Just had to discuss this propaganda piece from Yahoo!Finance.
As the dust settles following the tumultuous launch of the Affordable Care Act, many people are benefiting from the law, which, on balance, seems to be accomplishing its goal of providing health insurance for more Americans.
And by ‘accomplishing its goal’, they mean forcing almost everyone to pay through the nose for this new ‘benefit’ that the electorate neither wanted, nor needed, nor asked for.
But a significant minority of Americans has ended up worse off under Obamacare, as the law is known, because policies they were happy with got canceled. Most of those people had purchased individual policies that didn’t meet new requirements under the law, so insurers were required to cancel them. People who lost coverage were free to purchase a new policy, but in many cases that was considerably more expensive.
You aren’t ‘free’ to do something when the government forces you to do it. Not only were people forced to get insurance that they didn’t want or need, but a lot of people lost their insurance and are now paying more for less. And some idiot with a PhD from Harvard says it’s all good, because those people would have changed their insurance anyway…’probably’:
But the majority of those people probably would have switched insurance anyway in 2014, even without the new law, according to the study. Most of them probably got new policies, so they’re covered now. And many switchers who got a new policy through one of the healthcare exchanges set up under Obamacare probably got a better deal than they would have before the law.
Mr. Dr. Harvard: what research methodology do you use to get ‘probably’ as a result? This whole paragraph and paper is just wishful thinking by this idiot. You can’t make these statements without the data to back them up. And there is no data category or result called ‘probably’ in existance. Never listen to anyone who has a PhD. Not even if their name is Sheldon Cooper.
But there are three subsets of people whose policies were canceled and who are likely to end up as losers under Obamacare — people who are self-employed, over 35, white, or some combination of all three. People in this smaller group were far less likely to switch policies on their own, since they were generally happy with their coverage and less likely to change their employment status, one big reason people typically drop an individual policy.
That’s just racist. And ageist. Wait, I thought the Democrats who rammed this law through Congress were supposed to be all about equality. Now I’m confused. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
The biggest Obamacare losers are people who lost their insurance but are unlikely to qualify for subsidies through one of the new exchanges, which require an income of less than $47,000 for an individual or $95,000 for a family of four. So they’re the ones who lost coverage and probably have to pay more for a new policy, even if they enroll through an exchange. Some people who lost coverage report paying twice as much for a new policy, or more.
Oops. Well, that’s what you get for working hard, being older than 35, and being white. Where did you think you were, in a country where working hard was rewarded and everyone was colorblind? That place is located in Anaheim, California. You can find it by Googling “Fantasyland”.