More People Have Signed Up To Go To Mars And Die Than For Obamacare

[lucabrasi]

The WSJ article is peppered with "liberal" far too often for anyone not to take it as an axe grinding session no matter the content.
At the same time....what word would you describe....the "movement" to make sure everything is the same, all fair and even? Whose demand would it be?
Salon? If the WSJ op-ed is right of Ted, where would Salon be? To pull something from Salon and compare it while labeling the WSJ........just isn't any different no matter what the article did.
Exact figures......I would need to research but over the last two years with the same policy and no changes other than two less grown children covered, I am not paying less.
The little bit of coverage about it I see, no matter the media outlet, does not appear to be positive by any means. Sure it got pushed through....but tally everyone you know.
Is there a majority of people out there who think this is a good thing? 

[spookini]

I could care less about salon.com, i don't read it -- but that article was linked from elsewhere.
The major difference b/w the two is, the WSJ piece is pure op-ed.  The salon article uses fact to debunk pure BS. 

Did you try to read it?     The "panelists" that Hannity had on his show were either willfully lying, offering up 3rd-hand hearsay, or simply too damn lazy/arrogant to even see if they could SAVE money via Obamacare.  One panelist when asked if he'd compared insurance plans on healtcare.gov replied, "No -- nor do I plan to.  I oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it."  (Nevermind the 63% plan savings his family could realize.)  To me, that's the definition of "asshat"..

Media coverage negative?  That's hardly surprising.  The media for the most part is looking for easy and sensationalist stories.  Everyone loves a story about a half-baked bumbling government website.

[lucabrasi]

I did read it. I would go with, and agree, the hearsay and lazy/ignorant route more than I would the willfully lying but I have more faith in people than some, maybe to a fault.
I don't really think you can state the salon article as fact without being just as misleading about what it reports. I find it as agenda driven as what it is "investigating" to start with.
Yes, easy and sensational stories all around for all things, but it seems rather than being covered as a bumbling website it seems to be covered just as much as a bumbling program. The website is front and center for sure but it just seems to be peppered all through the coverage that there are many issues and problems with the program. Maybe I am not paying enough attention. I will pay more attention to where and what I see but it just seems to be coming from all the outlets about the whole program.

[pdxmike]

Mike, remember that the Obama system is a republican health system. It was developed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and adopted by Obama. It's a mess, clearly, but it was cobbled together to address the desires of many, many parties.

I think it's very frustrating that insurance is such a mess. However it needs to be changed to help people, not increase its profitability. People are really hurting because we've let insurance in America be guided by profits, not a need to serve everyone affordably.

I'm not making a screed against profits, BTW, but there's something wrong with profits at the expense of people's health. I'm not convinced a profit system is a good way to deliver health care.

I'd have a hard time calling it a Republican system, but otherwise certainly am also no fan of insurance companies. 

But if you go beyond who thought the act up, who's writing this or that opinion or how many times "liberal" is mentioned, and go straight to immediate facts, in my case it is that my insurance premiums just skyrocketed for insurance that's no better than what I had. 

And it does particularly bother me that Obama used the "if you like your insurance you can keep it and this won't affect you" argument as one of his main selling points, if not THE main one, when it wasn't true.  And he used it over and over to shut down criticism.  I'd give him a pass for saying it once, even though when you make an important speech you should fact-check your basic arguments.  But he NEVER backed down from that to my knowledge.  Even if he believed it was true all this time, his advisors knew long ago it wasn't, yet "the American people" were never told the truth.  There's no excuse for that. 

Making opponents' arguments look bad by lying is what Lance Armstrong did.   Certainly there's been enough wrong with the system to date that he could have made a good case at changing it without making false arguments.  And once he found out what he said wasn't true, he should have pushed to correct the act so it was.

[bbqSUPer]

know several people who buy there own insurance and their policies just doubled.  

bbq, I heard that if Obama won in 2004, it would embolden the terrorists.

Provide specifics, otherwise you are just spouting conjecture... 
There have been legit stories in print/radio professing the exact opposite.

One of my best friends: Currently in school for a mid life career change.  Wife teaches at a local community college.  He was on her policy.  The price was around $450 for  him as a spouse on her policy.  When he went to school full time they made the decision to drop him off of her insurance because he never really used the doctor and is in pretty good health.  Half their income just dropped but they had managed to save his salary for two years.  He did pick up his own Just in case policy for about $150.  Now if he wants to keep the same policy, he was just notified it will be $300 hundred.  He could go back on his wife's policy but it is now $650 for the same thing.  When he asked what his fine would be, nobody could really come up with a figure because "It was complicated"  He doesn't qualify for any Government stuff because Insurance is available to him through his spouses place of employment.

Sister of a friend of mine was paying about $600 a month for hers.  If she keeps the same policy and benefits it will now be $1100. 

Coworkers husband owns his own plumbing business.  Was $456, now $664.

And I know more folks who are in the same boat.  I could keep typing and make a list but whats the point.  It's not conjecture for them.

I did not ask the question to be spiteful.  I was asking to really see how this is supposed to work when I know several real people who this is going to impact their lives.  Although I haven't looked at the data or seen enough "Cases" to come to any kind of conclusion, the "Boots on the Ground" perspective for me right now seems to be that the middle class is getting hit the most?

[lucabrasi]

It just dawned on me this morning. We can no longer buy health insurance without the government being involved. I know, I know......that's what all this is about anyways but I kind of broke it out simply for my mind and didn't really get it before I don't think. Hell, maybe I don't get it now. I am so glad to have someone with our best interests looking out for my kids and grandkids.
 
"No sir, that is no good and that is not what you need. This is what you need, this is what you must have, this is what it will cost, and no......that won't work for you anymore. No, there are no other options and don't forget to fill in line 86b on your return in April."

[PonoBill]

know several people who buy there own insurance and their policies just doubled.  

bbq, I heard that if Obama won in 2004, it would embolden the terrorists.

Provide specifics, otherwise you are just spouting conjecture... 
There have been legit stories in print/radio professing the exact opposite.

You have a different standard of evidence for everything you say Spook, and whenever you're proven wrong you change the topic. That's is MY definition of Asshat.

[Tom]

I just signed up for Obama care today through an insurance agent. The cost was higher than I would expect, so I'm pretty disappointed there. The 'comparable' policy did have added benefits (prescription drugs), but that was not proportionate to the added cost. In't it the insurance companies that are setting the rates? I'm not sure how much the feds have control over that.

If you remember back when Obamacare was enacted, Obama did not get the plan he wanted but had to modify it to what the Republicans would accept. They should be given as much blame and credit as the Dems for what we ended up with. They fought to make the plan as bad as they could because their priority from day one was and is to make Obama look bad. Remember Palin calling the hospice coverage "government death panels".

[pdxmike]

They (Republicans) fought to make the plan as bad as they could because their priority from day one was and is to make Obama look bad.

That's a silly statement. 

[mikelefty]

They (Republicans) fought to make the plan as bad as they could because their priority from day one was and is to make Obama look bad.

That's a silly statement.  

It's Bush's fault.

Such a fabulous plan that Obozo, his top staffers, the Dumbocrats and Republatards in Congress exempted themselves.

wake up.........you will pay more, and receive far less care....suckers

[lucabrasi]

Remember Palin calling the hospice coverage "government death panels".

I need to get some facts in order but medicare coverage is changing from what I have been told. My dad was ranting the other week about this. The amount they will pick up is going to be less on many things he told me. He gave me an example, and a pretty good one if I remember correctly but it went in one ear and out the other as all I was hearing was: "heads up, if this happens, off me" kind of thing. Always the boy scout, always prepared he is which at times has droven me bat shit. Some of my refusal to make plans and wing it comes from that I think. It's all good for sure. Anyways, not a death panel, but...out of coverage/funds....out of treatment. I will see him sometime over the weekend and ask again, then research. A brief search of "medicare coverage changes" was far too vast to navigate. Stay tuned.

[Tom]

No one said anything about Bush. Obama wanted to incude a single payer option and wanted a model simlar to Canadas. What got passed was modeled after Massachusets (Romney,s).

[Weasels wake]

No one said anything about Bush. Obama wanted to incude a single payer option and wanted a model simlar to Canadas. What got passed was modeled after Massachusets (Romney,s).

Who is an idiot in his own right, nothing but a McCain light, a RINO, and I'm a republican (sorta), so what's your point?
BTW, the GOP is going thru an interior revolution right now, and it's about time that the two parties (R & D) separate themselves from one another.
Thank you BHO, for solidifying the conservatives, and I'm not talking religion.

[Tom]

No one said anything about Bush. Obama wanted to incude a single payer option and wanted a model simlar to Canadas. What got passed was modeled after Massachusets (Romney,s).

Who is an idiot in his own right, nothing but a McCain light, a RINO, and I'm a republican (sorta), so what's your point?
BTW, the GOP is going thru an interior revolution right now, and it's about time that the two parties (R & D) separate themselves from one another.
Thank you BHO, for solidifying the conservatives, and I'm not talking religion.

?

[spookini]

You have a different standard of evidence for everything you say Spook, and whenever you're proven wrong you change the topic. That's is MY definition of Asshat.

Hey Pono, good point.  This time I'll stay ON topic.  
Technically, THIS is the definition of "asshat".