sense -- she's saying Obama only promised not to retroactively cancel insurance policies before Obamacare passed?

It's pretty plain she does not in fact understand how the law works. Yet another member of the "Elite" who needed to pass (and then implement) the plan in order to find out what's in it.

posted by Ace at 10:04 AM

| Access Comments