When you lose NBC

About six hours ago, NBC posted an article pointing out that President Obama had known all along that millions of Americans would lose their insurance coverage.  As of this posting, there were almost 3,400 comments, mostly of the mad-as-hornets variety.  No one seems much interested in listening to administration mouthpieces explain how we all really should have known this was coming, so it wasn't exactly the same thing as a lie.  (I actually did expect part of it; I always believed they'd find a way to kill my individual policy, and have said so often.  But I confess I didn't expect that it would be almost twice as expensive to buy a replacement with a somewhat lower deductible, or that others would see increases of 300% or 400%.)

A man quoted in the article is coming to the same conclusion Raven and I are mulling over:  shouldn't we withdraw from this crooked game?  I want to see civil disobedience on a scale so massive it changes how all Americans look at the progressive agenda for decades.

It's almost unbelievable, but Valerie Jarrett and other administration hacks have taken to Twitter to push this talking point:
Nothing in the ACA forces people out of their plans. No change is required unless ins. companies change their existing plan.
Right, so it's not the law that's destroying your insurance policy, it's just the insurance company's compliance with the law that could cause a little problem.  That's how much respect they have for us.  Well, it's slightly comforting to know they're desperate to pretend the law isn't destroying the insurance coverage of millions of Americans; up to now, they were trotting out the explanation that, yes, the coverage was being taken away, but it was for our own good.  Also, it should be easy to get bi-partisan support for that bill to allow us to keep our existing coverage, right?  Because the law's not destroying it in the first place, so we're all good here.  I know I can count on Democrats in Congress to step up.

A handful of them are starting to make a fuss about demanding a refund from CGI for its work on the website.  It's the wrong part to focus on, and it shouldn't keep them from getting hung upside-down from lampposts, but it's a slight movement in the right direction:  a cheering sign that there is a healthy panic building in Congress.  I'd like it to reach the quivering, heart-palpitation stage, so I was pleased to read this purported quotation from someone described as high up in Democratic party circles:  "The Democratic Party is f**ked."  I couldn't agree more, sir.  It should be discarded entirely, and we should start with something new.

But something tells me that, after a few days of this, many of them will decide that it's really only about 15 million people affected, and they can afford to ignore them.  It will be up to the rest of the voters to decide if they'll be allowed to get away with that.

10 comments:

DL Sly said...

You know that Xerxes had issued a six week delay in the mandate to sign up without penalty? Issued this evening. Granted, it still doesn't change the fact of people losing their insurance come Dec. 31....

Tom said...

I want to see civil disobedience on a scale so massive it changes how all Americans look at the progressive agenda for decades.

Yes. But I, too, have the fear you express at the end.

Texan99 said...

Tom, that's a delicate balance--always trying to alter the screwers and the screwees so they keep their majority. I'm just wondering if they haven't let it tilt a tiny bit too far this time, and lost control of the story. We'll see.

DL Sly--I think he did that earlier this week. It's the "settled law," you know, unless he can get some temporary advantage by flouting it.

Obamacare delenda est. And while we're at it, "Luna shall be free."

raven said...

It is not only the attempt to double my costs and reduce my coverage- it is the fact that congress, and a bunch of unions and favored corporations have gotten exemptions-
How does this differ from the actions that may be taken by an Aristocracy, or a drug cartel? One law for the serfs , and another for the enlightened.

Elise said...

Few things. First, it sounds like part of the ObamaCare cabal (love that word, rarely get to use it) is doubling down on the original lie (about keeping our insurance if we like it) by insisting that it's still true, at least as far as ObamaCare is concerned. That makes sense, really: there's no benefit to admitting they lied and there are a lot of people who will believe them, some because they will believe anything that lets them keep believing in Obama/ObamaCare, some because they're sure everything bad is because of corporations, some because they hate Republicans and if they believe the Democrats have knowingly lied they'd have no one to vote for (categories probably overlap).

Second, I wonder if the Valerie Jarrett position qualifies as a "big lie"? And if the original claim did?

Third, the cabal doesn't seem to have yet decided on a single line. While some are taking the Jarrett approach, others are admitting ObamaCare required cancellation of existing plans but offering either a justification for it (the new ones are better for us) or an explanation (the original claim was unclear because it didn't specify it only applied to plans that met the law's requirements). The Jarrett position is in conflict with the latter position. It will be interesting to see which one they finally settle on, or if they decide to go with both, thereby giving people who want to continue to believe a choice of excuses for doing so.

Third, after hearing Ezekiel Emanuel's execrable comments, I contemplated writing the person at my insurance company who sent me the cancellation letter and asking him to clarify why my policy was cancelled. After hearing about the NBC story, I decided it wasn't necessary. After hearing about the Jarrett position, I'm going to write the letter, citing Emanuel and Jarrett and asking what's going on.

Fourth, I wish someone would ask Jarrett, in front of a camera, if she is saying it's legal for health insurance companies to keep offering catastrophic coverage policies.

Elise said...

Oops. Two "thirds". Please consider the second "third" to be "3.5".

RonF said...

My Congresscritter is Lipinski in Illinois. He's a Democrat. He voted against the ACA. Maybe he should talk to a few of his colleagues.

DL Sly said...

The story has apparently been disappeared down the memory hole today.
Isn't that *odd*?
0>;~}

Texan99 said...

Here's a heartwarming one to take its place:

It's a sad story. This woman worked for a Dem. congressman who voted for Obamacare. Then her boss was voted out of office in the revulsion against Obamacare, so she lost her cushy Congressional-employee health coverage, which was exempt from Obamacare. She found some replacement insurance, but now she's totally hosed because Obamacare is kicking in and giving her sticker shock.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/10/29/former-democratic-staffer-burned-by-obamacare-i-was-wrong-very-wrong/

It occurs to me what a good idea it will be to kick everyone out of Congress who supports this garbage, so they and all their employees can find out what it's like to live under the law they passed. It's a cinch they'll never apply it to themselves voluntarily. Make 'em walk the plank and face the sharks with the rest of us.

E Hines said...

Valerie Jarrett and other administration hacks have taken to Twitter to push this talking point:

Nothing in the ACA forces people out of their plans. No change is required unless ins. companies change their existing plan.


I'm not pulling the cat's tail. I'm just hanging on; the cat's doing the pulling.

Eric Hines