Letters to the Editor

Letter: Real insurance

November 5, 2013


To the editor:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare”) outlaws Potemkin health insurance policies after Jan. 1. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous insurance companies are responding with political demagoguery.

“Potemkin insurance” means now you see it, now you don’t. You think you have good health insurance until the bills come in; then you discover all the loopholes. Some companies selling these policies have sent letters scaring their customers about huge premium increases to come, allegedly caused by the ACA.

Here’s what these letters leave out:

l It’s an “apples and oranges” comparison. The new premium covers real insurance. The old premium covered Potemkin insurance. Real insurance costs more than fake insurance.

l New tax credits are available for real insurance.

l Much better deals may be available from other companies. Companies that sell Potemkin insurance don’t usually offer the best deals on real insurance.

l You don’t have to buy from exploitative companies. Under the ACA, everyone is now eligible for insurance without discrimination or “underwriting.” You can’t be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

l Competitive private insurance options are listed on the ACA insurance exchange. You don’t have to shop around.

The Lawrence-Douglas County League of Women Voters hopes that consumers will see through these distortions and avoid insurance companies that send dishonest letters.

Currently the ACA website isn’t working very well. To purchase insurance you may have to download an application to send through the mail. A list of expert “navigators” who will help you for free is available at http://insureks.org/assistance.php.


Bob Smith 4 years ago

"One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. .." Read the rest at http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/ BTW, was "Potemkin Insurance" the official talking point this week?

4 years ago

I really appreciated the line "Currently the ACA website isn’t working very well." When Jon Stewart speaks that same line tonight, it will result in gales of laughter across the studio audience and from sea to shining sea. Understatement so epic is on the order of saying Casey Anthony isn't a model mother. It's either done to illuminate the truth for humorous effect or it's done to hide the truth for political effect. For whichever reason it was included, I have to admit I laughed.

Leslie Swearingen 4 years ago

I would think that if you make $80,000 a year you can easily afford medical care. To me that is a huge amount of money so I am sorry, but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for her.

John Graham 4 years ago

Contrary to your statement, not all insurance policies that will be cancelled are bad policies. I am sure some are but not all. My licensed insurance agent reviewed policies from all major companies working in Kansas. The policies I focused on were from BCBS and Coventry. Both policies were for "real insurance" not "fake". Similar policies in all aspects. Neither provided maternity care but as a single male I had no need. Other than that they are identical to "bronze" plans under ACA. The big difference is premium and deductible. The ACA plan premium is 50% higher and the deductible is $3700 higher. Any subsidies will not make up for the increased out of pocket costs. In short I will be forced to pay substantially more for the same insurance coverage. Though I do get maternity care which is a big plus for a single male.

While your claims are correct in some cases they most certainly are not in all cases. You may like Obamacare, That is your right. But you are repeating the Obama party line in trying to justify his repeated lies to the American voters about keeping their healthcare plans if they like them. Period. I have a quality insurance product by a nationwide company with a good reputation for their insurance plans. The company was not "exploitive". I am happy with my plan but unlike the promise Obama repeatedly made, I DO NOT get to keep my plan. Obama has decided that he knows better than I do with respect to what insurance coverage I need. What I don't need is increased premiums and deductibles for the same insurance coverage. What I don't need is maternity care. What I don't need is the government trying to control every aspect of my life.

Bill Fair 4 years ago

No one has an insurance agent. The salesmen are agents of the company.

John Graham 4 years ago

He was an independent agent. He was not tied to any one company.

John Graham 4 years ago

Obama and the democrats sold Obamacare as more and better insurance for everyone at lower cost. I believe Obama stated the average family would save $2500. Who doesn't like more for less? Unfortunately the old saying "if it sounds too good to be true it often is" applies here. Did people actually believe that everyone was going to get better and more insurance for lower cost? Obama and the democrats repeatedly stated that if you had insurance you were happy with you keep it. Period. Did all of us actually believe this? All of us are guilty at times of believing what we want to hear.

Will Obamacare help some Americans get better and cheaper healthcare? I am sure it will. Though the reality for millions of Americans will be quite different than what Obama and the democrats promised. Millions will be forced off their current "good" insurance plans they are happy with. This is not the insurance companies fault but the fault of Obamacare. The guidelines for a "good" insurance plan to be grandfathered in are so restrictive that it is financially impossible for the insurance companies to continue them whether they are "good" policies or not. This means that millions of Americans with "good" insurance will be forced to buy new ACA approved policies that often will result in substantial increases in premiums and often even more substantial increases in deductibles. While government subsidies may help millions, many will find that the subsidies (if they qualify) fail to fully offset the significant increase in out of pocket expenses. In short, millions even with subsidies will be paying more total out of pocket money than under their previous "good" policies.

Now several news sources are reporting the White House was aware of these issues prior to Obama's statements about cost and keeping current insurance policies. Now Obama, the democrats and Obamacare supporters are trying to come up with a plan to justify the half-truths and lies told by Obama and the democrats in order to get the bill passed. Obama is no different than any other recent president in telling half-truths and lies in order to advance their agenda or cover their backside when caught doing something they shouldn't have (see Bush-WMDs, Clinton-little blue dress incident, Reagan-Iran Contra, etc). Obama's supporters that haven't already realized their disillusionment are being forced to face the fact he has not lived up to his promises on healthcare and he can not blame this on anyone but himself as he decided not to tell the full truth to the American people.

If it sounds too good to be true, it often is.

Gary Anderson 4 years ago

"train wreck"?..."Obamacare"? Who is using their parties talking points? The ACA sucks overall...what did you expect from a Heritage Foundation conceived, Republican Governor implemented idea? It has parts I like...most added by the current administration. The ACA will one day be replaced with single payer. The ACA has exposed so much what is wrong when insurance companies stand between a patient and his doctor. People are waking up to the fact that they have been paying hundreds of dollars a month for crappy insurance for too many years. It's time we joined the rest of the civilized world.

Gary Anderson 4 years ago

Yes it is our goal...well, mine at least.

John Graham 4 years ago

Talk to Canadians about universal healthcare. People with financial means often go outside the Canadian system to avoid long waits for diagnostic tests, treatments and surgeries. Talk to European countries about how high their tax rates are in part to cover universal healthcare. Talk to Europeans about treatment restrictions in order to maintain costs. Above a certain age, some treatments are denied due to cost. You die earlier than need be because dialysis or bypass surgery is not cost effective in the elderly. Universal healthcare is far from the perfect answer.

Amy Varoli Elliott 4 years ago

you realize that the US is 33rd in life expectance, behind all european countries, so who is really letting their people die young? We also spend more than all those countries in healthcare, why does a pill that will cost you $7 a month in Europe cost $150 here, some pill, some brand.

John Graham 4 years ago

Pill cost has to do with governments in some cases restricting what drug companies charge. Drug and medical device companies are a problem with some spending more on advertising to the public than in research for new drugs or devices. Does every other ad need to be about a drug or artificial knee that you should "ask your doctor about" this only leads to the public wanting the latest most expensive treatments when older cheaper treatments may work just as well. The doctor "should" choose what's best for the patient not based on what is advertised most. Inducements to doctors are a real problem that adds to overall cost and waste in the system.

Life expectancy is too vague to be truly useful. Factors such as violent death, accidents play a significant factor in life expectancy particularly in young males which lowers overall life expectancy of the country without being due to healthcare. See what happens to a county's life expectancy during war years. There are better ways to measure a country's medical care than life expectancy.

I agree that the current system has very significant failures in multiple aspects. Anyone who says the current system is perfect either doesn't understand the system or is just plain wrong. What I was trying to point out is there are multiple issues with universal healthcare that advocates often ignore. Universal healthcare is far from perfect. Higher taxes, longer waits to see a doctor, long waits for surgeries, and limits on some forms of treatments based on age and other factors just to name a few. If you have to waits weeks or months for the heart bypass you need, how happy are you even if it is covered under universal healthcare? At one point Wichita KS had more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada. One might wait months for an appointment in Canada that was several hundred miles away. It is covered but how good a care is that? So all I was saying is no system is perfect. Trade offs over cost, access, taxes must be made. For anything universal healthcare does better than our system, it does something worse. Vice versa with our healthcare compared to universal. I was trying to point out to the previous comment that "civilized" countries have universal healthcare doesn't mean it is necessarily better than what we have in all circumstances.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

Life expectancy is not a very good measure, hence the reason it's not the focus. What the (eventual) goal would be is more along the lines of making sure no one goes bankrupt because they get breast cancer (for example). That people and their children don't live through financial ruin because someone is born with a complication. The fact some people are okay with others being financially unable to survive because of a defect at birth, or that they deserve to suffer for uncontrollable problems they cannot have properly fixed because they cannot afford it sicken me.

John Graham 4 years ago

Life expectancy was the focus of the statement I was responding to. I never mentioned anything about being okay with others being financially unable to survive.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

Understood - bad post placement; I was responding to Amy's comment about the US being 33rd in life expectancy and it decided to be under yours so it looked like I was responding to. Sorry about that.

Mike Ford 4 years ago

nonsense.....my wife worked at the Wendy's at Sixth and Kasold and had two fellow employees who had were dual citizens and one went back to Toronto for a heart bypass procedure and the other went to Vancouver for health checkups and work. More people need to call nonsense on this madeup often repeated conservative fallacy. These two people didn't have to do this.

Richard Payton 4 years ago

I'm waiting for the CEO's of the insurance companies to start complaining. Why haven't the insurance executives said anything? If the ACA was such a good deal most Americans would have already downloaded the application and sent it in.

4 years ago

"Why haven't the insurance executives said anything?"

Everything they had to say, they wrote into the law.

Scott Burkhart 4 years ago

The real point being made by the authors of this LTE is the average individual seeking their own insurance is too stupid to keep from being duped by unscrupulous insurance companies seeking only their premium and denying coverage. The solution is not government designed healthcare plans. The solution is to allow insurance companies to compete with each other across state lines. You would see a decrease in premiums and an increase in services.

Big government solutions have failed wherever they have been instituted. These utopian ideas work great between the ears but they fall apart where the rubber meets the road. A free market has and will always provide the most, and best, goods and services for it participants.

4 years ago

It's sad to see that the League of Women Voters has degenerated into just another shill for big government.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

I don't think you understand what the League of Women Voters does, or what big government means.

John Graham 4 years ago

In this case the league of women voters is making statements about "real" and "fake" insurance that does not apply to all cases as they would like you to believe. Not all insurance policies that are being cancelled are "fake". Not every insurance company that is canceling a policy is "exploitive". They are making generalizations about several topics regarding insurance policies and insurance companies that simply are misstating the facts. Millions of people are having their "real" insurance policies cancelled directly due to ACA. In many cases they will find the ACA replacement policies come with higher premiums and deductibles. In this case the league of women voters is clearly spouting The Democratic Party line without regard to the full facts.

Cille King 4 years ago

"Unfortunately, some unscrupulous insurance companies are responding with political demagoguery."

The letter clearly states "some" insurance companies.

John Graham 4 years ago

Point taken. But what you just happen to leave out of your letter is the same thing Obama and the Democratic Party forgot to tell the American public, that "real" insurance policies will be cancelled due to regulations of the ACA that make it impossible for insurance companies to grandfather in plans that current policy holders are happy with. The new ACA policies in many cases will cost more in premiums and deductibles. The new policies will force you to have coverage you may not need, such as maternity care. And if you qualify for any subsidies, they may not make up for all of the increased out of pocket expenses you will have with the new ACA policy. Will Obamacare help some? I am sure it will. It will also harm millions as well.

Steve King 4 years ago

"There was no mention of a husband in the story, so I wouldn't consider $80,000 a "huge amount of money" for a single mom."

What planet do you live on?

The defination of a "single mom" is there is no husband.

The US average is only around $50k.

$80,000/yr is a boatload of money.

According to a study by the The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund:

"The median average income for all single-mother families was just $25,172 — down by more than $2,000 since 2000. The median average income for married couples with children was three times greater and, for the relatively few single-father families, nearly one and a half times greater.

Well over a third (38.5%) of single-mother families lived below the poverty threshold. This is more than four and a half times the rate for married couples with children and also considerably higher than the rate for single-father families.

About half the single-mother families below the poverty threshold were in “extreme poverty,” i.e., had incomes below 50% of the threshold.

Women were a large majority (79.6%) of the adults with children who were in emergency shelters.

About 20% of single-mother families were living doubled up with friends or relatives — often a precursor to literal homelessness.

Though a high percentage of single-mother families received food stamps, 36.6% of them experienced food insecurity, i.e., at least sometimes didn't have the resource for everyone to have enough food.

4 years ago

"I don't think you understand what the League of Women Voters does..."

Actually, I do. And to tell you the truth, I rather admire how they do it. The League of Women Voters builds up political capital and moral authority by conducting voter drives and informing people, by sponsoring debates and the like (what they call "Protecting and Engaging Voters.") Then they spend that political capital shilling for the left. Take any one of their issues that has nothing to do with voting, like guns or immigration, then figure out where the present left/right split is. 10 times in 10 they'll come down on the left. It's not really a secret. They have a web site and everything.

This letter is a perfect example. You have to admit, unless they are a subsidiary of the NSA, the LWV really doesn't know what's in other people's mail. They don't really know if people are happy with their policies because they are fitting policies or because people are too ignorant to know better. They don't even know what policies people have, what parts people figure they don't need, any of that. But they are willing to make up stuff like 'Potemkin Policies,' slandering insurers and calling their customers functional idiots, in order to provide political cover for Obamacare. It's really rather ingenious if a little unseemly.

Cille King 4 years ago

The "League", born from the women's suffrage movement, is open to all adults, and includes members of all political parties and those not affiliated. All political issues are possible topics for study, as all are relevant to our self governing. Topics are chosen for lengthy research and results are published after consensus.

4 years ago

Of course they are, and it's the just world's biggest coincidence that all issues happen to come down on the left.

Look, I don't blame you for your positions. Like I said, I really admire how you manage to leverage your reputation as a nonpartisan voter organization into unrelated leftist causes. It's been effective for a very long time and has been copied with great success by the MAINstream Coalition and similar groups. You have plenty to be proud of.

John Graham 4 years ago

It just so happens your consensus is primarily along Democratic Party lines. How many and which Republican Party causes does the LWV openly support? The web site for LWV is clearly nothing but a front for everything Democratic Party.

4 years ago

"...nothing but a front for everything Democratic Party. "

Shhh! non-partisan, bro. The desire to "... regulat[e] the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons" is not even something the Democratic party will admit to. You're gonna blow the Dems' cover, talking like that.

4 years ago

Even explicitly conservative organizations will eventually fall to liberal rent-seekers and placeholders. After all, Yale was established as a reaction to the theological liberalism of Harvard. Now one can nary read an Easter-debunking article on CNN.com without tripping over a Yale alumnus. Best to give the corpse a good kick anyway.

This, of course, is why conservatism is futile. But that's an issue for another day.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

Exactly, you seem to know very little about the organization (I think you're confusing them with groups such as the Tea Party) as the LWV shills for nobody. Their composition is not unified by individual talking points or issues as each member of their organization is allowed their own stances on such issues and the group flows with the members, not the other way around.

"If you look at the present lift/right wing split..." So unless the group is perfectly divided 50/50 on every issue all the time, it's shilling for one side? This is the nature of politics, not a fault of a group. Points of view and ideals shift from one side to another and then in another direction as time passes - if a group never modifies or adopts its opinion or stance on issues (see NRA) then it is doing what you are referring to as shilling by constantly needing members to adhere to the program's ideals, not having the ideals shift with the members.

10 of 10 times they will come down on what you consider "The Left" because it doesn't adhere to your ideals. Not to mention once you take spin and dishonesty out of a situation the general public will often be much more moderate and centrist, which those of the far right consider "The Left".

Steve King 4 years ago

Oh, I got to call you on that. 90% of us make less than $80,000/year. Teacher salaries average in the mid-$40's. Toss in $10,000 in benefits and your still a long, long way from $80,000/yr.

What's does everyone else think? Is $80,000/yr is a boatload? Or is that just average?

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

ObamaCare eliminates lousy insurance coverage which is like no coverage. Consumers would have been better off creating a medical care savings account and managing their own affairs.

In 2009, when President Barack Obama first promised that people who liked their insurance coverage would be able to keep it under the Affordable Care Act, he overlooked one critical fact,

Many of the health policies that Americans like are terrible insurance plans that were created to scam consumers.

Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives.

The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days.

Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."

Many of the plans on the individual market are so bad that people who have them might as well be uninsured. "The only people who like those plans are people who have never needed them," says Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports. "They haven't figured out yet how terrible they are. They think they have good coverage but they don't."

The same is true of the other conservatives who've groused about losing a plan, including Malkin. As Metcalf points out, "If they're having to cancel out a plan with a $10,000 deductible and end up with a plan with a $2,500 deductible, that's a better plan, period.

The Affordable Care Act eliminates lousy coverage, which ultimately saves cost for people when they receive care."


The best bang for the buck is Medicare Single Payer Insurance. IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services / primary and preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care / hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care

No deductibles / No Co-pays http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

4 years ago

Yeah, dude, we know. Otherwise appropriate insurance that ACA outlaws is now officially re-designated as "bad" insurance, "not" insurance, "Potemkin" insurance. You might have been happy with your old policy, it meeting your needs and budget as it did. But that's only because you're not as smart as the bureaucrats at HHS or the consensus-reachers at LWV.

After all, every 70-year-old widower needs maternity coverage, no? I mean, he might get really, really, really freaking lucky.

Cille King 4 years ago

People over 65 are generally on Medicare.

The idea that all health insurance policies cover all 10 aspects, including maternity coverage, is from the basic idea of spreading the cost of care from the all areas of the population AND to eliminate the higher costs WOMEN have had to pay for premiums. After all, men have a part in becoming pregnant.

4 years ago

Especially men who are over 50, unmarried, sterile, had a vas like me... in short, Obamacare works perfectly so long as you charge those who don't need coverage in order to subsidize those who do. That's cool, so long as we're being honest about it.

But let's not pretend that "If you like your policy, you can keep it" was ever truthful, or even ever close to being truthful. "Spreading the cost" has always meant that you were going to pay for others who needed coverage you didn't. It's simple math. Those who don't need X coverage, whatever that coverage is, are going to underwrite those who do.

How this, in toto, was ever going to reduce costs has remained rather vague...

John Graham 4 years ago

So let's apply the same idea to all insurance. Women will pay the same higher rates that men pay in auto insurance despite young men having a higher accident rate than women. Women will pay the same higher rates that men pay in life insurance despite men having a shorter life expectancy. It will be the same idea of those that are lower risk to insure will be forced to pay more to compensate for the higher risk people (in these cases men).

Cille King 4 years ago

Applies to oranges. Health care is a matter of life. Car and life insurance are not.

John Graham 4 years ago

You like to ignore what is right in front you. If men have to subsidize maternity care then women can subsidize mens auto insurance. It's not all that different.

Cille King 4 years ago

Men have half of the responsibility for a pregnancy. Women do not have any responsibility for a man's poorer driving record.

John Graham 4 years ago

"Men have half of the responsibility for a pregnancy". That is completely incorrect. Men, if present, share the responsibility for conception. Pregnancy is completely different than conception. Not all conceptions result in pregnancies. The American Medical Association and the British Medical Association define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. Stedman's medical dictionary defines pregnancy "the state of the female after conception and until termination of the gestation". Dorland's medical dictionary defines pregnancy in a similar manner.

Males do not have half the responsibility of pregnancy, in fact males have no responsibility of medically defined pregnancy. The female makes all decisions that will determine the outcome of the pregnancy except for "acts of God" such as genetic defects and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). The female makes the decision if she will take vitamins, eat healthy, exercise, get and actually follow medical advice all of which can impact the fetus. She will make the decision to gain a healthy amount of weight or gain too little (in some cases even lose weight) or gain too much all of which can impact the fetus. She will decide if she uses alcohol, tobacco, or drugs all of which can have extremely serious impact on the fetus. She will decide if she participates in activities such as reckless driving or extremely strenuous sporting activities that can potentially harm the fetus. She will decide to take the "morning after" pill which will prevent the act of conception from becoming a pregnancy. She will decide if she will have a termination of pregnancy or not.

While males and females share in conception, if both are present, the female alone is responsible for the pregnancy except for "acts of God". You argue that women do not have any responsibility for a man's driving record, which is true. The same line of reasoning can be used to argue that men have no responsibility for a women's pregnancy. Conception yes, pregnancy no. Just as a woman can tell the man how to drive, ultimately he is responsible for his driving; a man can tell a woman what he thinks she should do while pregnant, ultimately she is responsible for the medically defined condition of pregnancy and how that impacts the fetus.

Cille King 4 years ago

That is the best argument for a woman's right to use birth control (any form that fits her needs), access to the morning after pill and abortion when requested. Have you tried to persuade any 'pro-birth' people to your thoughts on men not being responsible - that's it completely up to a women what she can do after conception?

John Graham 4 years ago

Women have those rights of birth control, morning after pill and abortion. They have the right to make use of them as they see fit. It is their body and they should have the right to do with it as they choose. Men or women that want to control someone else's body should have things done to them without their choice and see how they like it. The law has said birth control, morning after pills, and abortions are legal and I personally believe anyone trying to play games with access of those choices should be jailed on violations of women's civil rights. But with these rights comes responsibilities that women alone are liable for such as responsibility of pregnancy, not conception that is shared, but medically defined pregnancy which is and should be the sole responsibility of the woman to take care of her body and the fetus without anyone male or female interfering. Once the child is born the male of course should share financial responsibility and child raising responsibility. Between conception and birth the male should stay the blank out of the way unless asked to be involved then of course he should help as asked. If pregnancy ever occurs outside the female body then the male can share in pregnancy responsibility. Until then men should shut the blank up about pregnancy issues. Pregnancy as medically defined is solely a female issue.

Why would I try to persuade "pro-birth" people. They are completely irrational!

Cille King 4 years ago

"Women have those rights of birth control, morning after pill and abortion." While, in theory, that is true, laws have and are being made so it's impractical and sometimes impossible. Restrictions on everything from access to birth control, the morning after pill and abortion are growing, especially in Republican leaning states. Some would have us go back to before the 1960's, when none of those options were available, legally.

Does your premise still hold, that only women are accountable for pregnancy in places in the world that ban all options to avoid or terminate a pregnancy?

John Graham 4 years ago

Most restrictions are made by conservative men that get to the point of being rabid about it. If the law allows these reasonable options (which there is no medical reason to restrict) then the government should not tolerate any restrictions to access. The only restriction I believe should be restricting abortions on viable fetuses (late term abortion) unless the mother's health is at risk. I know that is splitting a hair but if the fetus is viable outside the womb then from a medical standpoint I think purely elective late term abortions should avoided. This still gives the female 20 weeks or so to make up her mind. I believe reasonable people can see the significant difference between a medically non viable and medically viable fetus.

There is no reasonable argument from a medical standpoint to restrict birth control and the morning after pill. Again games played to try to restrict access to these options should be struck down by courts. Waiting periods, having to see an ultrasound etc are nothing but violations of the woman's civil rights, in my opinion. Government officials that are trying to restrict access to birth control, morning after pill and non viable fetus abortions are simply trying to apply their personal often religious opinions onto the whole country. I don't care if individually one is against these options for themselves for any reason. But when one is trying to get the government to yield to their personal and or religious view of what should be allowed for the entire country then it appears to be a conflict with the "separation of church and state" idea. If you are a faithful catholic or some other religion and as such against these options, that is fine as long as you do not try to force the government to tell every woman what she can and can not do. Again most would say a woman "must" get an abortion is unreasonable. Similarly to tell a woman she absolutely "can not" is equally unreasonable.

With respect to countries that do not allow any such options, please see earlier statement about being irrational at the least from a medical standpoint. How can anyone be responsible for anything if the ruling government is irrational in their actions?

I firmly believe if men were the ones that got pregnant, the men so against birth control, the morning after pill and non viable fetus abortions would look at things dramatically different. I am always baffled that it always seems to be the men that are the loudest opponents to birth control, the morning after pill and abortion. All topics that they will never directly have to deal with. Funny how that is.

Cille King 4 years ago

John Graham, I completely agree with this post.

John Graham 4 years ago

If society will allow outsiders, male or female, to tell a woman what she "can not" do such as use birth control, the morning after pill, or abort a non viable fetus, then the reverse must be considered, outsiders telling a woman she "must" use birth control, the morning after pill, or have an abortion. Most people would say the latter "must" statement is completely unreasonable. The reverse "can not" statement by logic is equally completely unreasonable.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

No one can afford lousy medical insurance. Of course lousy insurance coverage is a huge profit item for the lousy insurance industry.

Make IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL available to all taxpayers as one of our choices.

Leave existing insurance on the table for those who enjoy spending large sums of money for medical insurance. What could possibly be more American?

I want my tax dollars spent on a useful endeavor not on:

  1. insurance over charges
  2. or obscene CEO salaries
  3. or golden parachutes
  4. or shareholders
  5. or special interest campaign funding!!!

It is time for my tax dollars to support this fiscally prudent insurance program.

How much is the sick USA insurance plan costing YOU? http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html


Repubs have nothing better to offer. All they and their parrots have is nonsense rhetoric without substance to back up anything they spit out.

Listening to politicians on this issue is a dangerous route to accept. Listening to CEO's and lobbyists from the insurance industry is equally as dangerous as this is the source for misinformation coming from politicians.

Did you know the health care industry has 8 high dollar lobbyists per elected official? Do you know who is paying for these high dollar lobbyists? YOU ARE!

4 years ago

"Did you know the health care industry has 8 high dollar lobbyists per elected official?"

Who do you think wrote the ACA? With all of these premiums going thru the roof, with all these "Potemkin" policies being replaced by "real" policies that cost 2x, 3x, 4x as much to cover things the payers don't need, to whom do you think that money is going?

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that it causes me such deep belly laughs to see those who complain about the effects of money in politics defend the ACA.


The ACA is the definitive result of money in politics. Millions and millions and millions and millions of lobbyist dollars that will return far more money in unneeded premiums than the best insider stock tip ever could.

The most effective political corruption is always legal. Else how would those who make the laws benefit?

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

David Burress and Cille King are well educated on the issues of medical insurance. Hats off to the letter.

I am well aware who put the ACA together. The same people who have been writing the coverage and laws for 70 years. The medical insurance industry. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/bill_moyers_michael_winship_in.html#more

Am I defending Obamacare? No not necessarily. Just offered up some facts instead of misinformation.

My choice is and has been for a few years is Medicare Single Payer Insurance. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( very interesting findings)

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources Physicians for a National Health Program

4 years ago

"My choice is and has been for a few years is Medicare Single Payer Insurance."

Well, I certainly hope that for some unforeseen reason, that law is written by someone other than "[t]he same people who have been writing the coverage and laws for 70 years."

Because then it will be uber-awesome and not at all the result of lobbying, don't you know.

Kevin Elliott 4 years ago

This debate is old.

Yes some of you hate this law.

I.don't expect you to change but I do expect you to grow up.

You urged the senate not to pass it.

You lost

You urged congress not to pass it

You lost

You urged the president not to sign it

You lost

You took it to the supreme.court

You lost

You tried to repeal it 88 times

You lost 88 times

You created a 24 billion dollar government shutdown putting the nations credit rating.at risk

You lost

Not only.did you loose but there.was a net gain in support for the law.

You repeat that more than 50% of the nation does not like the law but are not honest enough to admit that almost 30% of those do not like it because it is too conservative.

You blame obama even though it is modeled on romneys plan

20% or more of americans are uninsured with a great deal more being under insured and.you have.done nothing despite.the billions it costs our economy and ignoring the counless needless deaths.

Well we get it. Whine whine whine.

Get over it and either help the country move on. You lost.

John Graham 4 years ago

You miss the point completely. If Obama and the democrats had told the full truth about millions of people being forced off their current insurance onto ACA plans that have higher premiums and higher deductibles and despite subsidies millions will be paying more out of pocket then it is certainly doubtful if the bill would have been passed. Why didn't they tell the truth? It appears from multiple sources they knew of these issues all the while telling the American people a bunch of half truths and keeping full disclosure from the people. They didn't tell the full truth because they were afraid if the people knew the whole truth the people would not support it. Obama and the democrats got caught not telling the truth and now his supporters are trying to say no big deal. Millions of people will be paying substantially more for healthcare under ACA despite Obama's promise to the contrary, tell them no big deal "get over it". Obama tells the people no taxes associated with ACA. Yet his legal team argues before the Supreme Court that the fines for not buying insurance are not fines but are "taxes".

I don't like my president whether republican or democrat repeatedly playing fast and loose with the truth when talking to the American people. I know I am old fashioned but I want my president to tell us the truth about what is going on not some half truth in order to fool the public into supporting his pet agenda. Whether about WMDs, little blue dresses, or healthcare the president should not face the American people he represents and knowingly fail to tell the full truth. When this happens which it does all too often by both republicans and democrats alike, we all lose no matter what side of the issue you may be on.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

Is your entire argument speculation?

John Graham 4 years ago

Obama and the democrats failing to tell the truth about Obamacare is not speculation.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

Billions in over charges billed to consumers does not seem like a consumer friendly approach. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Did consumers receive a refund?

What else increases the cost of medical insurance? Can we say reckless spending?

--- corp jets

--- its bureaucracy

--- profits

--- high corporate salaries

--- advertising

--- sales commissions

CIGNA CEO Receives $73 million retirement bonus seems like a waste of healthcare dollars. http://www.healthcare-now.org/denial-of-care-profits-73-million-for-cignas-retiring-ceo/

What is the point in retaining what was available to consumers? The Affordable Care Act eliminates lousy coverage, which ultimately saves cost for people when they receive care.

Obamacare is a first step. I'm ready for the next step. It is time for my tax dollars to support a fiscally prudent insurance program. No deductibles / No Co-pays --- http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

Bob Smith 4 years ago

Coming soon to a government-run healthcare system near you. http://www.buffalonews.com/article/20131106/AP/311069849 I see, Richard, that you've not lost that set of links you've been posting here for the last few years.

Grégoire Guillaume 4 years ago

I'm a Kansan who is currently living in Missouri. Both states have done everything possible to put a blackout on information about signing up for the ACA. If your a Fox news watcher your really in the dark. Today I called Healthcare.gov and learned that I could have a representative come to my home to sign up for the ACA. I'd say it doesn't get much more convenient than that.

Seth Peterson 4 years ago

Ha ha ha, that was entertaining.

Oh...you took it seriously? I'm sorry...just, so so sorry.

Santa isn't real either.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

The military and the Veterans Administration are examples of a government health care system.

Obamacare is insurance run by the medical insurance industry.

Scott Burkhart 4 years ago

Exactly! If you've ever been to the VA for ongoing treatment, you have experienced single payer insurance. The military is pretty much run by the military, Richard, so I discount that argument. As far as Medicare, it's only 30 billion dollars in the red. The waste and fraud in that system is so rampant, it will never be fixed. Nope, sorry, The goverrnment cannot run this better than the private sector. If people, such as yourself, would have stepped out of the way and allowed insurance companies to compete for business across state lines, we would not be here today. Oh, and BTW, all of those links that you keep posting are really not objective at all and therefore hold as much credibility as President Obama.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

What is Medicare? Medicare is the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).

The different parts of Medicare help cover specific services:

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) Part A covers inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care.

Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) Part B covers certain doctors' services, outpatient care, medical supplies, and preventive services.


Richard Heckler 4 years ago

What is IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL.

Single Payer Highlights

  • Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

  • Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies. Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

  • Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

  • State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and local tax burdens.

  • Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental, vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

  • Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

  • No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and force people into bankruptcy.

  • Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare. Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated prices for prescription drugs.

Physicians for a National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources


Richard Heckler 4 years ago

Physicians for a National Health Program

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. As a result, administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars, most of which is waste.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes, based on ability to pay, would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

The links below will lead you to more specific information on the details of single-payer.


Richard Heckler 4 years ago

Obama Care eliminates lousy insurance coverage. No one can afford lousy medical insurance. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

Scott Burkhart 4 years ago

Mother Jones? Really? Exactly how objective do you think they are? That's right, about as much as you, Richard. Thanks again for another worthless link to a nothing website written by a bunch of idealogues that are so far to the left that they make the Tea Party look like Joe Lieberman.

Bob Smith 4 years ago

Well, this thread has pretty much gone the way I thought it would.

Chris Golledge 4 years ago

Prior to mandatory insurance, we had a system where health care providers were obligated by law to provide services, but payment for those services was essentially voluntary. Walk into an emergency room complaining of pain and they have to treat you. Ask to make an appointment with a doctor without demonstrating some means of paying and they will refuse. So, many people were going to the emergency room for treatment they could have gotten from a doctor's office visit if they had some form of health care plan. Going to a doctor's office costs less than going to an emergency room. Somebody is paying for those ER visits, and that somebody is the people voluntarily buying health insurance.

Yes, there will be some difficulties in getting the system worked out, but if the total cost of the care provided is less, the total amount we have to pay for that care is less.

Also, people complaining about having to buy health insurance are essentially asking for the rest of us to subsidize their health care risk. You can have a system where payment is voluntary and providing services is also voluntary, or you can have a system where everyone has to pay at least something, and everyone is entitled to services. What we had was obligated services and voluntary payment, and people wonder why providers were charging $10 for a Tylenol from the people who were actually paying.

John Graham 4 years ago

Well written. Summarizes the voluntary pay-obligated service problem with the current system. In the large over view I agree with "if the total cost of care provided is less, the total amount we have to pay for the care is less". Here are a couple of thoughts though: first, the total cost of care may not be less due to more use of healthcare overall as most people will have insurance or total cost may not be less due to failure of the government to find the efficiencies they are counting on to reduce costs. Second, even if the overall healthcare costs are less, some people will still see their individual costs go up due to a portion of their premium being used to pay for subsidies of others. Some people will be paying less overall for insurance due to others paying more.

Overall in the large picture things could be better while at the same time for a good portion of people their individual situation may be worse. The system is designed to benefit some at the cost of others. If the overall costs go up,which is a real possibility, then we all are screwed.

Chris Golledge 4 years ago

I think I can paint this in broad strokes. Those who had chosen not to buy insurance will pay significantly more. Those who had policies that only covered limited circumstances will pay a little more. Those with broad spectrum policies will pay a little less than they would have without the added contribution of the others; though, it may take a couple years for this to work through the health care providers and the statistics used by the insurance companies.

It would help if people actually price-checked the services whenever they had the opportunity; that would create incentive for the service providers to have competitive prices. Otherwise, your insurance company will do it for you by adding or subtracting from their provider networks.

John Graham 4 years ago

I am going to disagree. I have a current plan that is the same as an ACA bronze plan covering everything the bronze plan covers except I don't have maternity care. As a single male I don't need maternity care. Through the exchange the best premium is 50% more and the deductible is $3700 more per year. Best case is I pay about $1000 more next year due to the increased premium. If I really need my insurance then my max out of pocket next year will be about $4700 more than what it would have been under my current plan. I will notice the $1000 out of my available cash next year and I would certainly notice $4700. I won't get subsidies to offset the cost increases. It so happens the best rate is from the same company I currently have a policy with. My current plan is in every way the same as the new plan except the new plan has the unneeded maternity care.

This I believe is typical in some of the cases being talked about. Premiums may be somewhat higher but not too bad all in all. The real potential increase is the difference in deductibles and total out of pocket yearly expenses.

Obama, the democrats and Obamacare supporters keep saying individuals that are paying more had "bad" plans or very "limited" plans as a way to justify the higher costs. That may be the case in some instances but it is not the case in all instances. Look I am not aganst more people having health insurance. I am not even against paying a little more to help subsidize the cost for those that truly can't afford it. While $1000 a year more will cause minimal if any true cutbacks on my part, the potential $4700 more out of pocket most certainly would cause noticeable cutbacks on my part. Obama and Obamacare supporters are brushing this issue aside without any concern for those affected. That is what is bothering those of us affected. While they are bragging about how many more people will have coverage they are ignoring those of us that could face substantial out of pocket increases that will be used to subsidize others. Obama could at least acknowledge some of the people he represents are going to get screwed under his plan. If we are paying for his grand plan of getting more people covered, don't ignore us by blaming us for our cost increases by saying currently we have poor insurance when not all of us do.

Also let's face facts about the average household in the US. Stats show most have little if any savings to speak of. Many of these households would have difficulty in finding enough money to pay the deductible on their current plan if they needed to. How are they going to pay for the new ACA deductibles that are typically higher than the plans they are replacing? If they qualify for subsidies to help lower the premiums it still doesn't cover the possible significantly increased deductible cost. The very lowest incomes will get some help through another form of subsidies but most families wont.

Chris Golledge 4 years ago

"As a single male I don't need maternity care." No, but then I suspect that most females need maternity care, say twice, between the ages of 20 and 30. And, unless you are willing to say that females alone should bear the cost of maternity care... Well, you have been shifted from the group paying only for their personal risk to the general population group, which includes young females and the old in general, and your cost is about $100/month more.

John Graham 4 years ago

You are proving my point. Many people will be paying more to subsidize others. Obama's claim that Obamacare would reduce costs to people purchasing insurance is not true for a large portion of the population that will be forced to have insurance they don't need (such as maternity care) to subsidize others. While I can see some merit of this in the larger picture, this is not what Obama promised. He was promising better coverage at lower costs and savings for everyone not just certain groups. Only tonight did he come out and apologize for not telling the full truth that some will lose their current insurance and be forced to pay more on the ACA plans to help subsidize others. The issue of getting more people health insurance is not a bad idea. What the problem is he repeatedly lied about the details of everyone saving money and keeping one's current insurance. Multiple sources indicate the White House knew these claims did not apply to everyone like Obama and the democrats were selling to the public.

John Graham 4 years ago

There is no reason to "price check" your providers unless you do not have insurance. Insurance pays providers based on a set fee schedule regardless of what the provider charges. There is one exception that never happens. If the provider charges less than the insurance allowable then the insurance carrier will pay the provider less than their max fee schedule. This is why provider charges are higher than the carrier's allowables. Any provider charge over what the fee schedule allows is written off under the contract with the insurance company. Any charge above the allowed can not be charged to the patient if the provider is on your insurance company's list of providers. The insurance fee schedule is typically a percentage of the Medicare fee schedule. Typically insurance companies pay around 105% of what Medicare will allow for the service. Medicare fee schedule is set by some government committee that determines relative value units of each service. The government sets what the base payment rate is for one relative value unit. Then simply multiply this rate for one value unit by the number of relative value units of the specific service to get the Medicare allowed. Then take this number and multiply by 105% to get the typical insurance allowable. Any amount above this is written off as long as your doctor is a provider for your insurance. In short a doctor can charge $1M for an office visit, but as long as the doctor has a provider contract with your insurance carrier you will not owe any more than what the carrier fee schedule will allow which typically is slightly more than what Medicare allows. What a doctor charges above allowable has no real impact on anything. So "price checking" will do one no good at all unless the patient is paying without any insurance coverage. What a provider charges has no impact on healthcare costs of anyone with insurance. What matters is the government's decision on relative value units and what the government sets the pay rate at for one value unit.

Bob Smith 4 years ago

"... but if the total cost of the care provided is less,..." That's a large but. If the new jazz forces people to change doctors and hospitals and demands higher premiums for fewer choices, the whole outfit is doomed.

Chris Golledge 4 years ago

So, you are saying that doctors visits cost more than ER visits? What about the cost of major incidents, like car wrecks, heart failure, and cancer; who do you think pays for those when they happen to the uninsured?

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

From DDOS attacks to insurance companies dumping customers left and right (because their insurance doesn't meet minimum benefit requirements) and refusing to offer other plans; how many ways can the Tea Party screw the ACA?

4 years ago

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama apologized on Thursday to Americans whose insurance plans are being canceled due to the federal health law he championed even though he said repeatedly they could keep their coverage if they liked. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Why apologize? They were all Potemkin policies written by unscrupulous companies. People should be thanking the President for saving them from policies that they only thought they were happy with.

You've got to hate it when our president throws a spanner in a perfectly good meme.

John Graham 4 years ago

Keep the link handy. It has historical significance. If he apologized that means he acknowledged he made a mistake. I believe this is the first time he ever acknowledged he made a mistake instead of blaming someone else.

Bob Smith 4 years ago

Copied from another forum: "My neighbor, Barry, introduced himself and he noticed that I had a dog.

He blurted out, "If you like your dog, you can keep it. Period. And uh, you know, I will not run over your dog".

Of course after a short few weeks, while minding my own business walking my dog on my leash, Barry does, in fact, swerve and run over my dog.

Asking what he has to say about his killing my dog and his prior statements, all Barry said was, "I am sorry that you now find yourself in a situation where your dog is no longer alive."

Sound familiar?"

Bob Smith 4 years ago

The train is off the tracks, upside down in the ditch and all the wheels have fallen off. Is Kathy still saying it will all be fixed by Dec 1?

Mike Ford 4 years ago

I will get my ACA insurance this Tuesday. I've worked 16 years at a job that due to the brutality of the former insurance market was priced out of offering company plan insurance in Jan-Feb 2011. I work full time. My wife works full time. We both have minor preexisting conditions that made health insurance expensive and unattainable. I had to buy a Potemkin plan that I had for two years that I just cancelled as I got ACA insurance from BCBS Kansas. This insurance didn't cover squat. It was stop gap. Now we will have a silver level BCBS plan that's real. It was $437 before credits and $117.60 afterwards. I paid $274 for just myself back in February 2011. This plan is real and helpful and I'm tired of the whiners making needless noise. This ACA act will survive. The last couple of nights I called 1800 318 2695 I had a 30 minute wait so don't let the haters of ACA mislead you. People are signing up and enrolling.

Bob Smith 4 years ago

The income redistribution part of the ACA is working. Somebody is getting soaked to pay the extra $320 for Mike.

John Graham 4 years ago

I would be happy too if someone else paid 75% of my health insurance premiums. There is only so much money the gov't can take from the upper middle class and the wealthy to pay for everyone else. Then what happens?

Mike Ford 4 years ago

guess what our household income is $28K. This isn't welfare. Nice straw argument constantly used by uninformed people. If I was to act like you act I would be angry that my late mother died in a car accident at age 63 after paying in her whole life on social security and she nor us got it. My father is a retired minister and since when is greed like yours a valued social attribute? it isn't. People pay in so that college students can get loans and people can get federal mortgages. This mythology that people use to say they can rise by their own actions is mythology. For libertarians and the like I have this to say.....you haven't risen on your own.... the federal government in the nineteenth century was pushed by states to seize on the cheap tribal reservation lands or Indian lands outright. Larger entities have always done the carrying so to speak even with things like this ACA act. Some people just don't pay attention. Having paid taxes since 1986 I'm glad my tax money is supporting me instead of buying missiles, mraps, or abandoned building projects, or no bid haliburton contracts in Iraq. Remember George W. Bush? I thought I'd remind you.

John Graham 4 years ago

The fact is I am self sufficient and always have been including never getting any gov't grants or loans for school, or federal assistance in a home loan. I have what I have by hard work from high school through college and continued through career. I happily pay my share of taxes. I do not try to hide income or savings offshore in an attempt to avoid paying my share of taxes. The fact that I am tired of the gov't making me pay more than my share so they can give it away in subsidies does not make me greedy. The fact that I worked hard for what i have and don't like to be forced to give it away does not make me greedy. I find it funny how the people paying for the subsidies get called greedy by those receiving the subsidies.

John Graham 4 years ago

I don't begrudge paying taxes in a progressive system that would have me paying a "little more" due to income level. The problem is the gov't just never quits in coming up with more reasons for them to demand more money so they can give it way in another subsidy. The wealthy and upper middle class do not have enough money for the gov't endless appetite for ever growing entitlement programs. Sooner or later the well is going to run dry. That does not make me greedy.

Bob Smith 4 years ago

The hits just keep coming. "CNN reports that a woman the president hailed as an Obamacare success story just realized she won't be able to afford Obamacare because it's too expensive..." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html

Commenting has been disabled for this item.