ObamaCare: The New 30%

#ILikeObamaCare years and many victims laterSupposedly ObamaCare was going to bring health insurance to the unwashed masses and go a long way towards fixing the economic issues linked to the high costs of medical care that Americans subject themselves to. It was, according to Obama and the Liberals who forced through Congress, going to insure the uninsured and lower most everyone’s health insurance premiums while allowing everyone who liked the current coverage to keep it.

So far reality has cruelly exposed all of this as lies.

In fact, so far and with ObamaCare still in its infancy, it really looks like every single bit of the GOP’s “fear mongering” has turned out to cold, cruel, hard facts, facts that will likely grow more dire as other parts of the misbegotten ObamaCare chimera are brought online.

The New 30%

By far the worst outcome and the biggest lie was that Americans could keep their health insurance. It is estimated that 93 million Americans – approximately 30% of the nation’s population – will lose their current coverage due to ObamaCare and either be forced onto the much more expensive and less useful health insurance exchanges or half to pay significantly more for their new, ObamaCare-approved employer-subsidized plans (Which are now considered federally taxable income).

Obama’s various mouthpieces might try to claim that the only people being negatively effected are those Americans already buying health insurance on their own – even that’s still almost 16 million people! – but that’s just another lie told in support of their earlier, bigger lie.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

15 Responses to “ObamaCare: The New 30%”

  1. Casey Says:

    That is an interesting way of putting it. I was under the impression that the reason certain people could no longer keep their healthcare was because it did not cover everything needed for the new system to work. If certain things aren’t covered, than the system world collapse under the weight of paying for services and the rest of us would have to pay for those who did not insure themselves properly.

  2. jonolan Says:

    In a very few instances, mostly in the individual market, that is the case. In the much larger case of employer-subsidized health insurance it’s because the politicians gutted the “grandfather clause” that would have let people keep their existing plans.

    As for things needing to be to be covered for ObamaCare to work – that’s a good reason for scrapping it since, if it requires people to be forced to buy coverage they don’t want and might not need, it’s too flawed from starting line.

  3. Casey Says:

    Well yes, but why should everyone have to suffer because a few people don’t feel the need to take care of themselves?

  4. jonolan Says:

    Why should the individuals’ freedom be infringed upon for the sake of others who want it their way, especially when much of the coverage gaps aren’t gaps for the vast majority of people since they’re extremely unlikely to need those particular coverages, e.g., I certainly have no need of fertility services coverage – which is expensive btw.

    Finally, everyone only suffers because the government decided that they will by forcing them to be part of the pool.

  5. Casey Says:

    As much as I see the necessity of personal freedom, everyone was already part of the pool. What private insurance wasn’t paying to help people the government had to dole out. The biggest problem I see with the GOP’s campaign against the affordable care act is that they aren’t presenting any alternative plans to fix healthcare.

  6. jonolan Says:

    No, the government didn’t have to dole out anything. They chose to do so because it got some of them votes and continued employment.

    As for the lack of an alternative – Have you considered that there isn’t one because there’s no real problem or, at least, the problem isn’t what it is billed as being and isn’t one that can be addressed through legislation?

  7. Casey Says:

    I can’t agree with the idea that there isn’t a problem because I have personally come into contact with said problem. My sister, having a pre-existing condition, has been denied healthcare many times. And the government isn’t doling out money to get votes, it’s doling out money to keep people alive which is their job: to protect the commonwealth. It’s the same as sending in the firefighters or police.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Doling out money so that people can afford what they cannot otherwise afford is no comparable to sending in the firefighters or police, neither one of which are, by the way, within the purview of federal government with the exception of interstate crime.

    Part of the real problem is that people like you believe that people such as your sister have some sort of right to health insurance. Another part of the problem is that people like you believe that the government should protect the commonwealth from any and all negative outcomes in life.

    By and large though, the biggest healthcare problem – really the only one – in the US is that we as a whole have an unrealistic and messed up view of medical care and health in general.

  9. Casey Says:

    So the purpose of the army is not to protect the commonwealth? That is the government’s job because without said commonwealth there would be no said government to begin with. But more importantly, perhaps the reason for Americans’ messed up view of healthcare is because there is working universal healthcare in several other countries.

  10. jonolan Says:

    A very false equivalency. The military protects America’s people, resources, and global interests. It doesn’t protect the people from negative life outcomes that aren’t caused through foreign aggression.

    That other countries are experimenting with universal healthcare is irrelevant except that it gives idiots the idea that it could work here. Our problems aren’t access to healthcare; they’re the underlying attitude towards it and life, health, and dying.

    If we, without first changing our attitudes about health, brought the NHS here, it’d be a near-instantaneous and catastrophic failure.

    BTW – If we’d plagarized pretty much the whole of the German and Swiss health insurance schemes, it’d be something closer to workable. It’d wouldn’t fix the problem but it’d not hurt things as much as ObamaCare.

  11. Casey Says:

    Sorry to cut this short, but I must continue this conversation later. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with me on all of this, and I look forward to more enlightening discourse later on.

  12. Alan Scott Says:

    There are all kinds of ideas that are better than Obamacrap. The zombies have only to open their great big ears. The GOP put forth ideas, but the arrogant choose not to hear.

    The zombies are in total denial that the unaffordable care act is anything but wonderful. Details have no meaning. Some normally star struck Obama media reporters are actually doing their jobs and asking Obama tough questions. On sycophant websites the true believers are furious at these normally cooperative reporters.

  13. jonolan Says:

    There’s much truth in what you say, Alan, especially about the Leftists’ response to the heretics and apostates in the MSM.

  14. Alan Scott Says:

    On the hardcore Obama love fest sites where only the bunker loyalists are permitted to speak, they are in shock that for the first time in 5 years, The Dear Leader is getting bad press. I find it amazing, their degree of delusion. They come up with tortured parallels to troubles that other entities have from time to time with their websites in order to excuse the laughable performance of the ACA website.

    One wonders how long the Press will act like the Press instead of propaganda slaves.

  15. jonolan Says:

    I imagine that it will continue, though at a lower tone level, until 2016. Obama, after all, can’t be reelected and the MSM’s job is winding down. Now they can start trying to re-convince people of their credibility.

Leave a Reply