@ pmacdee:What you stated is not all factual. There are many
examples of people who have had their health insurance policies for many years
before Obama came into office that are now losing them. My neighbor
who is 62 received notice of cancellation of her policy last month that she had
had for over 7 years, and was quite content with it. They want her to replace it
with an "upgraded" policy that adds maternity and birth control
"benefits" (not needed) at an extra cost of $267 per month. Needless to
say, she thinks this new ObamaCare is a fiasco. She claims
she's been a lifelong Democrat, but now says never again. She hasn't
liked some of Obama's actions in the past. But it's now action time
once those policies start hitting people in their pocketbooks. The
updated numbers as of last night show there are now 4.2 million people who have
lost their pre-existing health insurance policies... most of which were in
existence before ObamaCare was ever voted on. It's no wonder a solid
majority of Americans are now opposed to ObamaCare.
procuradorfiscal is right. The ACA needs an undertaker, not a doctor.The old system for providing medical care was a mess and badly needed
reforming. But ACA actually makes it worse, by accentuating the very things that
were wrong with the previous system. It's impossible to adequately discuss
why in the 200-word limit on comments here, but the gist of it is that
individuals need to be responsible for paying for routine medical care, with
insurance covering what insurance is good at covering -- catastrophic risks. And
preexisting conditions ought to be covered with something like an annuity,
analogous to life insurance but paying out when a chronic condition develops.
ACA does absolutely nothing to take us in that direction. Instead, its
proponents characterize purely catastrophic insurance as "junk
policies."And the reason for that is that ACA is full of
internal contradictions. It is simultaneously trying to increase coverage, while
indulging in some poorly means-tested income redistribution, abd while
controlling costs. Two of these are worthwhile goals, but they are goals that
are in tension. It's rare that any single institution can simultaneously
pursue goals that are in tension, and ACA is no exception.
Folks, if an insurance plan was not changed by you or your insurance company
since before the ACA was signed, you can keep that policy as long as both you
and the insurance company want. That is a fact.The only
plans that have to be cancelled are plans put in place after the ACA was signed
that don't meet the minimum requirements. Nothing wrong with minimum
requirements. Your car was built to minimum requirements even though you might
prefer to run a soapbox derby cart down the freeway, it is illegal.It's that simple.
I have this sinking feeling that in one year those of us who have employer
provided insurance are going to either lose it or see the cost jacked up
dramatically. Probably ought to schedule that knee surgery before next November
while you still can. Of course when that happens Barack will tell us all he
feels bad for the predicament a "few Americans" find themselves
in....That will more than ease the pain I'm certain. The hope is gone but
the change never ends...
Re:TatorsMy comments weren't meant to defend/address
Obama's statement. I won't argue with the assertion that it is a
lie, because Obama has continued to repeat it without qualification so many
times. But, the fact remains that the large majority of people are covered by
employer plans or the federal govt (Medicare/Medicaid) and won't see
significant differences. But insurers could decide to make changes--not
required by ACA-- for employer plans on their own. Those who self-insure
through individual policies, (5-6%) Congress and staff, will be the ones
purchasing (or paying a penalty) healthcare insurance through the exchanges.
Changes in rates and coverage has always been the trend in insurance
pre-ACA. Time will tell whether ACA is a success or failure.
@ Truthseeker:When Obama said you could keep your existing plans, he
said "period". There were no asterisks listed that said "see the
fine print." All the stipulations you keep mentioning have been added on
after his promise was made. To be honest, they sound more like an attempt to
cover up for what most people now feel are proving to be lies.
What I would like to know is what happens if an insurance policy is cancelled
and the policy holder hasn't been able to sign up for coverage under ACA,
then he or she has an accident or illness, are they covered until a new policy
is in place or do they just do without and eat the expense themselves. Is there
no safety net for these people?
As usual, those who ignore Obama's lies are also those who think that
someone else should pay for their health insurance. They claim that because
THEIR premiums didn't go up or because they receive a subsidized policy,
that ObamaCare meets THEIR needs.Someone has to pay the complete
premium. If you're not paying fully for the coverage that Obama thinks
that you need, then you're demanding that someone else in America pay for
your personal welfare.Where in the Constitution is the Federal
Government authorized to give you personal welfare? Contrary to what Obama
says, that clause is not to be found. He would like you to believe it. He
would like you to believe anything and everything that he says. Unfortunately,
he lies. He lied about ObamaCare. Now he's lying again cover those other
lies. You can believe him if you want, but when Kathleen Sebelius decides that
ObamaCare will not pay for your healthcare, don't blame those of us who
warned you that socialized medicine is not a right and that it is not in the
Constitution.You'll pay, and you'll get nothing in return,
not even an apology.
Re:DanielLeifkerCA implementation of ACA differs from other states."While the ACA aims to improve the quality of insurance plans
offered, it does not require that insurers cancel all of their contracts at the
end of this year. In other states, (not CA) consumers are able to keep their
policies until they expire in 2014, giving more time to make thoughtful
choices.Insurers, including Kaiser and Blue Shield, wanted the
California Legislature to require that all existing individual contracts expire
at the end of this year, Rocco (CA deputy commissioner for health policy and
reform) said. That could give them a marketing edge because of their size and
the short window to make choices, she said. But her department opposed it, and
lawmakers didn't go along.The insurers were more successful
with Covered California, which adopted the requirement, Rocco said."(TalkingPointsMemo)
"It qualifies as acceptable only those health insurance policies that comply
with its own definitions. The act’s requirements inevitably limit market
choices and constrain consumer behavior." The Editorial Board writer of
this statement needs to stand back and think through exactly what he or she
means. If the government is going to create standards in order to protect
consumers when buying so many products, why should health insurance companies be
exempt. If the Editorial Board did their home work they would know
that state insurance commissions have been struggling with junk insurance
policies for decades. Quite frankly it is fine with me that insurance policies
have to cover pre-existing health problems, or that they no longer have caps on
expenditures so that that insured families or persons can worry less about a
bankruptcy. Let me suggest to you naysayers, get off your high horses and
recognize that these changes are long overdue. It levels the playing field for
all insurance companies as it requires them to provide "decent"
coverage. It also takes away the deceptive tactics insurance companies have
gotten with in the past.
Re:DanielLeifkerWhat were the specifics of your old
policy--deductibles, coverages, hospitalization etc? How does it compare to
coverage under a policy offered on the exchange--deductibles, co-pays, visits
etc? Anthem Blue Cross in CA is being sued for "tricking"
the plaintiffs to give up their policies which would've been grandfathered
under ACA to switch to a different plan. "Under the new law,
policies must cover a comprehensive set of benefits. If they don’t, they
can be "grandfathered" in, but only if the plans have not been changed
at all.To be grandfathered, the plans must have operated
continuously since before the law’s enactment in 2010 and have made no
significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan
essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new
law’s requirements.But the regulations defining what
constitutes a significant change are tight -- and if it’s breached, the
plan is on the road to oblivion. HIPAA rules say that if an insurer wants to end
a policy, it needs to give 90 days notice, as well as information about
alternative coverage plans."(Politifact)
If people wanted RomneyCare, they should have elected Romney. He would have
encouraged states with serious healthcare problems to look at Massachusetts for
possible solutions. He would not have forced states without serious problems to
pay for those who have them. Readers, ask yourself; were you happy with your
medical care before ObamaCare? I know I was. But my insurance provider
downgraded benefits to comply with ObamaCare's restrictions on good
plans.All you folks who think Obama was only outlawing "junk
plans" ought to wake up to the fact that really good plans (often called
Cadillac plans) are being taxed out of existence (except for labor union
members). I lost one, but I'm not a union member, so I don't deserve
a really good plan.
2 bitCottonwood Heights, UTmarxist,Name one Marxist
government that had better healthcare than we had. =========== CubaFYI 2 bits, a lady in my ward went to Mexico for
surgery because her premium coverage Insurance company denied and refused to pay
for it.BTW -- Why would the richest people in America, who's prefessional careers depends of the very best Healthcare money can
buy fly all the way to "Socialist" Germany for treatments?And -- Is Rush Limbaugh really going to make good on his word and go to
Costa Rica for his Healthcare like he promised?[I don't listen to
him, so I don't know.]
Aw the foolish notions people have. Government is not the answer, nor is crony
capitalism, both supported by the Democratic and Republican parties. If you want
to blame the current debate and mess of healthcare, just look in the mirror, for
all of you are either a democrat or a republican and the architects of the mess
called Healthcare. How about free markets and individual responsibility, both
favored by independent,freedom loving people. I consider myself one of the last
to love both!
People are asking "Why would the President willfully lie a few years ago,
knowing it would later get him in trouble?Good question.But the
right answer makes a lot of sense.Had the President been totally
truthful back then, 2 things would've subsequently happened:1)
Citizens would've revolted against it. And with very little public support,
even Democrat congressmen would not have dared vote for it meaning it would
never have passed into law. And/or...2) Obama would never have
gotten re-elected and he knew it. As his legacy pet project, it would never
have had the support to propel him to a 2nd term. By making it sound better than
it actually was, enough independent voters gave him the benefit of the doubt,
which allowed him a his additional term. Concerning RomneyCare:There are 2 major differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
RomneyCare was not nearly as complex and ACTUALLY did (does) allow people to
keep previous policies. Also, it is administered at the state level, instead of
by the federal government, which gives it more regional flexibility and costs
less to administer.Those are the primary reasons the President
willfully lied to the public.
@atl134Lets see here how many ways I can spell LIE. LIE, LIE, LIE
and on and on. Seems that it always comes up the same spelling. How can you be
so confuse what the subject of my comment is? You are much like the
truthful one you just keep spinning until your buried.
To "Ranch" it is amazing to see all of the death penalty liberals out
here condemning people to die at the hand of government healthcare.
@atl134 "Any of this applies to around 5% of Americans (11-15 million
estimated). The other 95% aren't affected."When the
employer mandate kicks in next year, what is happening now to the self-insured
will happen to the employer-insured. The Obama administration estimates that it
will affect 51% (mid-range estimate) and may affect 69% (high-end estimate) of
Americans.The fact is, they made this estimate three years ago. This
was his own administration talking. Meanwhile Obama was going around saying
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
It was a flat-out lie.
@Marxist: Yes medical bankruptcy is a real problem and the PPACA does not
fix that. If you have a low income but do not qualify for premium
assistance you could easily pay $4000 per year in premium and $12,000 in family
deductible for a total of $16,000 out of pocket in one year. And if that happens
again the next year you now have $32,000 in medical expense that you can't
pay off because you have auto loans, mortgage, and credit cards that are also
due. And that doesn't count the lost wages that health ins. doesn't
cover, or motel rooms for you or your spouse as well as meals. So you go
bankrupt. Who would be in charge of single payer? If it's the
Gov't how many agents, actuaries, secretaries, clerks, etc. now lose their
jobs with private ins. cos.? Also if you think the Gov't does a great
with health ins. go to a Reservation and ask the Native Americans who have been
receiving that Gov't supplied health care how great they think it is.
@2 bitLots of Americans go to Canada for healthcare, particularly for
prescription drugs. Other Americans go to Mexico for more affordable care... The US system of healthcare isn't bad... but it's health
insurance system is atrocious. We have the most expensive system in the world.
@mohokatI didn't know you were a fan of junk plans
created after 2010 since really that's what you're outraged about. Any
other plan being replaced has a near-identical equivalent on the market that
only covers more.
atl134: "Anyone who had a healthcare plan before the ACA was passed, and
likes it, and the insurance company still offers that plan, can still keep
it."...unless of course the company was forced to cancel that
plan because it had something in it that an Obamacare regulation didn't
like...or if the insurance company made ANY changes to the policy (something
companies do all the time)...or if didn't cover something like maternity
benefits for retired folks...or...or...or...This whole thing is
about the same as if Obama decided everyone should have to own an electric car.
So he gets a law passed requiring that all new cars to be sold must be electric
- all the while lying to everyone that if they like their current gasoline car,
they can keep it.After the law is passed and he is successfully
re-elected, then he tells you that he really meant that you can keep your gas
car only if it gets 70 mpg and you never changed the oil or bought new tires for
It's amazing how many so-called conservatives are willing to just let
people die. Some "pro-life" stance. Not.
marxist,Did the people in the USSR, East Germany, China, North Korea,
Venezuela, etc, have healthcare benefits you would trade your pre-Obama
healthcare for? I wouldn't, but I've always had insurance through my
employer. But I can see how some people (the people on Medicaid) would think
our system stinks.Name one Marxist government that had better
healthcare than we had. I would include Canada and UK (even though they are
not Marxist). I don't know of ANYBODY in the US who would go to Canada,
UK, China or North Korea to get medical care. There's a reason for that.
Despite the leftists in Washington insisting that we have the worst healthcare
system in the world... people who can afford it keep coming to the USA for
innovation and leading edge medical care. If it's so bad... why do so
many people come here to be healed?The reason is... it's not as
bad as the intentionally skewed reports indicate. People actually like the
level of care they get in most private US hospitals (which have to do a good job
to stay in business).
mohokatAnd to further your point to alt134, Obama said it several
times on several different occasions. It wasn't just "one" slip of
the tongue. And many Democrat Senators echoed his very words to their
constituents at home. So now, many of those same Senators who are up for
reelection next year are really mad that there are images of them saying these
things that they know will be played back on TV by the Republicans during next
years campaign season. This is going to be funny watching the biggest spinning
walkback in political history by Obamas party.
The letter is right. Obamacare needs a doctor. Lets send it Dr. Kevorkian. He
will make sure it gets the care it needs..
atl134Plans that were created after Obamacare passed????Does the words "If you like your plan you can keep it PERIOD" have any
meaning? Those were the words spoken by the truthful one after Obamacare passed.
In other words you may understand HE LIED willfully and blatantly!! Pack that
@ LiberalGood point! Those evil Insurance Companies have built their
business by getting rid of paying customers. That water you are
carrying for the Truthful one must be getting heavy.
@ Esquire:Take a guess as to where the term "junk insurance
policy" came from. If you answer "from democrats who are trying to cover
for the President's previous lies and are now trying to do damage
control"... then you are absolutely right.None of the 3.2
million (most recent figure) people who had their previous health insurance
policies cancelled considered them "junk". Otherwise, they wouldn't
have owned them. They had the liberty to get whatever policy worked out best for
their particular circumstances... something the government is incapable of
doing... and something individuals will no longer be able to do.What
is junk (garbage) is forcing a 57 year old man, who had a vasectomy 20 years
ago, to pay for maternity and birth control coverage. Or (as a previous comment
mentioned) a similar aged woman to buy prostrate and birth control coverage...
things that are totally irrelevant to those individuals and which adds
substantially to the cost of their insurance.The President's
promise to keep what we had regarding our insurance policies and choice of
doctor didn't include any if's, and's or but's. He actually
said "period", which means no exceptions.
@Daniel LeifkerNevermind, California... um, I'm not sure if they ran
their own or are on the fed system. Anyway there should be something better on
the exchanges than what you're seeing.
Anyone who had a healthcare plan before the ACA was passed, and likes it, and
the insurance company still offers that plan, can still keep it. It
is only plans created after ACA was passed that fail to meet ACA minimum care
standards that are rejected and in pretty much every case there's an
equivalent plan on the market, oftentimes by the same insurer. The exception are
the junk plans that are dirt cheap and cover so so little that it makes the
bronze plans look like they cover a lot. Any of this applies to around 5% of
Americans (11-15 million estimated). The other 95% aren't affected.
The number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical expense. I've never
seen evidence you care about this, so I have a completely different frame of
reference. I believed something should be done about this, so I favored
"medicare for all." Would you have favored that? I doubt it. Neither
did the insurance business, so we have an attempted fix popularly called
Obamacare, which protects the insurance business but in so doing creates all
sorts of complications, resolvable in time however. So, Deseret News, it comes
down to this - keep Obamacare and allow it to evolve, repeal Obamacare and put
up with medical created bankruptcy, have medicare for all, or go single payer.
Which do you favor? I favor single payer now. You won't because you
don't understand we already have a centrally planned economy. The question
is, who benefits?
You have two choices "Dr. BO" or "Dr. No" - Same result however,
Obamacare's gotta go!
The Real Maverick May I suggest you read the Salt Lake Tribune then. Esquire. May I suggest you read the Salt Lake Tribune then.liberal larry. That still is not going to help millions who now have no
coverage, and can't afford the new Obamacare, with higher deductables.2 bits. Please note that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are
now proposing many needed changes.LDS Liberal. The insurance
companies had no choice but change the plans to comply with Obamacare.
If you like your lies, you can keep telling your lies. Period!
Obama said over and over that "if you like your plan you can keep your
plan" because he knew that when his lie came to light, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN
would not hold him accountable. If the media will not hold him accountable, why
not go ahead and lie?
@LDS Liberal "...it was not Obama...."Nonsense. Insurance
providers didn't just wake up one morning and decide to drop plans. They
are dropping those plans because Obamacare's new regulations say they are
unacceptable. Most of them are plans that have met the needs of their
subscribers for years.
LDSLiberal,You are being VERY careful to make sure no splatter gets on
your Obama.Make sure we know it's the evil "INSURANCE
PROVIDERS" telling them their policies have been cancelled. Obama and the
Govmt had nothing to do with it!You said, "it was not Obama, it
was not the Gv'mnt!". Well... that's not true. It was the
ACA that required the plans be cancelled. That's a fact.Why
did the evil Insurance Companies cancel the policies? Because Obama's law
REQUIRED them to be cancelled!These plans have worked for many
years, and the people on them liked them, but the plans must be cancelled (by
law). Do you think the evil Insurance Companies would have cancelled the
policies and risked loosing those premiums if ObamaCare didn't REQUIRE they
cancel them?You gotta quit being so blatant in your partisanship.
Obama CAN make mistakes. You don't have to cover for him.You
said, "Let's at least look at the facts and reality and not let bias
and opinions skew the truth" Fact... the LAW required the plans
be cancelled.I wish you would take your own advice on partisan bias.
I can decide for myself which insurance is junk and which is good for me and my
family. He promised us that if we liked our health care plan, we could keep it.
"Yet three years later, hundreds of thousands of Americans are receiving
letters from their insurance providers telling them their policies have been
cancelled" ~ DN editorial editors=== Can't even
read what they wrote themselves....here, let me paraphrase your own
words for you --"their INSURANCE PROVIDERS telling them their policies
have been cancelled".note: it was not Obama, it was not the
Gv'mnt!Let's at least look at the facts and reality, and not let bias and opinions skew the truth.
IF Barack really didn't know he was lying - if he REALLY didn't know
what he was telling the nation for over three years and 35 times was a lie then
naturally he would have come forward already and talked to nation on national TV
and come clean. He would have said - I told you this but in reality that
wasn't true and I was misinformed. I am sorry. Here is what I will do to
make it right...But instead what we are getting is the classic
response from a liar who was caught....more blame and and changing the
story...more lies and arrogance. you decide. It is pretty clear to
me the man was lying on purpose.
so Barack just didn't know huh? That's what this article is telling
us? Really? Over 35 times he repeated the "you can keep it if you like
it..period" lie and somehow he just didn't know. In 2010 his White
House aids Knew ...we now know that ...but I guess Barack doesn't go to
meetings ??? Really?? This is absurd. Of course he knew but he didn't care.
With Barack the ends justify the means and with every past scandal the man
figures he will just let the media cover for him ...but not this time. Barack
knew the cancellations would occur but he also knew he wouldn't get
re-elected without the lie. He chose the lie and as for the aftermath this
arrogant man just figured the media would cover for him as they always have. His
short sightedness and arrogance propel him just like Nixon with Watergate - he
thought he could get away with the lie.
needs a doctor??? What about an executioner?
Esquire's statement sums up the mantra of socialism: "On the whole,
not just focusing on a small minority, the results will be better than what we
had." The individual has no place in society. If you are a "small
minority" it is imperative the government make decisions for you. Maybe the
government decides to ban SUV's because they are only useful for a
"small minority" of people. It's all good. Not.
Esquire: The progressive patronizers are at it again. The reasoning goes
something like this: "All of you with those 'junk' policies just
are incompetent at deciding what you want and that requires those of us who do
know what's best for you to tell you that we are getting rid of your
'junk' policies for you. We are so sorry that you can't think
for yourself. Just listen to us, keep your mouth shut, and give us your liberty
too and you will thank us in the end. It is obvious that you can't handle
freedom, so just be compliant and we will tell you what to do next!" Did I
get it right? Oh no, I can see the steam coming through the internet at the
very thought of uncovering the scam. That dang internet. We need some controls
Re: "Certainly, President Obama would have known that the fallout from a
false statement eventually would cause great damage to his
administration"...I seriously don't think the President
realized that his statement COULD turn out to be false. And I assure you he
wouldn't have made it IF he thought it would cause great damage to his
administration.I think he is so out of touch with the details (even
of the details in the 2000 pages of regulations in his own law) that he really
didn't know that this would become a problem.He SHOULD have
realized that many existing plans would be REQUIRED to be cancelled (by the
rules in his law)... because they didn't meet the ACA requirements.But I think he really believed that if he said they could keep their
plans... they could keep the plans. But that makes me wonder if he has
actually read his own law (entirely) and he didn't even know that his own
law would FORCE these plans to be cancelled (because they don't meet ACA
@Esquire and Liberal Larry:While many of the plans that are being
cancelled did not meet all the requirements of the "one size fits all"
PPACA it does not necessarily follow that they didn't fill the needs of the
person on the plan. My friend is over 55 and female. Her current plan is being
cancelled because it doesn't have maternity coverage, prostate exam
coverage, and does not cover birth control. She does not need any of those types
of coverage and chose a plan that didn't provide them. Within the
next 6 years the last of the Baby Boomer women will turn 55 and will no longer
need any of these 3 types of coverage but will be forced to purchase policies
that provide them in order to make the coverage more affordable for those who
need them. And with the exception of prostate exams the men of that generation
will also have to purchase coverage they don't need.
@2 bits"I also have to admit that the Tea Party Republicans
caused this knee-jerk response from Democrats (because they tried to kill
it)."I respectfully disagree: Democrats have made this a
virtually lock-step partisan issue from day one.Obama's own
oblivious rigidity (and malicious use of force - such as militarizing park
rangers) combined with Reid's complete arrogance are their own doing and
merely vindicate the Tea Party
I agree that it needs some improvement. But ANY attempt to even touch it is
greeted with such paranoid rally-the-troops mentality from the Democrats, that
literally NOTHING can be changed.I also have to admit that the Tea
Party Republicans caused this knee-jerk response from Democrats (because they
tried to kill it). From now on... every attempt to even TOUCH it by a
Republican will be seen as a mortal threat to the Democrats, and they will
naturally over-react because of the past history. Democrats letting
Republicans even TOUCH it would be like giving your baby to the person who tried
to kill it. Aint gonna happen.So if ANYTHING in ObamaCare is going
to change... it's going to have to be done by Democrats alone again.
Because literally ANY attempt to participate or improve it by a Republican will
instantly and mindlessly be painted as an attempt to kill it (by Democrats and
the media).So I hope Democrats can get their heads on straight and
fix it. Because there's NOTHING Republicans can do at this point.
ANYTHING they try will be vilified and shutdown.
The Affordable Care Act is starting to become comical.My own medical
insurance plan was cancelled and replaced with a new plan in 2014 that is about
75% more expensive. Yesterday I got a notice from one of the largest healthcare
providers in my state inviting me to call them for a quote, so I called.The sales person recommended a no-frills plan for $527 a month. (I
currently pay $322.) The deductible was a staggering $5000 with lots of fat
co-pays.I asked if they had anything cheaper, and the sales person
said, "Yes, we have a plan for $519 a month, but I don't recommend it
because it has no benefits." I was shocked by this and investigated
further. The $519 plan pays zero until I reach a $4500 deductible, and then it
kicks in (sort of). $519 x 12 months + $4500 = $10,728 per year that I would
have to pay out of my own pocket each year before I get $1 in benefits. The
sales person burst out laughing at how ludicrous this was. I didn't
laugh.I am thinking about just dropping medical insurance and paying
Popularity of the Affordable Care Act is slowly increasing, according to a
recent Reuters poll. The right wing media is going absolutely,
hyperbolically, bananas over the fact that President Obama forgot to add the
simple words, "unless you have a really. really, lousy policy.Remember, in the first month of the amazingly successful Romneycare, only 123
people signed up!
You clearly have bought the right wing rhetoric lock stock and barrel. I would
have thought with your resources, a little independent research was possible.
The numbers show that the people who have lost policies or had enormous
increases had what is referred to as junk policies. They now have the ability
to find better policies. On the whole, not just focusing on a small minority,
the results will be better than what we had. There are problems with the
start-up, but it does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. This
paper has revealed itself as in line with Fox, not the mainstream. I can only
assume this is driven by your ownership.
Obama used the oldest scam in history; bait and switch. The bait was, "If
you like your plan, you can keep it". The switch is, if I like your plan,
you can keep it.
Oh gee, another Dnews article bashing Obamacare. That's not something I
haven't seen every week for the past 3 years...
Re: "Obamacare needs a doctor"It'd be better for real
America and real Americans if it got an undertaker.