Oh dear. This is so bless your heart-y that you’ll need a second heart to bless, toots.

Wow! If only someone … anyone … could have foreseen it all?

Ding, ding, ding!

We. Now even the fact that the liberal elitists fell for what were absolutely clear lies to anyone with half a brain is also the fault of, you know, the people who saw it coming. It’s everyone’s fault, you see. Well, except for President Obama. Of course it’s not his fault that “all” fell for his blatant and purposeful lies. Sheesh! Plus, we “all” didn’t do a good enough job of warning him. Get with the program, people. He’s far too busy, what with all that sneering in contempt to do.

Bingo!

Citizens gave the MSNBC-contributing fool the business.

https://twitter.com/RobStrng/status/395939175884922880

That’s right. RESOLVED: Tea Party rubes bested Obamacare-gullible elites.

Yep. Try living in the real world a bit, sir.

But he is correct in one way:

Precisely. The egg-on-face is strong with this one.

Related:

Full Twitchy coverage of Steve Rattner

Oh snap! White House tweets inadvertent truth about canceled insurance plans?

‘Unprecedented chutzpah’: Obama says citizens lamenting health insurance loss are ‘grossly misleading’

Despicable Obama: Lost that coverage you liked? ‘Just shop around!’

Dem at Sebelius hearing: Losing your insurance? Shaddup, Chicken Little. Also, Wizard of Oz

Truth-boom! RESOLVED: Tea Party rubes best Obamacare-gullible elites [pic]

  • $41798064

    Did he get called a racist by his liberal friends?

    • TomJB

      Don’t know but we racists knew all along what would happen

      • rivers

        That’s Racist Tea-hadists, to you, thank you very much.
        I like Tea party terrrorist as well, but I’m still waiting to see what the Preezy handed down today at his meeting with OFA. The trolls have been quiet, so they must not have had their talking points given to them yet.

    • conservativechick

      These people can NEVER admit they lied. They’ll double down forever!

    • Slugglife

      No he got pulled into a back room, had his bottom spanked and had to write the talking points 100 times. He won’t step out of line again.

  • JeffWRidge

    The only people who should feel stupid, are the ones who believed Obama in the first place. A lot of us realized what would happen immediately.

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

      It takes a certain quality of either political naivete or cold calculation to believe a campaign promise. I outgrew the one many years ago and never indulged in the other.

  • Jennifer

    Great, now I’m supposed to feel stupid AND have lost my health insurance.

  • Jack Deth

    Well, it’s obvious that “the auto industry” isn’t the only topic Mr. Rattner knows nothing about.

  • Ron Morisseau

    A=HOLE

  • Clayton Grant

    The ACA and the way it was thrust upon America in backroom deals is what created the Tea Party. People like Rattner ignored reality and went into attack mode instead of listening and being objective.

  • rssllue

    There you go; liberal logic in a nut. No shell, just a nut.

  • Spinmamma

    Ahhhhh. The collective . . .

  • nickdqwk

    And 5 years from now he’ll be whining about immigration reform!

  • alanstorm

    We should? Why? It was obvious from the start – to those of us not besotted with Obama-worship and entranced by so-called “progressive” ideas.

    The quotes are essential, as no “progressive” political concept resembles progress in any way.

  • RIChris

    Ah, the liberals are beginning to pull their heads out but, not liking what they see, it’s a sure bet they’ll shove them back in.

  • Marcy Cook

    Not me Bro. I feel like the smartest person in the room right now.

  • HanaFiveO

    We tried to warn everyone but you called us terrorists and other names while sneering and trying to destroy and silence us. The fact that you have suddenly had an epiphany after 5 years, says more about your intelligence than ours.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Is he using the Royal “We,” maybe?

    Or perhaps he feels it necessary to apologize (read: “fall on a sword”) for those others in the Administration besides himself who rammed this Act through, i.e., HE’s apologizing, so they won’t have to, at least not individually at any rate?

    Curiouser and curiouser, the use of the first person plural…

  • Janice LEE

    Ted Cruz was right. Deal with it!

  • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

    HEY DUMBASS!

    Maybe a second look at Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Corzine, Stimulus, etc, et al would be in order for you, ya think!?

  • Maxx

    No “we”

    …just “thee.”

  • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

    Everybody knew! Some of us pointed it out while the rest, like you, lied about it.

  • crashentu

    They are scrambling to find the applicable chapter in Alinsky’s play book.

  • in_awe

    “We should all feel little stupid that we didn’t realize that Obama and Steve Rattner would force GM to shutter Pontiac and would disproportionately force the closure of car dealerships owned by conservatives, screw white collar workers to swell the coffers of auto workers unions and violate established bankruptcy law to void bond holder rights?”

    There FIFY

  • http://Twitter.com/jkerrysforehead John Kerry’s Forehead

    Wait a minute! Does this surprise anyone? This is the rube who ran that cash-for-clunkers disaster isn’t it?

  • bupalos

    I think when you talk about “losing your healthcare plan” that kind of implies you don’t get something as good or better. A lot of plans will be cancelled or altered. The vast majority of people will end up with something as good or better, and no longer be healthslaves to their employers. Quite frankly, untethering health insurance from employment is a good in and of itself, one that should be pursued outside of the other benefits that accrue, one that conservatives always favored before the COMMIE MUSLIM AFRICAN LIAR IN CHIEF actually helped put it through.

    Honestly, if you people really cared about this you would bother to make an argument about the actual structure of the law or why the existing system is better or it’s a bad idea to go to larger state and national pools than piddly employer pools. It’s just a bunch of fainting couch hysterics about how oppressed everyone is now that some politician uttered something that isn’t 100% true for 100 percent of the populace but only 97% true for 96% of the populace. YOU LIE!!!!

    • chicagorefugee

      Aaand the vast majority of Obamacare plans aren’t as good or better – they’re more restrictive and far more expansive.

      The Obama administration’s own documents say they expect anywhere from 40 to 67% of people who currently have insurance – private or employer-based – to be kicked off of those plans. By any measure, Obama is a liar.

      Go peddle your canned & regurgitated talking points somewhere else.

      • bupalos

        If your end goal is to establish that something a politician said to 247 million people is technically true for all 247 million people, then congrats. If your goal is to show that this system itself is inherently flawed and will screw more people than the old one did, I think you’ve got a ways to go. You could start by showing that your first sentence is anything like true. I’m more than 40-67% sure that you haven’t really looked into it.

        Do you know how many people were “kicked off their plans” year to year prior to Ocare? Do you know what rate increases were year to year? Do you understand that being “kicked off your plan” for most people will mean getting more coverage for less money?

        I’m not really a fan of the way the law tries to create a gradual weaning off employers being in the middle of healthcare, with the employer mandate and penalties. Neither was Obama if you paid attention. Concessions are being made to the absolutely f-ed up system that evolved where employers are expected to be insurers and your bosses controlled your coverage. I’d much prefer they just subsidy up to the point that the market just attracted people to decline their employer coverage so everyone controlled their own coverage, with the stipulation that yes, you have to have coverage, and yes, it has to actually cover you to the point you don’t free ride.

        • drw

          You’re very good, I’ll give you that, and you seem sincere and that’s a good thing. The overriding issue here is the simple fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate any aspect of American citizens daily lives. The aca does that in the most thorough and intrusive way possible. This legislation has the potential to initiate and expand without restriction regulations on the most minute aspect of our existence from how we sleep to the food we eat. The true intent of the aca was to gain control, there is no other reason.
          As to your argument that most people will get more coverage for less money, your reasoning is specious at best. Although it is technically true, getting a “deal” on coverage I don’t need doesn’t offset the additional cost I’m forced to pay for it’s inclusion in the policy. Finally, regarding the rise in rates. The actual dollars per policy may not have increased dramatically because of the aca. What has changed, rather drastically, is the out-of pocket expenses via increased co-pays/coinsurance and prescription drug coverage. Insurance companies and health providers have been overwhelmed by the additional regulation and requirements and are being forced into adding staff just to handle the additional paperwork.
          I’m sorry, this is bad legislation from beginning to its (never) end.

          • bupalos

            I’ve typed too much on this. Suffice to say the idea that this reform is primarily intended as a nefarious plot to restrict your freedom will strike anyone who has experienced the true failings of the existing system as absolutely incredible. But when this is made to be about something much different and much more than than it is about, that does partially explain to me how facts– like overall medical inflation being at its lowest in many years — get turned on their head.
            Employer based insurance is not freedom for me. Medicare is not a tool for oppression and control to me. I’m sorry that it seems to that way to you and hope and firmly believe the horrors you see headed your way won’t come to pass.

          • drw

            How incredibly naïve you are not to see or even consider the true nature of this particular piece of legislation. It must be very nice in your bubble. I, personally have nor have had no misgivings about the insurance sponsored by my employers partly because I realized they, as co-enrollees, had as much interest in the effectiveness and prudence of the policy chosen as I. As to your facts, you can link all you want, I am in the insurance business and my wife happens to be the Human Resources manager of a 150+ employee small business in our area. We know the effects of this legislation first-hand and none of your studies, projections or estimates can change the fact that health insurance cost has been directly and negatively impacted by the aca.

    • TocksNedlog

      You’re totally full of sh*t.

      • bupalos

        Arguments!!!

    • NRPax

      Premiums have gone up. Policies that people were happy with have been cancelled. Both of those are a direct result of this law. The President lied and the administration is spinning like a nightclub DJ over it.

      • bupalos

        Premiums have gone up every year for the past quarter century. Policies that people were happy with have been cancelled every year for the past quarter century. One of the big differences here is that contrary to the last quarter century, this year a lot of the people who have plans cancelled are going to end up with something they will be happier with. And contrary to the past half century, there will be a strong movement away from employer control of healthcare.

        http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/rate-by-gender-2/

        • NRPax

          Premiums have gone up every year for the past quarter century.

          That is because of an ironclad law in the world: Things Cost Money. When a service costs more money to maintain, the expense is passed onto the consumer. The insurance industry is one of the most highly regulated in this nation. Now add frivolous lawsuits, people going to the ER for non-Emergency matters in addition to the cost of complying with constantly changing regulations and now Things Cost Even More Money.

          One of the big differences here is that contrary to the last quarter century, this year a lot of the people who have plans cancelled are going to end up with something they will be happier with.

          Really? My premiums went up twice because of ACA and I not only lost the policy I was happy with, but my insurance company had to put me on a more expensive plan.

          there will be a strong movement away from employer control of healthcare.

          If it was a movement towards private citizens getting that control that would be more ideal. A movement towards more government control is not going to succeed. In fact, it’s already getting a lot worse than employer control. But then again, I don’t view dependency on the government as a noble calling.

          • bupalos

            Your premiums went up because of the ACA? How can you attribute that? Did they go up before the ACA? What policy did you lose, for how much money, in what state? What’s the new plan? Can you get subsidies? There seem to be an avalanche of people here “losing their insurance” and “getting something worse” and there are precious few details to actually analyze.

            >>>If it was a movement towards private citizens getting that control that would be more ideal.>>>

            You cannot seriously suggest an employee doesn’t have more personal control and options for 2014 than 2010. That requires some serious, SERIOUS abstraction. You are aware that in 2010, if you had a serious existing condition and your employer just decided to drop coverage (which employers were doing had over fist in 2010, twice the rate of 2005, which was twice the rate of 2000), your preexisting condition would pretty much own you and your employment prospects for the rest of your life. You want to compare that to not having an option to get a plan for 20 cents a year less that doesn’t cover birth control pills?

            http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/rate-by-gender-2/

            >>>But then again, I don’t view dependency on the government as a noble calling.>>>

            I have no idea why you guys do this.

          • Justwaitinforchange

            There are plenty of ACA rules that have been in effect, those changes have pushed up the cost of insurance. You can argue that those are popular changes – but they aren’t free. The ACA (The “Affordable” portion) was to address the rising cost of healthcare – but it didn’t. Current projections call for a trillion more in debt.

          • bupalos

            But what if premium hikes had been abnormally LOW the last 2 years. Would that change anything? Because they have been. I’m not sure why, because there is no question that dropping the preexisting has to raise rates–you would have thought by a lot more. On the other hand it mandates 85% actually go to healthcare instead of administration, so maybe that’s working? Whatever the case, it’s simple fact that premium hikes have been about as low as any time in the last 25 years.

            >>>Current projections call for a trillion more in debt.>>>
            Source? I thought CBO scored it as a deficit reducer.

          • Justwaitinforchange

            Actually – I believe the poor economy had more to do with low inflation across the board – premiums still went up higher than inflation. I want to be clear – I am not arguing for the status quo and we need to really tackle healthcare and health insurance. But the ACA was sold on a lie, no getting around that. Clearly the best and brightest don’t reside in Wash Dc – because no one with any level of intelligence would ever have launched a website so deficient and we now know that the same company that wrote this waste of code has been hired to fix it!

          • bupalos

            The last two years show as low a disparity between medical inflation and core inflation as has been seen since the knee replacement. I’m skeptical that a slow economy significantly reduces medical demand, it has to be one of the stickier things there is. But maybe somewhat. And we’ve certainly see worse economies with much higher medical inflation.

            I’ll agree ACA was sold with some…selective rhetoric? What government policy (or private product) hasn’t been? I’ll agree it has some aspects that should be reviewed. But the core–getting everyone basically in the same pool, getting away from discriminatory rating, weaning it away from employer control, making sure everyone who works can afford insurance and that no one is a slave to a boss because of their health status– these things are incredibly good. Everyone who wants to throw them away in the name of some other, later, better reform needs to say what that reform is and how it is supposed to happen.

          • Justwaitinforchange

            Before I meant to mention that the original CBO scoring had 10 years of taxes paying for 5 or 6 year of program. If gaming the system was the goal – it was very successful. It was also dishonest.

            Clearly you are a warm hearted thinking person you cares greatly for this country (absolutely no sarcasm here). I truly believe ACA is the worst of both programs. From everything I’ve read and from my economics background, if everything goes right – it still doesn’t work.
            Leadership is supposed to start at the White House.

          • bupalos

            >>>On balance, CBO and JCT estimated, repealing the ACA would affect direct spending and revenues in ways resulting in a net increase in budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period.”>>>

            Not sure the effect after that, but that’s 10 years of taxes paying for 10 years of the system, rated deficit negative.

            In any event, if you don’t think the freedom from employer control and preexisting conditions is important, I can see people not especially liking this law. Personally I don’t like the medicaid expansion much, I’d rather see those folks coaxed into the bottom end of this private market, so you don’t get the disincentive to try and make more money. So I can definitely see dissent. What I can’t see is the over the top anger and borderline secessionist sentiment it brings out in many, attacking something that they’ve made up in their heads as the end of life as we know it. It’s nice to converse with someone on that side that seems to have a little more balance.

          • ObamaFail

            Actually, it’s 6 trillion more in debt.

          • bupalos

            Yowzers is that misleading. That was an “alternate” scenario, over 75 years, where all the costs were included but assuming that all cost-containment measures currently included were repealed.

            That was the specifically requested “what if this thing fails terribly at everything it tries to do” alternate scenario, 75 years later.

    • JR48

      Good or better as defined as ‘coverage you don’t need’. Do 20 year old men need access to abortion, maternity care or in vitro fertilization? 60 year old men? Hell, 50 year old women?

      There are plenty of ideas out there but at the time that this abomination of bill was created, the true crisis in America was our economy and employment rates. There was no ‘true crisis in healthcare’. Yes, it had issues and needed to be fixed, but the Democrats created the legislative crisis, created the timeline in order to create and pass the bill, completely locked the Republicans out of the process (and with some meetings, literally locked the door) and passed that stupid, draconian bill without a single vote from the GOP.

      Now that it’s been determined to be a massive clusterfark, you’re blaming Reps for the problem/crisis that you created and made much worse.

      Quite frankly, you could have created a bill to absorb the 30 million uninsured into Medicaid, opened state lines so that insurers could compete, and thrown in some tort reform and had a much smaller bill that might have done something.

      Instead, you all jumped the shark and blew it. And are looking for someone else to blame. Your side created this entire situation.

      • NRPax

        Quite frankly, you could have created a bill to absorb the 30 million
        uninsured into Medicaid, opened state lines so that insurers could
        compete, and thrown in some tort reform and had a much smaller bill that might have done something.

        But JR, that means that people would actually have to take responsibility for themselves and have more control over their lives! WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE AND CHILDREN??!

        • bupalos

          I believe he just said you should give them medicaid. It’s exactly the opposite of what you are scornfully responding to.

          • NRPax

            I see that the sarcasm tag wasn’t highlighted enough for you.

          • bupalos

            I certainly get that you are trying to be sacastic, but the sarcasm doesn’t make any sense. How is putting people on medicaid mean people take responsibility for their lives and having more control? It’s just the opposite.
            Reward 30mm free riders by putting them on medicaid?

      • bupalos

        >>>Now that it’s been determined to be a massive clusterfark, you’re
        blaming Reps for the problem/crisis that you created and made much
        worse.>>>

        I’m not blaming anyone. I think it’s a fairly good piece of sausage, as sausage goes. You make solid points about the “coverage you don’t need.” That is simply endemic to the idea of enlarging and homogenizing pools, which is systemically efficient, but sure, almost everyone ends up with some stuff they don’t need or under utilize and some stuff they over utilize. In insurance, it’s actually more economically efficient to not try to figure that out to the man, but just lump up the biggest group possible. So yeah, you might marginally win or lose there, but you should also note that for age differences, 20 year old men do eventually become 60 year old men, men marry and impregnate women, etc. Maybe this is the heart of the disagreement here–conservatives tend towards seeing people as autonomous islands and have a natural reaction against joining or expanding pools of all kinds. I don’t mean that in a bad way, it’s just the natural individualist reaction.

        Now as for whether or not there was a crisis…everyone’s definition is different, but I think it’s pretty hard to argue that the existing system was not inherently bad in it’s insertion of employers between people and their healthcare, and was actually entering into a death spiral. Employers were dropping and reducing coverage every year, those people end up as free riders raising the price further, meaning more drops, meaning more free riders….

        My own employer 6 years ago played a little game that left my 9month old uncovered exactly when MRSA showed up on her butt, and had our side business not gotten a windfall that year, it would have bankrupted me. And I hardly even blame him (for that). We had an employee with cancer two years before and his rates went up 40% over the two following years. But when it looked really serious I’m not kidding that I seriously had to consider quitting and trying to dump all income and go medicaid. You’ll never convince me, a guy that has never been unemployed more than a week in my life, that that makes any sense at all. Unusual case? Sure. The more usual one was the gal who got cancer and kept “working” and raised our rates and kicked all that off. It’s a totally f-ed up system. And Ocare solves them both, and that’s why I’m pretty much a fan. Putting the free riders on medicaid (!?) not only was about 10,000% less politically feasible with R’s, it would create the exact kind of disincentives that conservatives usually are better than liberals at ferreting out, so I’m surprised you offer it.

        • Justwaitinforchange

          Hi,
          Let me jump in – The administration should really grandfather all existing policies (as promised) and compete against those policies. if the ACA policies are truly better (and more affordable) – then consumers will flock to them, because consumers are pretty savvy. If the ACA is a turd – then it should die a quick death.

          • bupalos

            I think politically they might do well to go ahead and do that for narrow circumstances like whether wellness programs are in there at 25% or 30% or whatever. But that’s just window dressing. The main reason a given replacement plan is higher is because the original one doesn’t offer enough coverage to protect the system from a free rider.

            It’s like in auto insurance where they say you have to have 200k in liability or whatever. If you allow competing plans into that system that only have 100k, sure, they are cheaper. But it’s not because they are better, it’s because they just leave 100k liability unfunded on the system. And yeah, they will “win” in the marketplace, because who wouldn’t rather push their risk onto the system than pay for it themselves?

          • Justwaitinforchange

            Except – that wasn’t what was promised, was it. Have you reviewed the policies offered? The “free stuff” or wellness – comes at a huge premium, both directly and indirectly (higher copays – much higher deductibles). A consumer is much better off with todays policies and paying out of pocket for the few wellness items. The admin is straight out wrong on this and every attempt at spin comes across as comical at best. They should win on execution of better plans.

          • bupalos

            I don’t understand how they can “win on execution of better plans.” The government doesn’t administer these plans. It’s really just setting the minimums which eliminate free riders and expand the pools. The plans are designed and run by the exact same people they were before, with the stipulation that 85% of the money they take in in premiums has to go out in care. There are financial winners and losers in these expanded pools (basically women win, if you count maternity as otherwise simply a woman’s problem) but even that’s pretty marginal. Wellness programs were and are often nearly free, they just exchange prevention for cure.

            The two main drivers of increased cost of plans is:
            1. The plans cover more, to avoid extra costs dumped on the system when people hit limits.
            2. Open enrollment means no discrimination and pricing to health status.

          • Justwaitinforchange

            The government has created the requirements for all approved plans – they effectively control what is offered.
            In addition the insurance companies can’t cap lifetime maximum anymore – so no additional costs can be dumped onto the system. Remember the $2500 savings we were going to get – and do you know why they don’t tout those savings anymore? Because they never ever existed. And for those getting a subsidy – is that given back after you have paid your premiums or has it been voucherized and applied to your monthly premium?

          • bupalos

            They control the amount of healthcare coverage you need to carry to avoid the penalty. Are you arguing the government “controls” the auto insurance market by placing coverage minimums? They may “control what is offered,” but only in the sense of the minimums we are saying eliminates free riders.

            And they can’t cap lifetime maxes because of the ACA. Are you arguing that minimum should be kept but the rest tossed? What’s the diff? If there is a plan with a $20,000 deductible and you can’t afford to self pay $20,000 in a go, then that’s on the system.

  • Pat Arnold

    Words fail me….

  • Expat61

    The emperor has no clothes, and now the rest of the kingdom has realized it.

  • stuckinIL4now

    I find it so amazing the incessant limitless interminable ways these people find to go on spinning this load of bulloney and defending Obumuh, defending the indefensible. They just can’t release the death grip on that ratty old bone of hope’n’change.

  • Santos Gonzalez

    This is aimed at Liberals, who are now also feeling deceived. By appealing to something that Liberals pride themselves on, their “intelligence” it shuts them up. After all which Liberal is going to admit that he was stupid and an sucker for believing the BS about O-Care. Hopefully they will then turn on the real enemy “Ted Cruz and those Tea Baggers”.

    • bupalos

      I certainly didn’t believe that Ocare was going to perpetuate employer controlled insurance, if I had I wouldn’t have supported it.

      • ObamaFail

        You would support it even if it crushed the economy completely, because Obama put it in place and you libs are stupid enough to think that it would make you racist to not be happy about it.

        • bupalos

          mmmkay….and how does that make you feel?

    • Roto ✓Intentionally Left Blank

      I’ve heard they’re all carrying a sandal around, looking for a guy named Brian :-) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

  • Concerned

    When anyone tried to talk about the facts of Obamacare they were called racists, teabaggers, terrorists, jihad, hate mongers, war on women, party of no, etc. Fox News (or Faux as libs call it) was just spreading propaganda and scare tactics right? Now Chris Matthews is demanding answers on Benghazi as if it has NEVER been reported on and he is outraged. OH NO, the wheels are coming off the bus, FINALLY! http://townhall.com/video/chris-matthews-benghazi-fight-lasted-seven-hours-where-were-reinforcements-n1732904

  • JR48

    Of course people would be forced out of plans if their plan didn’t perfectly align with the regulations of the ACA.

    You have to be either drunk on the koolaid or completely math challenged not to have seen it coming. I daresay in your case, the answer is probably ‘both’.

  • Bryn Watkins

    Latest numbers I’ve seen suggest that only 36% of employers sponsored plans are Obamacare compliant. This would mean that about 100 million Americans are going to see their policies cancelled over the next year. Not exactly what I would call “some”.

    • bupalos

      I hear it’s 489 million americans, a full 137%.

      Do I hear 500? 500 anyone?

      http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/rate-by-gender-2/

      • ObamaFail

        You’re an idiot. YOur liberal link is full of false information. Once the employer mandate kicks in and employers see the cost they will face to provide insurance, they’ll drop the coverage and just pay the fine and BAM! Millions more without insurance. Live in your bubble if you want. Those of us in reality are seeing the effects of Obamacare and we’re pissed.

        And acting like Bryn doesn’t know how many people are in America is childish. Did you attack that jackass in the Oval Office when he boasted about seeing all 57 states?

        • bupalos

          That’s the Kaiser Foundation! Like, as in, Kaiser Permanente? They are just a healthcare clearinghouse. Do you have some preferred set of stats that isn’t so hideously liberal is Kaiser?

          If you really, seriously think that Obamacare is going to mean 100 million more “without insurance,” then no wonder you’re this angry. But take a few breaths, wait a couple years, and I think you’ll find that all those “cancelled” plans are replaced about 10 seconds after they are cancelled with policies that are almost identical. I hope employers drop coverage and offer regular compensation instead–that will make the indiv market more efficient and everyone more free. Employer pools are pretty stupid. Conservatives used to understand this. But I doubt they will.

  • Roto ✓Intentionally Left Blank

    Ole Stevie boy shoulda listened to the Republican Weekly Address about Obamacare all the way back on August 24, 2009 from one of their doctors, Rep. Tom Price.

    “On the stump, the President regularly tells Americans that, ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan’. But if you read the Bill, that just isn’t so…. Millions of Americans will be forced off of their personal, private coverage and shuffled onto the Government Plan.” http://www.gop.gov/blog/09/08/24/weekly-republican-address-rep at 02:17+

    • bupalos

      The government plan?

      • Roto ✓Intentionally Left Blank

        Hint: type w-w-w dot healthcare.gov The website will probably be down, but they have 4 plan types named after metals. :rolleyes:

        • bupalos

          It’s up and it’s lightening fast! They have 3 levels named after metals and one named after the GWBush administration (har har)

          For my family, in my neck of the woods there were 47 different plans from 6 different companies including one just about identical to the one my ex-employer covered me under, from the identical carrier, for which I will pay about 10% more on my own than my portion of the contribution when I was there.

          How about you?

          • Roto ✓Intentionally Left Blank

            Oh, so your “The government plan?” question was a lie? Why doesn’t that surprise me.

            I have an employer-based plan, so I’ll be on pins and needles for a year hoping they don’t drop our plan and I’m dumped in Obamacare’s expensive cost-sharing metal plans through my state. Doubt you even know what cost-sharing means….