Rightbloggers on the Latest Obamacare Outrage: Some People Have to Change Policies
It seems odd to us that this would bother anyone because, in our experience, people don't love their plans so much as having a plan -- hence the big push toward universal insurance -- and would benefit from moving to an alternative that included such niceties as hospitalization coverage.
But apparently there are a lot of people out there who love their bandaid-and-a-bucket-of-leeches plans, and are outraged that they have to trade them in for something that meets ACA standards. For rightbloggers, this was the End of Obamacare Redux Part Infinity.
As beneficiaries got letters saying their current plans were no longer an option thanks to Obamacare, notwithstanding that they were eligible for new plans under the same law, rightbloggers expressed outrage, and told us that millions of people, represented by a few they'd actually heard about, were going to be bankrupted by the Kenyan Pretender's socialistic health scheme.
Illinois Review saw a news show about a woman who said her new plan would cost more than her old one, and another who said her coverage would "likely" cost more, and interpreted this to mean that "Illinoisans getting those [cancellation] letters are shocked by the skyrocketing costs that will change their lifestyles as they find the costs impossible to manage." Well, the plural is technically accurate.
"Obama promised us that Obamacare would reduce the cost of health insurance by $2,500 per family on average," explained Peter Ferrara the Heartland Institute. "But it is already doing just the opposite." Maybe he and the Illinois Review guy saw the same news show.
"[Obama] knew that Obamacare would cost some Americans their healthcare by design," cried Bryan Preston of The PJ Tatler, "but until forced to acknowledge that, he lied about it. Now he orders those Americans to shop around for more expensive healthcare that meets his arbitrary standards on a website that Does. Not. Work."
"Another shocker has revealed that premiums under Obamacare go up, not down," said Belle of Liberty. "So much for Affordable Health Care. ACA is simply another manifestation of redistributing the wealth." She also told us that "it's already a fact that patients over 75 will not receive care for terminal diseases," which is a new one on us -- maybe this refers to Rush Limbaugh's analysis of the ACA ("In other words, somebody comes in, 75 years old, needs this operation, 'Ah, no, it will be better spent if we spend that money on somebody 35.' Hello death panel").
"...and so they're burying me alive in socialism!"
Some beneficiaries came forward with what sounded like genuinely lousy Obamacare trade-ins. The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso found four complaints of this type, and concluded from them that "such stories abound." Could be four, could by fifty million -- probably the latter, right? Freddoso then told whoever was still reading that "you simply must pay more - and get less - to make Obamacare's finances work," because Obama was giving all the benefits to his best friends The Poors. Plus, said Freddoso, your Obamacare insurance won't even work! "Obama chose to finance their care by making you pay more into the system and get less out of it whenever you eventually become sick," he claimed. "Someone out there is benefiting from Obamacare. It just isn't you."
Others were just pissed that they got letters. Rightwing org Women's Independent Voice got a bunch of people to hold up pictures of their cancellation letters and make frustrated faces, then put them up at My Cancellation.com. Most of the contributors didn't bother to say why they were upset about this, but hundreds of rightbloggers copied and pasted the site's tagline, "An Obamacare website that works," and declared Obummercare through. "It seems that Americans can keep their plan, but only if Obama likes their plan," reported The Weekly Standard.
Reporters checked out some of the cancellation sob stories and found that the plaintiffs had crummy plans of the sort the law was designed to reform, and often disdained to even check them against the Obamacare alternatives to see if a new plan would be better. But, said Reason's Nick Gillespie, representing the conservative niche brand known as libertarianism, these "professional truth-slingers" are just liberal [whoops, we mean statist] media types "here to tell you that Obamacare critics are all wet, that maybe the president went a wee bit too far with that whole you-can-keep-it stuff, but that the more important thing is that these aren't the health plans you were looking for." So it's all a Jedi mind trick, only Obama is a storm-trooper, not Obi-Wan; non-canonical, but that's what fanfic is for.
Now, you may have also been hearing about other people who also got cancellation letters, but wound up with new ACA-compliant plans they find better and cheaper than their old ones. Unpossible, said rightbloggers! Who are you going to believe -- these obviously made-up positive stories that, Alex Jones assures us, were bought and paid for by White House flacks, or the negative stories picked at random by the honest brokers of National Review and Fox News?
All citizens required to get new plans were "sure losers," asserted Allahpundit of Hot Air, and there'll be "undetermined number of further losers to come once the law's unintended consequences start flowing... Three percent of the population isn't much, relatively, but it's enough to swing close elections. Good luck, red-state Democrats."
"Hey, 9 Million Eggs Have to Break to Make This Omelet!" headlined Jim Geraghty of National Review. He didn't insist the new plans would all suck, but he'd heard that many of them would be "similar" to the beneficiaries' old plans, and this too he found an outrage. "Obamacare fans shouldn't count on these folks being cheerful and bursting with gratitude," he warned, "because nobody enjoys having their insurance canceled and being forced to sign up again, only to end up with something 'pretty similar to what they had before.' It feels like a lot of needless stress and unnecessary aggravation." Whereas when insurers unilaterally changed your policy in the old days, that was a breeze. Cursed Big Gummint!
National Review's Jonah Goldberg went further: What if people don't want better plans? This is America, after all. "Say I like my current car," posited Goldberg. "The government says under some new policy I will be able to keep it and maybe even lower my car payments. But once the policy is imposed, I'm told my car now isn't street-legal. Worse, I will have to buy a much more expensive car or be fined by the IRS. But, hey, it'll be a much better car! Why, even though you live in Death Valley, your new car will have great snow tires and heated seats." And if you crash that car, you certainly don't want Obamacare picking up any of your massive hospital bills. Freedom!
At Business Insider, David Vinik concurred: "By increasing the standards that health insurers must live up to," he wrote, "Obama has decided what constitutes adequate insurance for Americans. He limited their choices by outlawing plans that do not meet those standards. Worse, the president lied about it." As if setting minimum standards weren't bad enough!
The upshot for rightbloggers was that Obama is a liar and would not be elected for a third term.