Posted by Tina
Ellen Degeneres recently interviewed President Obama to gush over the “success” of Obamacare:
It’s doing very, very well…you’ve got 5 million people signed up so far. [Applause] An enormous number of people have signed up, so it’s successful….Well, for people who are starting to applaud here, I think everyone’s very grateful that you did this. And I think it is important for people to sign up. It’s just better to be covered. You just never know.
Oh yeah?
Hey, it’s not surprising that Ellen and the President are putting a positive spin on the number of people that the President says have enrolled. I would expect no less from either of them. But the word success doesn’t paint an accurate picture of the roll out, which has been a big disaster, nor does it accurately portray expectations for enrollment based on earlier predictions of around 7 million. Additionally, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will still not say, when asked, how many of the 5 million enrollees have actually paid the premium, a number that is necessary for accuracy in the enrollment number. During his interview the President also repeated an earlier claim, without being challenged by Ellen, that young people can sign up:
for “100 dollars a month or less, in some cases, less than your cell phone bill or your cable bill.”
This is likely untrue. In fact, I’d call the pronouncement a hook, something carnival barkers use to reel in the suckers.
It will only be true for some people who qualify for government subsidy. One of the reasons for the President is making this pitch is that not enough young people have signed up. Obamacare will not work unless a sufficient number of young, healthy people are signed up…and consistently paying into the system!
Here are the facts. People won’t have coverage and cannot be counted as “signed up” if they have not paid the premium. Cell phone bills with major carriers can cost between $80 to $90 dollars a month; the average cost of the “bronze” plan is about $249 a month. Granted the premium would be less IF the person qualifies for a subsidy…but not if he doesn’t. Do the young people need coverage as much as the President needs them to pay up? Not likely. Most young people are, and will remain, healthy in the short term. The expenditure is unusual for young people until marriage, children or a better job create necessity and ability to pay.
So can the Obamacare roll out be called a success? Are the things said by Obama and Ellen lies? (are they just little white lies?) Should the American people trust what the President says…what about what Ellen says? After this can she be considered trustworthy? The administration has spent (almost $700 million) to pitch Obamacare to young people. Does this need for expensive advertisement and somewhat deceptive talking points signal a great “success” as described by Ellen? She certainly did not inform her audience of this expenditure during the interview. Was that irresponsible?
I have no gripe with Ellen doing the President a favor by having him on her show. Ellen obviously likes and supports the President and apparently doesn’t personally believe that the lies that were told to pass the legislation, or the terribly bad launch, or the negative consequences that continue matter. Maybe she is oblivious to all of it! Either way, when she called this a success I think she believed what she was saying. I believe she is wrong…extremely wrong…and I don’t mind saying so! Now here’s the other question that comes up…does that mean I’m hateful, disrespectful…even racist? the charges have been made.
Post Scripts gives me the opportunity to discuss issues and to point out what I believe is wrong. The “very unaffordable” ACA may work well for a few people but it is not working for the vast majority of people that have lost their insurance, their doctor, needed drugs, or hospital, and are seeing higher premiums or out of pocket costs. It isn’t working for people in the medical device field whose businesses will be greatly impacted because of newly imposed taxes. It isn’t working for people that have lost their jobs or lost hours at work. It isn’t working for doctors who the AMA says will get stuck for unpaid bills because of language in the law. It isn’t working for a man in Nevada who signed up early, paid his premiums and is now stuck with $407,000 in medical bills…he’s been told he doesn’t have the coverage he thought he had. How does that happen when premiums have been paid? This program has a definite downside for cancer patients. Forbes reports:
The legislation contains provisions that directly target patients with cancer because their care is perceived as costly. These policies couldn’t be more badly timed.
We’re at a turning point in battling cancer. Doctors are finally able to reliably tailor treatments to the unique genetic composition of each patient’s tumor rather than by its location in the body alone. Other new drugs are able to prime our own immune cells to attack cancers. But Obamacare puts access to this progress at risk.
First, Obamacare is going to block the ability of patients to seek out the specialist doctors who are most likely to prescribe these cutting edge treatments.
Obamacare coaxes health plans to reduce spending and healthcare utilization by limiting the choices patients will have of doctors. This is the primary way that health plans are being cheapened enough to meet Obamacare’s strict guidelines on the low value of the coverage that the plans can offer.
Insurers are barred from using the other tools that they’ve traditionally employed to keep the costs of policies in check: cost sharing, underwriting risk, adjusting premiums and benefits. The only thing that health plans are permitted to do under Obamacare is narrow the networks of providers that they contract with. So that’s precisely what they’re doing. By contracting with fewer providers, insurers can cheapen their coverage by clamping down on what doctors prescribe.
This is not success. This is not the American way. Americans don’t approach problems by looking at how to skimp or reach for mediocre outcomes. Americans reach for the stars, find ways to overcome…to go farther than we ever have before.
No, Ellen, the Affordable Care Act is not a success.
The ACA was a terrible mistake; it is a failure! The sooner we dump it and address the few problems that existed prior to it’s passing the better. There are very sick people out there who need the best treatments their doctors can give them. There are people that need those extra hours at work. There are doctors whose practices are challenged enough without being stiffed on payments and yes, we need the cost to be brought down…for everyone! The truth about that is that ultimately, it will require pulling government way back, reforming medicare, and finally letting the market work.
Would I stoop to making a blanket statement that Ellen Degenerus is “not trustworthy” because I disagree with her or her style and approach to discussing Obamacare? Nope. I think that would be irresponsible.
Tina: “I believe she is wrong…extremely wrong…and I don’t mind saying so! Now here’s the other question that comes up…does that mean I’m hateful, disrespectful…even racist?”
I will personally fight anyone who asserts that anyone else is hateful, disrespectful or racist simply for *disagreeing* with Ellen, Obama, or any other Democrat and/or minority member.
Now, there are certainly hateful, disrespectful and racist ways that one can disagree with such people. For instance, some have claimed that Obamacare is a tool for “reparations,” which is clearly racist nonsense. But there are valid arguments against it.
Another reason that playing gotcha and liar, liar is really dumb.
Tina, I’m confused by that article. Breitbart says that Matt Drudge files as a small business, and that’s why he paid the tax penalty already. But small businesses with less than 50 employees aren’t even subject to the individual mandate. So it’s still not clear which tax Drudge was referring to or if he had to pay it.
Even if Drudge is telling the truth, his stance is still baffling. I find it very odd that Drudge is choosing not to have health insurance, even though he could surely afford it, let alone that he feels the need to brag about his choice to remain uninsured to his followers.
Even more strange is that he is choosing to pay a tax rather than buy health insurance. If Drudge signed up for an insurance plan, he’d probably have to pay more, but that would be money spent in the private market. Instead, he is choosing to give money to the federal government, for no apparent reason other than spite.
I mean, I get that he’s trying to make a point about freedom, free markets and limited government and all that. But choosing to pay a tax rather than spend money IN the market for a valuable service is kind of a bizarre way to do that.
Matt Drudge doesn’t have a small business; Matt is a small business and as such he is subject to quarterly estimate payments of tax due at the end of the year…he gets to guess and then send money in advance.
Apparently he is quite comfortable in his finances and would rather keep and invest the premium amount rather than throw it away month after month (each year) on insurance he may never need. He would rather just pay for his care. This way he bypasses a controlling system, can choose whatever doctor he likes, and deal with doctors and hospitals personally…without as much risk that his records will be compromised.
Like many Americans whose income reaches a certain level, Matt is required by the government to make quarterly payments to the IRS (Treasury) BEFORE the end of the year when he figures and files his return.
See the special rules section on the 1040-ES form here:
If I read this right Matt is just being cautious about his deposits. Nobody wants to come up short on their quarterly deposits and risk penalties and interest.
And as long as he was paying, it did afford him the opportunity to make a statement on Twitter. I give him extra points for keeping his sense of humor. Those estimated deposits can be murder for small business people especially if their business isn’t consistent…when it isn’t this payment can play havoc with cash flow.
Kudos to Matt Drudge and his Freedom Tax!
Does that answer your question?
“Ellen Degeneres recently interviewed President Obama to gush over the “success” of Obamacare.’
What a surprise. BTW, you mispelled Degenerate. HTH.
Willing to bet that Ellen hasn’t signed up for Obumblecare. . . . . And neither has her audience.
And regarding Drudge – just wait ’till the employer mandate portion of Obumblecare is enacted.
Those plans will be cancelled faster than Obumble can spout a lie.
I fully understand and agree with the position Drudge has taken on the health care Tax. Our Accountants have instructed us as well to consider the action regarding heath care, they were not positive about it, and there are so many point on which to fall and fail with the poorly cobbled law that one needs to reason through the possibilities.
As to Degeneres (consider the variation to her name as “Degenerative ,,, causing the body or part of the body to become weaker or less able to function as time passes) and Obamas “photo op”on her show. Along with her less than factual pitch on his “name sake failure” tax. I really only have a opinion that it was so scripted and just intended to bolster the support of it to her audience.
Not really a exclusive idea to Obama or his political party. This is just another pitchman working wallets.
It is refreshing to see and read some civil comments in counter points of views, it shows a lot of maturity and improvement over the caustic nature of so many volatile past remarks.
“Matt Drudge doesn’t have a small business; Matt is a small business”
I admit I don’t understand the legal distinction, especially when it comes to the individual mandate. If self-employed people like Drudge can file as a small business, then aren’t they by definition a small business with less than 50 employees? So why did Drudge pay the tax penalty? Can’t he claim an exemption from the mandate?
“Apparently he is quite comfortable in his finances and would rather keep and invest the premium amount rather than throw it away month after month (each year) on insurance he may never need. He would rather just pay for his care. This way he bypasses a controlling system, can choose whatever doctor he likes, and deal with doctors and hospitals personally…without as much risk that his records will be compromised.”
Well, that’s good for him. I guess it must be nice to be comfortable enough to know that one does not even need health insurance, because one can simply pay out of pocket for pretty much any health crisis that occurs.
But given that Drudge has risen to that level of comfort at least in part from trying to stop less privileged people from being able to afford health insurance…let’s just say his “look at me, I don’t even NEED health insurance” statement isn’t going to be all that sympathetic to a whole lot of people.
Pretty much sums it up…
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/thuggies.jpg
Indeed! lol
Hey Chris,
You’re a big defender of Obammie. I’d like to know how people like you and Ellen Degenerate can defend this typical behavior from the First Lady. While tens of millions of Americans suffer economically this is how are tax money is spent. Please explain to me how this is right? And if it is wrong why can’t you be critical of the Obamas when they behave this way?
Beijing hotel workers already ‘fed up’ with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing ‘pretty much everyone’ – and the first lady’s mother is ‘barking at the staff’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586367/Beijing-hotel-workers-fed-Obama-entourage-3400-square-foot-8-350-night-suite-inconveniencing-pretty-ladys-mother-barking-staff.html
Of course the above example is nothing compared to the continued bailout of banksters, the NSA and IRS scandals and many other outrages committed under Obama that have cost the people of this country dearly.
Chris: “But given that Drudge has risen to that level of comfort at least in part from trying to stop less privileged people from being able to afford health insurance…”
Chris you are welcome to your opinion but not to Matt Drudge’s, or anyone else’s, who believe that bringing the cost of healthcare down for everyone should have been the priority of this law, especially since that was how the legislation was sold to the public! Or anyone who believes there are better ways to make healthcare affordable for everyone than this ill-conceived botched up mess of a law that we still have to read and reread, with a lawyer, to even attempt to know how to comply with what is in it.
No problem for you though, you don’t have to do anything but sign up!
“…let’s just say his “look at me, I don’t even NEED health insurance” statement isn’t going to be all that sympathetic to a whole lot of people.”
Chris, Matt earned whatever he has and he has taken nothing from anyone that wasn’t given freely. He had a vision and took a risk…and it paid off. His success, at whatever level it is, is a sign of achievement. It’s something to be celebrated in America.
Accept for those who achieve your preference, redistribution, would not even be possible. A little humility and gratitude on your part is in order!
My explanation to you for why Matt Drudge may not need or want insurance was a logical guess. I was attempting to answer your question. To take that and assume that you can read Matt Drudges mind reflects only badly on you. Such a resentment filled assumption frames an attitude that is frankly pretty ugly and pathetic.
But thank you for demonstrating the disgusting truth about the kind of tax laws that progressive Democrats favor. Our laws are not fair or equal. They are complex, expensive and intrusive. You may never know what it’s like to have more than half of the money you have earned taken from you year after year and see a good deal of it wasted or absconded with by corrupt politician but if you ever did I can assure you your attitude would change! You may never experience the endless and constantly changing forms and rules that people who produce must deal with year after year but once again if you did your attitude would change. We do not live in freedom or equality when so many of our citizens do not have to deal with the producing, collecting, and depositing that makes redistribution possible. So it is easy for you to be critical, to have that haughty sense of moral superiority. How hard is it to be generous when you don’t have to produce the wealth or collect and report for employees. You have no way to understand how insidious and how much of an intrusion our tax system is for people in business. You just want and expect more from them and you don’t mind taking it. Kicking them at the same time, hey that just brings cheers form the so-called “have not’s. right?.
Chris I cannot tell you how much your remarks offend me…there are no words.
Bob, you’re asking me to judge the first lady based on a rumor from a gossip rag. Not gonna happen.
Tina: “Chris, Matt earned whatever he has”
Sorry, but I will never agree that a person who makes money off of belittling the poor fits the definition of “earned.” I’m sorry that offends you so much. People making money off of belittling the poor offends me.
Belittling the poor? How?
Referring to the tax he is forced to pay as a Freedom Tax is not belittling the poor.
If you have another example in mind at least have the decency to let the rest of us in on it and what you’re thinking, otherwise it seems you simply fabricated a meaning in “freedom Tax” in order to be offended.
Matt Drudge made money by creating a news aggregation website, probably the first on the web. It was a very smart move. It was clever of him to think that type of service might be valuable to people, because as it turned out, it was.
The question in this day and age is what makes you think the less fortunate are entitled to what he has earned? How did you get such a warped idea living in the US of A. We do not live in a collective. We live in a Republic.
Forced government redistribution has not made people more self-reliant so in some ways its difficult to see that it has any merit whatsoever…people certainly don’t seem to appreciate it and take every opportunity, as the numbers grow, to vote themselves more from other peoples wallets. What gives them that right? where in our constitution does it say that the rich shall fork over their cash?
There are better ways to assist poor people, ways that ask something of them and offer them a sense of achievement, participation, and belonging.
Redistribution is just a power tool of the radical progressive.
George Will on the subject.
Bob, you’re asking me to judge the first lady based on a rumor from a gossip rag. Not gonna happen.
That’s it Chris, blame the messenger, not your Messiah Obammie.
It’s a well known fact that the Obammies live like royalty, especially when they travel.
It took filing a lawsuit, but Judicial Watch discovered Friday that President Obama has set a new record for travel on the taxpayer dime.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/03/01/obamas-set-new-record-for-vacation-travel-expenses-stonewalled-documents-finally-released-103822
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/
This while the country is past broke and tens of millions are suffering severe economic hardship.
Shame on Obammie, and shame on you, Chris, for defending this abysmal behavior.
This is just disgusting but it’s the kind of behavior that Chris and Ellen Degenerate cheer in their lord and master, Obammie…
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
bob: “That’s it Chris, blame the messenger, not your Messiah Obammie.”
Bob, there is a big difference between pointing out that a tabloid is not a valid source of information and “blaming the messenger.” I know I have never been able to convince the conservatives on this blog of this, but: credibility matters. The Daily Mail has none.
Also, referring to Obama as my “Messiah” is offensive and stupid. I have criticized the guy a lot, and I did not vote for him in the last election. You are building a strawman argument. I am sure it helps you feel better to pretend that everyone who doesn’t take every single accusation against Obama, no matter where it comes from, as gospel truth must be an Obama-worshipping fanatic. But just because it makes you feel good doesn’t make it true.
“It took filing a lawsuit, but Judicial Watch discovered Friday that President Obama has set a new record for travel on the taxpayer dime.”
Bob, I might put more stock in Judicial Watch’s claims if they had not been caught lying so many times before.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/doj.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/wh-says-judicial-watch-wrong-about-first-ladys-africa-trip/
Again: Credibility matters. Judicial Watch has none.
Watchdog groups serve an important function in a democracy. But Judicial Watch is not a true watchdog group. They are a political attack dog group. They take information out of context and then spin it to serve a political narrative. Note in the Snopes piece that Pelosi’s travel expenses were similar to her Republican predecessor, but JW falsely claimed that she had set a record. As far as I’m aware JW has never retracted their false accusations. So why should I believe them now?
“Shame on Obammie, and shame on you, Chris, for defending this abysmal behavior.”
But I haven’t defended this abysmal behavior. I’ve questioned whether this abysmal behavior actually happened. All of your accusations come from sources who have a long history of stretching the truth. I’m not going to engage with such accusations until you provide evidence for them from reliable sources. That is perfectly reasonable.
C’mon Chris, that was a pretty broad statement you just made, that you been trying to teach us that credibility matters? lol We’ve always agreed that credibility matters! It matters a lot. This is not to say we’ve never made a mistake. When we’ve caught a wrong story we either retracted it or revised it ASAP!
Credibility and accountability are very important to us. We do our best to bring you and other folks stories you will find interesting, helpful, educational or news worthy.
I’d like to add that credibility is often a matter of perspective.
Chris has been known to site from sources most conservatives would question because of their obvious liberal bias and because we have noticed they participate in and are part of the Saul Alinsky inspired leftist smear machine.
Chris’s statement, “Judicial Watch has none,” is opinion not backed up by facts.
Judicial Watch is a an organization that exists to uncover fraud and abuse in government. It has won cases in court and uncovered a lot of wrongdoing. To say it has “no credibility” is just factually inaccurate.
Well Chris, apparently Judicial Watch had enough credibility to win the lawsuit and Obammie lost and the public got to know something Obammie didn’t want known.