Coming soon with Obamacare

Putting a detention camp in a state that has more guns and red necks than Alabama!  True to the administration's incompetence. 

http://www.breitbart.com/syste...20130614-232724-6523

Yet another change that comes via Democratic Healthcare.  This could be a positive for some and a negative for others.  As I have said GOOD or BAD credit for Democratic Healthcare (a.k.a. Obamacare or Affordable Healthcare Bill) deserves to go solely to the Democrats and those who voted to elect them to office for they are solely responsible for it.

Here you have Doctors that are not going to accept insurance but rather will require payment for services direct from the recipient of such service.  IF the Doctor's charges are equivalent to or less than the Co-Pay that patients pay now then it will be a benefit for the consumer but if the Doctor's fees are in excess of normal Co-Pays for Insured people then this will be a bad thing.  Also would be bad in that most insurance companies will not be considering these cost as applying to deductibles since they are paid out of pocket and not processed through the insurance companies databases.

ONE additional effect of Democratic Healthcare, all be it undocumented.

I spoke with a local business owner who owns a Muscle Shoals Food Business and he said that the new Healthcare system has totally effected his business decisions.  First of all it caused him to eliminate a Mississippi Store that he owned and put those employees out of work because he could not afford to pay the insurance cost that he would have to for those employees under Democratic Healthcare.  He said that as long as the system remains as the we we have to do things he also has put plans for a Florence location on hold and will not be opening a Florence Store.  While his Muscle Shoals store does a great business he is also having to eliminate some full time positions and going to more part time positions to avoid the Healthcare Insurance requirement for the jobs.

Under Democratic Healthcare though these part time employees still must maintain or obtain Healthcare insurance, at their expense, or pay the Government a fine for not having healthcare insurance.  Makes you wonder just who the AFFORDABLE part of healthcare is targeted toward since most conservative estimates are that a household of 4 to 5 people will have a huge bill/cost for just the minimum healthcare policy under the ACA or Democratic Healthcare Bill.

Time will tell but thought is that there will be many constructive ways that the Democratic Party will use to convince people and voters that the Healthcare act was and is really the Republican's fault.  Good or Bad people ought to remember who is responsible, really responsible, for this Healthcare act and hold them and that party accountable at the elections.  IF GOOD than re-elect Democrats and hire more of them but if BAD than put people who will remove it.  Hold those accountable whether good or bad for their deeds and performance.

Well more fulfillment of warnings from folks opposed to Democratic Health Care (aka Obamacare).

http://www.policymic.com/artic...cuts-employees-hours

Critics said that it would decimate the workforce as we know by eliminating of full time jobs and it appears that it's just starting.

Also note that Congress is wanting out of the bill they passed on us.  Their six figure incomes means that they will have to pay $10000 more to keep their cadillac plans and not go to Obamacare but Obama to the rescue by just assigning another Government agency to pay for them.  Note that no one will pay for the general citizen when they are fined or don't participate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...0818,0,5666959.story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...es/?partner=yahootix

It should be remembered and continually reinforced as to who to hold responsible for this Bill and gross intrusion upon American's freedom.  IF it works out good then thank the Democrats (all of them) and elect them but IF NOT then they should all be held responsible.

Sounds fair to me.

To be fair, the plans Congress is presently eligible for would qualify as Gold, not Platinum.  Its the possible loss of the 75 percent that is covered by their (and their staffers) employment that they complain about.

http://nationalreview.com/corn...lans-under-obamacare

Seems a new story is breaking every day regarding the "Affordable Healthcare plan" or Democratic Healthcare Plan. I may be wrong but I think, other than the Governor being a Republican, New Jersey is historically a BLUE state.  Wonder how they like their political choices now?

It's OK, he's a Rhino.

Well, dire, you made your predictions, now I will make mine.

What you hear from right wingnuts is fear mongering.

In about a couple of years ACA will be fully implemented and as time goes on, slight changes will be made to tweek it , but in about 10 years, the program will be as popular as Medicare is now, and those people who vocally smeared it, will be known by the rest of us as "idiots", just like the same bunch (from a mindset point of view) who opposed Medicare, and the bunch who before them opposed Social Security.  The Republicans will , in the next few years, rue the day they deemed it "Obamacare" because now and forever more, Obama will get the credit for what will end up being a very, very popular program once all the lies and misinformation and ignorance has been shown for what it is.

Just a few problems with that seeweed.  I do hope you are right about the Democratic Healthcare Bill (aka Obamacare) for it should rightfully be called that because the Democrats own it lock stock and barrel.  I am very pessimistic about those chances though and even if it does blossom into some beneficial program it will be the ONLY one that the Government has been able to run and enact.  I may be grossly wrong but I believe Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to be extremely in critical condition and danger of foundering without intervention and gross changes from what was initially enacted and promised regarding all of those programs.  

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement system, as I understand it, but for a large many that's what it's become and necessary for.  Then our Government has found a way to make sure a great many that never have contributed get to pull from the total and the overly burdensome responsibility to make it sound again and right will fall upon a much younger generation that has vastly greater chances that they never will see anything of their own contributions coming back from it.  That's not much a success as I see it.  And even if DHC (Democratic Healthcare) is a rousing success I still say and proclaim (regardless of how the Supreme Court Ruled) it is against the principals of the Constitution as created and drafted by the original founders.  There is no way that they would ever have allowed or wanted the Government, any branch or part, to have that much invasive control over and into the citizen's lives.  To say that they would, again even with the Supreme Court ruling, is to say you don't know and understand our nations history and our Constitution.  That Healthcare ruling alone was so sobering as it was the realization that the Check/Balance of the Supreme Court was no longer valid and there.   

I am though curious to know.  Is the Democratic Party which you champion as savior of the middle class and poor the Democratic Party and Politicians of the 1940's-1960's or the 1960's-1970's or 1990's-2013?   For I submit that they (all three groups) are vastly different Democratic Parties in conception and Philosophies and how they look at the American people and American way of life.  

There was a time when I counted myself Democratic to the core and never would support or vote for another parties candidate.  I have since found and learned though that those Democrats which I supported and voted for were much more like today's Republicans than the Democrats today are and represent.  I see a much different Democratic party today that counts on blind allegiance from people that still think the Democratic Party is the same party that it was in the early 60's. and a far less competent party today to actually protect our freedoms and the Constitution.  While today's Democratic party still has a small number that has noble thoughts to protect those who cannot protect themselves there are far more who wish to protect people who only care to take and  who either have never contributed or never will.  

I could be wrong but the impression of the Democratic party today is one that plays on the fears of minorities in order to keep them captive and a party that seeks to create and keep a totally dependent society who by virtue of keeping the gravy train coming will continue to vote for the same people and party affiliation regardless of the parties politics regarding other issues such as National Security or their economic philosophies or protecting personal freedoms.  Yes we live in a new and vastly different time than our founders who crafted the Constitution that we continue to abide by and run our Nation on but even the most ardent Democrat should have profound reservations when they see certain things going on.    

I remain hopeful that the fears of the Healthcare system/bill are false and unfounded but EVERY article and information I hear regarding it says different and that this bill is going to be the death of America as we have known it.  Death of our Freedoms as we know it:

• partly in the powers and invasive abilities that it allows and grants to our Government.  Remember those powers and abilities goes with whoever and which ever party is elected so what may be beneficial to you now could go against you in the future.  Careful what you wish for you might get it.
• partly because of the economic effects that it will have on business and our nation's ability to not only compete on the world market but because of the profound changes that will occur to the labour market and cost to individuals that will (probably) increase dramatically.
• partly in degradation to the Healthcare system's efficiency.  I fear the loss of medical professionals and incentive to get better will mean far less efficient healthcare system where a great many will have a much harder time obtaining service, treatment and finding a qualified and competent physician.  Never mind if the system gets into gross financial trouble, as the Post Office is already in, cuts will be made to services or what will be allowed depending on your age and health condition.  A system where the Government decides what treatment you get rather than your ability to pay or what insurance you have or the current laws which means you get treatment whether or not you can pay or have insurance.  Those existed before Democratic Healthcare.
• partly because it totally goes against the Constitution which is the document by which we define our Nation's Government.

Yeah I could be wrong and sorely hope I am but I'm very / extremely  fearful.

That could be because of where you get your news sources.

===================================

Whether you or I are right about Obamacare remains to be seen, and I think that will probably take 10 years or so.

You are somewhat correct about Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is administered by the Federal government and is beginning to run short on funds. Regardless of the FOX hype, it is a very well run and administered program with about a 3% administration cost, whereas under Obamacare, private insurers are being limited to 15% overhead, and that is one reason so many bought and paid for Republican congressmen are howling. The private industry has historically enjoyed more than 30% admin cost.

However, that being said, the prospects in the future are somewhat better, as Obamacare is supposed to drive down the health care cost and give savings to Medicare.
Medicaid from the Fed perspective is block grants to the states and is administered at the state level, so cost and efficiency will vary .

However, you are dead wrong about Social Security, which has never, ever , added one thin dime to the national debt or the national defect. At the current rate, it is projected to be completely solvent for the next 33 or so years. It could be made completely solvent for the forseeable future if Congress would lift the cap on contributions, but like every other thing Congress does, any action will probably be put off for 32 1/2 years. (By then I won't give a damm anyway).

However, much of the national debt is owed to the SS fund, and at some time it will become necessary to pay the fiddler, but that is not because SS is a bad program, or is badly managed. It is because Congress and the asd presidents down thru the last 50 or so years, has borrowed that money to finance their little wars, and bridges to nowhere. It is a debt that MUST be paid, and when that fiddler comes wanting his money, it will probably take raising taxes to do that, but still, that aint' SS's fault.

That huge debt is exactly why Ryan and Romney, and Bush etc all want to "privatize" SS. Turn it all over to Wall Street, and not have to pay back all that debt. What could possibly go wrong ?.

seeweed,

Once more you ignore the warnings from the trustees of the Social Security trust fund and make the statement:

"However, you are dead wrong about Social Security, which has never, ever , added one thin dime to the national debt or the national defect (sic). At the current rate, it is projected to be completely solvent for the next 33 or so years."

From the federal government, itself -- not true!

"Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes the 2013 Annual Reports."

"After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Once more, do you understand, that the trustees of the Social Security trust fund must begin cashing in the special treasury bonds you spoke of, in 2020, that's seven years from now.  Those treasury bonds will run out in 2033, after which, only employee and employer contributions will be available to support Social Security.  That is about 20 years from now, not the 33 years you refer to. By law, the general fund can't be robbed to make up the difference. 

seeweed,

Now, as to Medicare's admin costs, you stated:

"Medicare is administered by the Federal government and is beginning to run short on funds. Regardless of the FOX hype, it is a very well run and administered program with about a 3% administration cost, whereas under Obamacare, private insurers are being limited to 15% overhead, and that is one reason so many bought and paid for Republican congressmen are howling. The private industry has historically enjoyed more than 30% admin cost."

The 3 percent for admin costs for Medicare is false.  The actual costs are much larger.  The 3 percent is for direct costs, only.  Indirect costs for Medicare are ignored in that percentage.  Indirect costs certainly included in the insurance companies' admin percentage costs.

From Forbes magazine:

"Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law’s enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare’s administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don’t have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare’s administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost.

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient’s insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second’s will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient’s insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient’s more severe illness.

Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program’s administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance."

From a commenter to the article:

"But let’s take Mr. Brooks comparison that it costs $509 per Medicare beneficiary versus a commercial insured’s cost of $453. Even Mr. Brooks admits that a Medicare beneficiary is more apt to utilize services. So the proper analysis would be to look at costs per healthcare encounter to look to see who has the higher costs. Since a Medicare beneficiary goes to the doctor about 5.3 a year and a commercial insured goes about 2.3 times per year it stands to reason that on a cost per encounter basis the Medicare program is significantly lower than in the private sector. If we add encounters for ancillary services, institutional care and the like it would further widen the gap."
  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ar...dministrative-costs/

Others and myself have made jokes about math deficiency in liberals.  And, the fact that there are few liberal accountants.  I am not blaming you personally, but am blaming your sources. 

Another article on the indirect costs:

http://www.heritage.org/resear...or-private-insurance

"May you be blessed with a liberal accountant." Unspoken is:  For, he will be liberal, with YOUR MONEY.

I not sure about this as I know at FedEx they are starting to take the cost of having a Cadillac plan out of the employees pocket and reducing coverage to try to get under the dollar amount of a Cadillac plan.   I am also reading about companies deciding to go to a part time work force.   I think this whole tax idea on having a good plan provided by a employer is garbage.  Punish employers who do right by their employees by providing a good plan and force them to go to lower coverage plans or take the hit on the tax and in most cases pass it on to the employee.

I believe that the feds will be able to redefine plans as Cadillac according to their policies (whims).  What's not taxed now, may be so in the future.  My own plan qualifies as Gold under the present definition.  It could easily be redefined. 

Well of course the weed is right. What visionaries all us Democrats are. There will be so much completion in the insurance business that Repubs can afford frontal lobe reconstruction.

Thought I would post a few more URL/Links to stories about the effects of Democratic Health Care (aka Obamacare or Affordable Healthcare Act)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...ouses-over-obamacare

http://www.bizjournals.com/atl...00-spouses-from.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100975973

http://washingtonexaminer.com/...time/article/2534527

In fairness I do believe that we should be able to read some positive and good news about Obamacare or Democratic Healthcare but I don't know of any.  If anyone has any please post for us to to read and enjoy for this is LAW now and we all have to deal with it.

http://www.latimes.com/busines...0915,0,2814725.story

I just keep trying to find articles where Democratic Healthcare is benefiting people but I can only seem to find those that seem to reinforce what those who fought against it said would happen is actually happening.  Now we see exchanges in California are (and most likely others are to follow to save cost) limiting the doctors and places that those under those polices can see or use.

Remember a statement by President Obama about it (the healthcare bill) that stated if you like your current doctor you don't have to change?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...bamacare_754008.html

What about it helping people?  Seems like all you hear these days are about companies that are either getting rid of jobs to avoid having to pay for the healthcare of the employees or forcing their employees to reduce hours to part time or below such that would require the company or business to provide insurance for the employee yet the employee is still going to be required by the Government to purchase the insurance or get fined. 

I am still waiting to see just who is going to be helped by all this?   

Good or bad the Party responsible should be rewarded or eliminated in elections depending on the real outcome.   Those who voted for those who enacted are actually those that are responsible so at least you know whether or not to be proud of your choices and vote or not.

Here are my predictions, for what they are worth....

The defintion of a cadillac health plan will be modified as the government requires more and more money to subsidize their costs.  Much like the AMT of the late 60's, more and more people are going to find themselves facing a penalty or paying an unexpected tax at the end of the year.

Second as the costs of billing increases and reimbursement decreases, more and more doctors are going to go to a pay up front plan, where the patient will be responsible for the bill up front, and then they are given the information needed to file for the reimbursement from their insurance companies.  They will find out the cold hard facts about what insuances companies have never wanted you to know.  The fact that they hold onto the remittance for as long as possible and only pay a percentage of what is billed.  Copays are going to increase, and wait times will respond in a linear fashion.

Why I'm spending more time at the Y.

http://www.atr.org/obama-obama...e-taxes-things-a7883

Newest revelation ... Now the truth comes out.

Rather pathetic, these last few days, Obama is traveling and giving speeches in favor of Obamacare. Looks like the old medicine show huckster hawking his snake oil cure-all.  Glib speech to attract an audience suckers. Then, a bit of a show or some oddity -- Biden would be good for that.   

http://www.fox28.com/story/236...awaka-location-close

Yet another URL link to a story resulting from DHC (Democratic Health Care).  Remember when those against it claimed that it would cost many jobs or make it where full time workers would be moved to temporary due to Democratic Healthcare.   

Looks like all that hype wasn't but was more prophecy than fear mongering.

Looks like Democratic Healthcare (AKA Obamacare) is getting revealed to be just what many Republicans warned against which is anything but affordable.  Now you have some prospective candidates actually talking about having the Government force Physicians to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients even though reimbursements for these patients, under Democratic Healthcare is dropping and dropping.  There are other articles that indicate a great many physicians will be retiring to avoid the results of this bill.   

I've only, under this topic, requested that everyone evaluate this healthcare bill and realize who is responsible for it, Good or Bad.  Some may consider this a statement to target Democrats but lets remember that ONE lone Conservative, most likely Republican, is also solely responsible for America being saddled with this pending disaster.  JOHN ROBERTS who is actually just as responsible for he, and the other Judges, could have stopped it cold reveling it to be totally what it was, unconstitutional.  When you have the ultimate protectors of the Constitution failing to enforce and protect it then can you say that it is even still in effect?

add to all the other statements about Democratic Heathcare the following

http://masonconservative.typep...dicaid-patients.html

and

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2013-11-02-09-44-38

Yet ANOTHER mis-speak (or lie if you care to put it that way) with Democratic Health Care bill (aka Obamacare) is the "Death Panels".

Remember Republicans, most prominently Sarah Palin, who took all kinds of verbal abuse over it, saying that there would be Death Panels only to have the Democrats, Obama, and the Media crucify her over it.  Turns out she was RIGHT, ummm Correct that is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...ns_death_panels.html'

Just hope people remember who forced this upon us and vote accordingly!  GOOD or BAD those who passed it, force it on us, ( That is Democrats ) should reap from their decision.  IF GOOD then we should vote Democratic and put more Democrats in but IF BAD then all of them deserve to be put out and fired if not imprisoned for what they have done to us under false pretense.

Sad part is most, the great majority of them, voted for what they knew nothing about.  They didn't know know and still voted for it ... what height of irresponsibility yet that's our representatives both Republicans and Democrats do it and both should pay the price for it when they do it.  Maybe it's time to put non-professional politicians in there .. people that are not from a political or legal background but then that's asking too much for the American public will NEVER vote according to issues but rather vote solely on skin color or party affiliation .. at least for the great majority of voters and frankly isn't that just what our politicians did with this healthcare bill?  VOTE BLINDLY?

A democrat who happens to be a doctor and someone who ran for president agrees with Halperin:

“One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes… is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients… these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.” 

http://www.examiner.com/articl...ealth-care-rationing

Let us continue to give CREDIT where CREDIT IS DUE!   Remember who gave us or better yet forced upon us Democratic Healthcare (AKA - Obamacare).  All the promises and statements about what it would be and what it would bring.  Remember it passed with zero Republican votes and what many of those same Republicans said about the bill.  The real question is (now) who was telling the truth?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...pay-more_769688.html

and

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ed-boycott-obamacare

  (yes that's California but it's also being repeated in many other states with other physicians)

http://nypost.com/2013/12/07/the-medicaid-time-bomb/

Now the question is what will this do to our financial markets and the attempted recovery?  

I could be mistaken so please,  for those who support Obama and this Healthcare bill please post URL's and links that highlight the positives that are coming from this bill and that are being seen as of now for I'm finding it very difficult to find anything positive and about all you see is more and more people wanting exemptions from the Bill or finding ways to get around it or out of it.

If it's so good why isn't it apparent to everyone?

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...391740095244018.html

As more and more people get acquainted with their NEW benefits under Obamacare many are learning just what the Democrats saddled them with.  MOST fall into one of the following categories, many more than one:

• The insurance policy they have and maintain's premiums have increased substantially account of the mandatory new coverage that the policies have had to include.
• People's existing policies have had to be cancelled because they didn't meet the requirements of those under the Democratic Healthcare bill such as providing benefits for Abortion and Birth Control among a few.
• Replacement policies that replace existing policies that didn't meet the requirements cost far more per month/year and have double, triple, or quadruple or more the deductibles meaning actual money out of each person's pocket BEFORE any insurance coverage takes effect offsetting the physician's charge.
• People's employers are either scaling back people's work hours so as not to have to pay for Healthcare OR terminating jobs all together as they choose to either go out of business or eliminate healthcare coverage all together.  
• Employer policies that are maintained under the new Democratic Healthcare bill come with a much larger Co-Pay on the employees behalf being the amount that the employee pays toward securing that healthcare coverage and in many cases deductibles are greatly increased.

Either way you cut it when you try and find GOOD NEWS about the Healthcare bill it's like finding water in a drought or the dessert in drought conditions.  There just isn't any.

On the bright side though most Democrats, who voted for Obama's re-election, are so enthused with Obama and so blind to reality that they don't perceive or realize all the negatives anyway.  Most go on continuing to get their news from MSNBC and buying into the Democratic Party lines so live in a fantasy world where Obamacare (aka Democratic Healthcare bill) still is the best thing since sliced bread and Obama is still a great President. Ohh Happy Times they are here again.

It was rumored to be the case, so many said it would be yet supporters said it wouldn't. 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08...-obamacare-patients/

I'm just curious where are all the articles and information about how good Democratic healthcare is and all of the success stories?  This is and always will be the Democrats baby and creation whether Good or bad but so far it seems all there is for anyone is the bad.  Nancy Pelosi said that they had to pass it to find out what's in it and this from the administration that touted itself as the most transparent.  Well there pretty transparent as to what they can do which is pretty much mess things up totally.

I have had the same insurance policy for 14 years thru Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama.  I am self employed and purcahsed the plan thru the professional association to which I belong.  I got a statement this month saying despite exhasutive efforts by the organization, the ACA would not longer allow them to rpovide insurance benefits at cost thru the professional organization and I would have to seek my coverage for my family elsewhere. Ironically, they are allowed to provide dental coverage, but all medical policies which we pay dearly for are no longer allowable.  So now I must go thru the rigors of having to find a new policy and wait toil the signing period to join the plan being self employed.  Thanks again Obama.  You just couldn't leave well enough alone.

I will still receive my policy thru my agency.  However, our retirement manager recommended acquiring Medicare part B, something he did not recommend in the past. Thanks, Obama!

I fully believe it's a mistake to call it Obamacare for anyone to.  I fully think that credit should go to those who just deserve that credit and thus it should be referred to for what it is DEMOCRATIC HEALTHCARE.  For while yes Obama helped steer it in and push it through it was fully and solely Democratic in construction and passing so our Democratic politicians deserve full credit and those who elected them and voted for them are also justly responsible for everyone's misery.  

One only hopes they are seeing the same misery and realize it's of their own doing but if history repeats itself the DNC will only make a statement that it's the republicans fault and voters will gladly blindly follow eating it up to the poles oblivious to facts.  

I'm sure a true believer will come along to post an article like this as a victory in slowing medical costs: 

Defying an industry trend of double-digit rate hikes, California officials said the more than 1.2 million consumers in the state-run Obamacare insurance exchange can expect modest price increases of 4.2% on average next year.

http://www.latimes.com/busines...01-story.html#page=1

While ignoring facts like this:

Health-care insurance premiums for individuals in California rose between 22 percent and 88 percent in 2014 from last year, even after the federal health-care overhaul, the state’s insurance commissioner said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...-up-to-88-in-14.html

It is true that people might not see the full bill because of the magic money being spread by the political manure spreaders they elected; but somewhere, somehow, and sometime someone is going to have to pay.