Are You Really Sure You Want ObamaCare Running Healthcare NOW?

Millennials, especially young men, will find it cost-prohibitive, despite what the left-leaning Media Matters opines. Check that link out for the costs, Pre- and Post-ObamaCare, for all 50 states. Even US News & World Report agrees and gives facts proving it. Read that last one in detail; it isn't just the cost of the premiums that's doubling or more than doubling. It's the vastly higher deductibles and more. How else did you think Obama was planning to pay for all this?

He predicated much of the whole law on those millennials paying a relatively equal cost as the older, sicker, needier patients. Can you say "redistribution of income"? NOW, do you see why "spreading the wealth by force of law" is not a good idea?

Socialism at its worst, thanks to Obama. He's just socialized our healthcare system, if you continue to let him get away with this.

And it has signed up, literally, hundreds, according to the insurance companies, when they need to have the expected 7 to 14 million signed up by March so that the individual costs of Obamacare don't have to skyrocket immediately for each enrollee.

From US News& World Report: "If the early snafus keep the millennials from shelling out for policies, and the pools of the newly insured are weighted with people who need expensive medical care, premiums would rise in the future — stripping the all-important A out of the ACA."

So when those millennials don't sign up because they can't logon or can't afford it, the house of cards will come crashing down on the rest of us. Mark my words: if you sign up for the exchanges, your premiums will go up before 12 months go by, or your benefits will be curtailed, or your premiums will quadruple the following year to make up the difference. Obama can just sign another one of his executive orders or push it through the way he pushed ObamaCare through, without either a majority of the people or of our elected officials in favor of it.

None of this is really news to those who were really, objectively paying attention. The exorbitant cost and "Ponzi scheme" nature of ObamaCare was outed way back before the bill was "passed" but nobody in power listened, though it was directed TO Obama's face, in person:

As for the Healthcare.Gov website itself, these aren't just "glitches" or "kinks." Oh, no, they're design-, architecture-, Quality Assurance-, failing-to-"test the system thoroughly enough before launch"-, harried-programmers-fearing-firing-if-they-voiced-the-coding-redflags-, people-not-really-being-eligible-for-subsidies-AFTER-they-sign-up-for-a-plan- flaws. This is what ObamaCare can manage after spending between $394 million and $600 million?

And you really want ObamaCare running healthcare??

And it's NBC, more NBC, US News & World Report, CNN, The Associated Press, even writers on The Daily Kos, reporting all this, not FOX or Rush Limbaugh.

Now some high-ranking Democrats are trying to blame it all on the government shutdown. I guess they really do count on the voters who know next to nothing, who will believe that malarkey.

You think this is bad? Wait till after Feb. 15, when the real deadline has passed for enrolling. Oh, sure, you can enroll up till March 30, "but if you wait that long, you may have to pay a small penalty."

Obama seems so non-plussed by all the problems. One theory is that it's just part of his plan to bring about nationalized, socialized healthcare, or the single-payer system, to this nation. You know: have the government be in charge of ALL healthcare insurance and eliminate the insurance companies altogether. Wouldn't THAT be a feather in his cap?

Given the misleading and oftentimes much-higher ObamaCare cost quotes, the massive systemic problems in roll-out, the dropping of millions from either/both their current insurance plans and/or their favorite physicians, the loss of full-time working wages by hundreds of thousands seeing their hours drop below 30 a week so they don't have to be provided for by their employers anymore...

...Obama has colossally screwed this up so far. Do you really want him to screw it ALL up, for generations to come?

Don't believe Obama wants socialist healthcare? He has admitted he admires the fictional movie character Senator Bulworth, and this article clearly explains the meaning and consequences of that:

Another example [of Obama's "going Bulworth" fantasy] is a June 30, 2003, video of Obama, then a state senator, telling an AFL-CIO gathering: "A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see." Bulworth might have added: But you ain't gonna get it from no insurance company.

Given the revelation that Obama fantasizes about going Bulworth, and the long-established fact that Obama has made statements consistent with the fictitious senator's view that only socialized medicine will ever save the day, it seems to us some apologies are in order from those who insisted it was crazy to think Obama is a socialist. John Avlon should go first.

For those who think Nationalized Healthcare is so needed, really, go take a look at your future:

Waits for care are shocking in [the UK's National Health Service], frequently exposed by British media reports, and long proven by facts, yet they go virtually unreported in the U.S. For instance, in 2010, about one-third of England’s NHS patients deemed ill enough by their GP waited more than one additional month for a specialist appointment. In 2008-2009, the average wait for CABG (coronary artery bypass) in the UK was 57 days. And the impact of this delayed access was obvious. For example, twice as many bypass procedures and four times as many angioplasties are performed in patients needing surgery for heart disease per capita in the U.S. as in the UK. Another study showed that more UK residents die (per capita) than Americans from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events. In fact, the heart disease mortality rate in England was 36 percent higher than that in the U.S.
...
Access to medical care is so poor in the NHS that the government was compelled to issue England’s 2010 “NHS Constitution” in which it was declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment – four months – after GP referral...Even given this extraordinarily long leash, the number of patients not being treated within that time soared by 43% to almost 30,000 last January. BBC subsequently discovered that many patients initially assessed as needing surgery were later re-categorized by the hospital so that they could be removed from waiting lists to distort the already unconscionable delays.
...
Add to those illustrious facts the heinous scandals about the quality of care in NHS hospitals that are repeatedly discovered, investigated, and catalogued with promises of change. These scandals, like the Staffordshire Trust debacle where between 400 and 1,200 neglected and abused patients died in squalid and degrading circumstances, are directly caused by the very culture of the NHS, as overtly admitted even by the UK government at its highest levels.

And as if all that weren't bad enough:

ObamaCare WILL increase funding for abortions, despite their lying that it won't:

An analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute published this week suggests that the number of abortions that will be heavily subsidized via federal premium tax credits and Medicaid expansion is likely to be between 71,000 and 111,500 per year. This approaches one in ten abortions performed in the United States. The number is split roughly 50-50 between abortions subsidized by the ASPs [abortion-covering state plans mandated by ObamaCare] in states that have not barred them from their exchanges and abortions newly reimbursable under Medicaid expansion in states that use their own taxpayer funds to underwrite them.

Social conservatives are rightly alarmed about the impact of Obamacare on abortion subsidies and reimbursement. They are also right to avoid naiveté about the ways in which OPM and Kathleen Sebelius’s Department of Health and Human Services will steer girls and women toward the ASPs as their best choice for “comprehensive reproductive health care.” One way is to engage Planned Parenthood and other elements of the abortion industry as major recruiters for these plans via the Navigator program, which is already underway. Look for the extra prominence of ASPs on government web sites and in promotional literature, where euphemisms may abound and default buttons can funnel applicants toward particular choices.

Not only does it fund abortion, but it makes it impossible for us to find out which plans do so, and thus avoid signing up for those plans!

“If Obamacare is all about choice, then why is the administration making it so difficult for people to find out about whether a plan pays for abortion? It’s time that we got some truth in advertising.”

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) unveiled his legislation, H.R. 3279, the “Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act” —cosponsored by 70 other Members of the House—to ensure full disclosure of abortion coverage, requiring prominent and transparent disclosure of abortion coverage for each plan offered on an exchange. This is crucial information for millions of Americans since the many plans that include elective abortion are required by law to impose a monthly mandatory abortion surcharge. Many Americans object to paying a surcharge into a fund to be used solely for the purpose of aborting unborn babies.

Smith said the inauguration of the Obamacare exchanges reveals that many health insurance plans throughout the nation will include abortion on demand—even late term abortions. Smith recalled that in October 2009, President Obama said in a speech to a joint session of Congress that, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion…” A week after the Obamacare rollout, many are now discovering that—contrary to solemn promises made by the President himself—Obamacare violates the Hyde Amendment by funding plans that include abortion.

Here's the admission by Rahm Emanuel about how they got the pro-lifers to think they were getting something in ObamaCare when in fact we got bupkis:

In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, facing questions about his commitment to the pro-abortion cause, former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel emphasized that the Executive Order on abortion signed by President Obama in March 2010 – ostensibly to eliminate the need for the pro-life Stupak Amendment to be attached to ObamaCare – does not carry the force of law, and as such, has the seal of approval of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others who oppose a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion (Chicago Tribune, 1/14/11). Emanuel also seemed to acknowledge that the EO was a maneuver by the Obama Administration to circumvent a bipartisan majority in the House – and the will of the American people – which supported the pro-life Stupak amendment.

Even Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was thrilled with ObamaCare because it would not include any abortion funding ban whatsoever: "What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban … that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon....So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion [funding] ban."

The American Center for Law and Justice spells out how ObamaCare will not only fund abortions, but take money to fund abortions from the paid premiums of every single enrollee, possibly even from states who currently prohibit abortion coverage, no matter what.

• "You can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan."
• "Everyone will have lower rates."
• "I will sign a bill that will...cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
• "No federal dollars (i.e, taxpayer dollars) will be used to fund abortion."

Have Obama & Company just been repeatedly lying to us? It's possible, but I fear it is actually worse than that. I fear that he and his crowd have repeatedly spitballed it, telling us whatever they thought would buy our support and votes, loosely based on what they believed in their own biased, limited viewpoint. The total end result, though, is false representation and the almost utter absence of truth. Obama in particular has just repeatedly proven how grossly incompetent and inept he is and doesn't really have a clue what he's doing, thus misleading us all to the tune of terrible costs-- in our survival financially, physically jeopardizing our health, and destroying Christian, Jewish and other faiths' freedom of religion.

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THIS? Do we have to wait till Americans die due to waiting 4+ months to see a specialist? Or from being simply crossed off of waiting lists for medical care, like in the UK, so that the metrics look better for the healthcare provider or hospital? Do we have to wait till the Catholic hospitals (which care for 1 out of every 6 hospitalized patients) close down rather than accept the destruction of their religious freedom?

Do we have to go through two more years of these nightmares before we vote those out of office who brought down ObamaCare on our heads, without the majority of the people even in favor of it when it was forced through?

Or do we pick up the phone and tell our Senators and Congresspeople we want this law repealed, and now, before it bankrupts any individual, or kills anyone, or forces major employers like the Catholic hospitals and big insurance companies to close their doors? Do we really want to be forced to rely on the government to provide our healthcare and our coverage of healthcare, when they can't even get a website right after three years and some $600 million dollars in expense? Progressive Insurance, Geico Insurance, eSurance. They all managed to get their websites right before they went live. Just another proof that ObamaCare is not better at insurance than private industry is.

Hat Tip to Jim Vicevitch and his RadioViceOnline.com blog, for a voice of extreme sanity and a source of great research and expertise.

MORE on "going Bulworth" and why Obama should do so: