Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Liberal whine of the day

Liberal Sarah Kliff ["I write for Vox. Formerly: Washington Post, Politico, Newsweek and, back in the day, Student Life."] is pissed, posting:
"Health insurance plans are getting crummier, and these charts prove it."
Welcome to Obamacare, honey.

From Sarah Kliff:

If you ask any economist the main purpose of health insurance, the answer you'll probably get back is this: to protect against financial catastrophe.
Yes, the free annual check-ups or discounted gym memberships that health plans sometimes offer are nice. But the real thing you're purchasing with your monthly premium is protection against financial ruin. You're paying for someone else to be on the hook for the big medical bills that can and will pile up in the case of serious illness or accident.
Except, increasingly, insurance does not provide that type of protection. That's the main takeaway from a new Commonwealth Fund report on the "underinsured," or people who have health insurance that leaves them exposed to really big costs — and who appear to skip care due to the price.
Got that? Five years after passage of Obamacare, this supporter who used her position as a reporter on at least three publications, finally got around to looking up what health insurance is.

Spoiler alert: It is everything those old white tea-bagging Tea Party members said it was six years ago.


Suck it.


  1. We can't sock-puppet how moronic the modern left has become because everyone would think you're just being over the top. And gee, when we pointed out what a colossal failure Obamacare would be, and why, we were called racists for our efforts.

  2. Thanks for the honest effort to speak about this. I very strongly believe and want to read more.

  3. What does Sarah Kliff mean in the third paragraph that "increasingly, insurance does not provide that type of protection," by which I presume she means the law doesn't offer financial protection against medical catastrophe? That doesn't make any sense on its face and furthermore it isn't what the report actually said. She appears to have read the short conclusion section of the report and taken one comment there out of context.

    Here is what the report said:

    "The survey also finds evidence to suggest that the coverage gains are allowing working-age adults to get the health care they need while reducing their level of financial burden because of medical bills and debt." The whole tenor of the report is: Obamacare is working, and here are the numbers to prove it.

    "[The] prevalence of high deductibles and copayments in private health plans, including employer-based plans, is leading many people with low and moderate incomes to avoid or delay needed health care." This statement from the report's Conclusion does NOT mean the law leaves people exposed to big costs from medical catastrophes. It means that low income people are reluctant to get any health care they have to pay for out of pocket. But that is what everyone is expected to do until their ordinary health care expenses reach the deductible limit on their insurance plan. That's the way the law was written. It was designed in that way to cut the total cost of health care in the country. That was the plan.

    1. Actually, you have not been paying attention. For those getting free Medicaid, it is working. But, for people forced to uy ObamaCare compliant policies off the exchanges, it is a disaster. The co pays and deductibles are so high, people are foregoing care as they cannot afford it. Remember those copays and deductibles are out of pocket. If you have a $6k deductible, your insurance is just a useless expense until you meet the deductible. Hence, delayed care. But, early care is exactly the supposed point of ObamaCare. So, ObamaCare is a failure for all but those who are given free Medicaid, but that presupposes they can find a doctor outside of an emergency room and that is not a given.