November 13, 2013

Only 26,794 have been able to sign up through the federal health insurance exchange in its first month.

These come from the 36 states that are not running their own exchanges. There are also 79,391 who have signed up using the 15 exchanges set up by the remaining states and the District of Columbia.
The numbers represent a fraction of the half-million health-plan enrollees that the Obama administration had initially projected, before the HealthCare.gov Web site’s rocky rollout thwarted many shoppers’ attempts to sign up for insurance. Budget forecasters previously projected that 7 million people would enroll in coverage during the open enrollment period for the insurance exchanges, which runs until March 31.

87 comments:

RecChief said...

is this using their more expansive definition of enrolled?

Also, Elijah Cummings scoffed at Republicans for making "unsubstantiated" claims regarding the security of the site. I think they should subpoena Tony Trenkle

KLDAVIS said...

So, the terrible website is now the go-to excuse for why people aren't clamoring for Obamacare, but what if there's just no demand?

Maybe the website debacle is covering up the big lie...that there's no 500,000-strong mob out there yearning to sign up. Since it's nearly impossible to think they didn't know the site wasn't going to work, what if we assume they did know...and they didn't want it to work?

If the site worked, they wouldn't have anything to blame for these terrible enrollment numbers.

AJ Lynch said...

There is a plethora of dumb fucks [i.e Obama, McCain, Pelosi] who work in the Imperial City and screw up the country.

They lack the basic skills needed to run a hot dog stand.

n.n said...

Isn't it a violation of people rights to expect them to register for medical insurance, to vote, etc.? Obama should get in his limousine, helicopter, or 747 and do door-to-door sales.

TMink said...

They had more time to set it up than we took to win WWII.

Trey

Henry said...

Wow, there's some damning stuff in there, if you can just get past the political reporting.

Compare these excerpts:

Under questioning from Norton, Chao said “there was no White House directive” to turn off the function and no political motivation behind it. Instead, he said, “the reason for pulling the anonymous shopper was because the function failed testing.”

vs.

The account creation piece of the Web site, which was the part that failed most spectacularly on Oct. 1, is now working properly, he added. The system is now capable of processing about 17,000 accounts an hour, a rate that will improve going forward, he said.

So essentially, the anonymous shopping function was pulled which forced people to the account creation function which failed spectacularly.

So now account creation is working. Is it correctly polling tax information for subsidy calculation? That's unclear.

Apparently it's unclear to the insurance companies as well:

Later in the hearing, Park acknowledged that there are still problems “downstream” from the account-creation piece. One of the most serious issues has been the error-riddled reports being sent to insurers about who has enrolled in health coverage. Insurers have said that problem has improved only slightly, but that the trickle of enrollments they are getting is so thin that it has not been that difficult to root out the mistakes.

Finally, let's look at the number:

In announcing the enrollment figures for the first reporting period of Oct. 1 to Nov. 2, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that 106,185 people “have selected plans from the marketplace.”

How many of these sign-ups (~27K from the Fed exchange, the rest from state exchanges) have paid a premium yet?

Lydia said...

The Washington Post uses the words "sign up" and "enroll", but Sebelius was very careful to say that those numbers have “selected plans from the marketplace.”

I'm with Henry, I want to know whether the numbers given include both those who have actually purchased a plan and those who have the plan still sitting in their shopping cart.

The Drill SGT said...

Where is the data table with the 50 states (plus DC, etc) and columns for insurance and Medicaid.

Show. Me. The. Data.

The Credibility Credit is overdrawn

Tom said...

I'm sure our data is safe from all kinds of left-wing get-out-the-vote efforts. Positive!

Archie said...

Lying sack by commission and omission.

Blue Ox said...

Under questioning from Norton, Chao said “there was no White House directive” to turn off the function and no political motivation behind it. Instead, he said, “the reason for pulling the anonymous shopper was because the function failed testing.”

This is completely at odds with the testimony of the website developers who said that enabling anonymous shopping had been completed. They said that they could easily "flip a switch" to turn that function back on, but they would need a request from CMS to do so.

I have yet to see anyone ask questions of the Administration asking why their excuses are at odds with the developers' testimony.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It wasn't lies, it was just... bullshit."

Blue Ox said...

Depending on who you believe, there are 3-7 million people who have lost coverage due to the ACA. Keep in mind that these are people who sought out and purchased their own plans rather than roll the dice and/or rely on emergency rooms for treatment. We used to call that acting responsibly.

These people are now motivated by two factors: 1) Purchasing coverage as mandated by law, and 2) Finding something by 12/15 to avoid a coverage gap come January 1.

If November numbers are not in the multiple millions, it will mean one of two things. Either people will had been paying for insurance will cease doing so (for whatever reason), or they will have been prevented from obtaining coverage due to the government's incompetence. Keep in mind that we're midway through November and despite what Jay Carney says, MTD numbers are most definitely known. (If there were 2mil enrollments in the first two weeks of Nov do you honestly think the Admin would not be trying to reassure us by letting us know?)

Millions are being held in the lurch by people who have no earthly clue what they are doing. That is immoral.

Sorun said...

Obama supporters meet technical challenge.

The Drill SGT said...

Blue Ox said...
If November numbers are not in the multiple millions, it will mean one of two things. Either people will had been paying for insurance will cease doing so (for whatever reason), or they will have been prevented from obtaining coverage due to the government's incompetence.


I think there is an additional reason:

Folks with canceled policies who have been lured into delaying a decision by the talk of a roll-back or extra supplement, etc, etc...

These folks don't want to miss out of a bargain, or at least claw back some losses...

The Godfather said...

Two points: (1) Blue Ox is right, because of this fiasco people who want insurance and used to have it will have to "go bare" after the first of the year. Not imposing the penalty/tax on them doesn't solve the problem.

(2) The number of people enrolled or in the process of enrolling or thinking they're enrolled isn't a measure of whether or not Obamacare will succeed. We need to know whether the relatively healthy, relatively young, those who are substantially overcharged by Obamacare, are signing up. If they aren't, then the best thing to do would be crash the Obamacare site and stop the older sicker folks from signing up.

Beorn said...

I am not concerned.

President Obama will read a carefully crafted speech from his teleprompter, and all will be well.

exhelodrvr1 said...

You voted for it.

Jason said...

The "Hitler Finds Out" parodies just write themselves!

Drago said...

Uh oh.

Looks like it's time for obama and his dead-enders to shift to "Recovery Summer 5!!!" baby!

"This time we HAVE to be right!......."

Drago said...

Sorun said...
Obama supporters meet technical challenge.


Looks like the "reality-based" dems have run smack dab into reality......and they don't like it!

And neither do we......

Drago said...

Blue Ox: "I have yet to see anyone ask questions of the Administration asking why their excuses are at odds with the developers' testimony."

I'm pretty sure a video and Dick CheneyHalliburtonBushHitler are responsible for that.

Remember how everytime obama was caught in a screw up during the last 5 years if a single republican brought it up the entire media apparatus claimed they were just "dying" to cover this great obama failure story but, gosh darn it, those republicans simply got in the way.

You can just feel the tension when the lefties speak on TV since they know, now, that it won't work.

theribbonguy said...

Oh goody..

100k people with a policy "selected" vs. 300k "free" medicare policies vs. 5 mil.canellations.

Things really are going swell.

David said...

How many are trying to sign up. One of the reasons we had a sizable number of "uninsured" was that there is a mass of people, of unknown size I suspect, who will not buy insurance to avoid the cost. They figure that someone will have to take care of them if they get sick. How many? Millions for sure. You can't legislate around irresponsibility.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark O said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark O said...

Premiums are due on December 15. There are no binding policies today. None. This is all fluff.

More fraud

Blue Ox said...

I wonder how many women have lost coverage who are pregnant and have due dates after Jan 1. Hundreds? More?

How many will find themselves in the delivery room with no insurance and/or an OBGYN they just met?

And least they can find comfort in the fact that Paris Hilton will no longer have to pay for her birth control.

Michael K said...

Time to start thinking about Where do we go now ?

Original Mike said...

"Only 26,794 have been able to sign up through the federal health insurance exchange in its first month."

Heck of a job, Barry!!

cubanbob said...

Now that 60's style progressives are in charge what we have here is a failure of the databases to communicate and thus we have a credibility gap.

Original Mike said...

You know what's really killing ObamaCare? All those people with cancelled plans (is it up to 5 million yet?) listen to the President call them "subpar". But they know they are not.

MaxedOutMama said...

Blue Ox is right - set aside the politics.

If the end result of this is a whole bunch of people losing coverage, it will be an inhumane, abusive act by the government.

Inga said...

"Time to start thinking about Where do we go now ?"

11/13/13, 6:42 PM

Here is where we should go.

Drago said...

LOL

The left/govt has proven they can't deliver basic functionality and have been lying through their teeth for 4 3 years.

Inga's answer?

Hey, let's just give them ALL the power, instead of just 90%!

You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

Drago said...

MaxedOutMama said...
Blue Ox is right - set aside the politics.

Set aside the politics?

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Hey, I have an idea:

Their side first.

Original Mike said...

Inga's stuck on stupid.

Inga said...

MichaelK, suggests the French model. He is the health insurance guru. Listen to him.

Chef Mojo said...

Inga, single payer is dead for generations to come. After the lies and incompetence of Obamacare, the people are not about to put their faith in that pipe dream. They've seen what happens when the government gets its hands on a third of the US economy, and they're understandably unimpressed.

After all, the first thought that's going to pop into everyone's head when the Dems try to sell them on single payer is, "What lies are they telling me now to get this passed?"

eric said...

That story is inaccurate. The administration did not say that many people "Enrolled" they said that number was the number of people who "selected" Obamacare.

Whatever that means. You're a wordsmith, Professor, why did they say "selected" instead of "enrolled"?

Lydia said...

Inga, 92% of the French have supplemental health insurance. Why do you suppose that's the case?

Inga said...


Private Insurance. “More than 92% of French residents have complementary private insurance.” This insurance pays for additional fees in order to access higher quality providers. Private health insurances makes up 12.7% of French health care spending. These complementary private insurance funds are very loosely regulated (less than in the U.S.) and the only stringent requirement is guaranteed renewability. Private insurance benefits are not equally distributed so there is, in essence, a two-tier system.

Physician Compensation. French doctors are paid by the national health insurance system based on a centrally planned fee schedule, but doctors can charge whatever price they want. The fees are based on an up front treatment lump sum, which is similar to DRGs in the U.S. The patient–or their private insurance–must make up the difference between the fee charged by the doctor and the amount paid for by the universal health care system. The average French doctor earns only €40,000, although medical school is free for them and the French legal system is fairly tort-averse.

Physician Choice. The French have a fair amount of choice in which doctors they choose. However, recently the French have moved towards a more “managed care” practice style where patients have a “preferred doctors” who acts as a gatekeeper for specialists.

Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.

Technology. The government does not reimburse new technologies very generously and because of global budgets and fee restrictions, there is little incentive to make capital investments in medical technology.

Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.” http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-... /

Inga said...

Nothing is perfect Lydia. It's far better than what we have now isn't it?

Henry said...

Inga wrote: It's far better than what we have now isn't it?

Yes, Inga, it's far better than what we have now. You never wrote a truer thing.

Inga said...

Yes Henry, I do mean NOW. Also the "now" that came before NOW. More truth. Have anyone of you read any of Michael K's blog posts on health insurance? Worth reading.

Lydia said...

But France is not really a single-payer system, Inga, it's multi-payer.

What they do have is universal coverage, but we didn't need Obamacare to get that. Paul Ryan's 2009 plan was pushing to get there and he later proposed a plan to achieve it.

Inga said...

YES Lydia, I am aware of that. We can discuss a number of alternative health care scenarios can't we? Why are we so against looking at countries that get it right, or more right than we have?

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

Left unsaid in the discussion of the French health-care system is that French "social security" payroll taxes (i.e. payroll taxes taken out for ALL social safety net programs, not just health care) are about 36% of one's gross. These are payroll taxes alone, and do not count all the taxes the French pay, like VAT taxes.

The 36% has for years & years been discussed as a major job killer in the French economy, and it's one reason why full time jobs are so hard to come by. Just try and recall the last time you heard the words "France" & "sustained economic recovery" in the same sentence.

And, as I've discussed here in the past, my anecdotal experiences through relatives with French medicine kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Inga said...

Paul Ryan had to backtrack from his own plan Lydia. I dont think even he would go back there again.

Seeing Red said...

France is broke. Canada's system is now more privatized because of the wait time lawsuit, but their system still has wait time problems and is starting to cost more money than they want to spend.

...Technology. The government does not reimburse new technologies very generously and because of global budgets and fee restrictions, there is little incentive to make capital investments in medical technology.

Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.”



Population:


65,951,611 (July 2013 est.)



vs 315 million.

IT WON'T WORK.

Jason said...

America: "We drank a spoonful of bleach. We puked blood for a week. It nearly killed us!"

Idiots like Inga: "But.. but... but... you need to drink the whole bottle!!!"

Michael K said...

" 11/13/13, 7:07 PM
Blogger Inga said...

MichaelK, suggests the French model. He is the health insurance guru. Listen to him."

Thanks for the kind words, Inga. If you noticed, my posts on the French system were made in 2008. If Obamacare runs the course I expect, the public will be so traumatized they will approve of nothing but bare bones insurance.

I've been looking at the cash option for several years as I anticipated that the political left (no offense) has overreached so far that they will discredit programs like the French.

I knew the guys who designed Hillarycare. They are well meaning academics who know nothing about medical care in the trenches. I have known these people for many years.

Paco Wové said...

How do I put this politely, Inga?

FUCK YOU.

FUCK OFF.

FUCK YOU.

FUCK OFF.

(repeat as needed)

YoungHegelian said...

I'd also like to point out to those folks who claim that the US spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world --- the US does that on any number of matters.

Cost per capita of educating students -- We're #1

Cost per military man fielded -- #1 again!

It's just the American genius to blow through money like drunken sailors in a whorehouse. You don't want to be un-American, do you?

Inga said...

Very intelligent Paco. But to be expected. I'll leave you to marinate in your own juices.

Seeing Red said...

Money is fungible. Most of the systems that may be discussed were set up decades ago under Pax Americana, which means - for the kiddies on this site - that the US taxpayer & the US military picked up most of their defense for decades.

The world has changed. Now the flaws in their systems are becoming apparent. It won't work, there's not enough money.

Manditory HSAs w/inheritability, mandatory catastrophic, everything else is add-on. Cross-state purchase. I don't care that CT mandates toupees, I don't need them. Reform tort system.

Raise the EBT savings bar for HSAs. I even think if there's money left over at the end of the month, it should be swept into the HSA. When your HSA hits a certain amount, your co-pay increases. Say every $2500.

As I read either here or somewhere else recently, concierge doctors average about $80/mth.

Seeing Red said...

Hillary sure kept mentioning wanting to be like Canada.

OOPSIE! BTW - I think each province publishes their wait-times. It's an interesting read.


Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court found the Acts violated Quebecers' right to life and security of person under the Quebec Charter. The ruling is binding only in Quebec. Three of the seven judges also found that the laws violated section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Michael said...

By refusing to open their minds to Republican suggestions on private market solutions to healthcare the Democrats ruined any possibility of a comprehensive overhall. To clean up what we have now may take years. In the meantime Obama has become irrelevant. There is that.

Only fifteen million or so are pissed off at the moment. When the employer mandate kicks in, if it ever does, the crap will really hit the fan.

Well. Nancy, we found out what was in the bill didnt we?

sunsong said...

oops

Seeing Red said...

The House bill allows individuals to keep their insurance thru 2014 - conveniently, 2015 is the employer mandate.

If you know anyone who runs a business or is involved with the healthcare side

TALK TO THEM.

Seeing Red said...

Ontario Star: 11/9/13


Two Ontario patients who had brain tumours removed in the United States because they say they couldn't get quick treatment here are suing the provincial government over what they claim are unjustly long wait times for medical care.


Lindsay McCreith, 66, of Newmarket and Shona Holmes, 43, of Waterdown filed a joint statement of claim yesterday against the province of Ontario. Both say their health suffered because they are denied the right to access care outside of Ontario's "government-run monopolistic" health-care system. They want to be able to buy private health insurance.

YoungHegelian said...

Most of the systems that may be discussed were set up decades ago under Pax Americana, which means - for the kiddies on this site - that the US taxpayer & the US military picked up most of their defense for decades.

Not only that, but the world was awash in kids & babies, too. Not overloaded at the top with old farts, like now. Old farts used to just get old & die. Now, they go out kicking & screaming with a bazillion new medical procedures tried on them to keep them above ground for a few more months.

Europe never admitted to itself how dependent it was on the Pax Americana for its social welfare systems. They also never understood that social democracy requires a large & stable cohort of young workers to subsidize those on the dole. No babies, no workers 21 years later, no social democracy.

Seeing Red said...

Israel gets $3-4 billion in military aid a year.

Norway

Population:

Ethnic groups:

Norwegian 94.4% (includes Sami, about 60,000), other European 3.6%other 2% (2007 estimate)


4,722,701 (July 2013 est.)

Illinois' Cook County has more people than the country of Norway.

We have states that crap bigger than Norway.


Economy - overview:


The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector, and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's third-largest natural gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $700 billion in January 2013 and uses the fund''s return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-12, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.


Norway needs high oil prices. Those collapse like LNG - they hurt big time and so will their vaunted social safety net.


If you want to argue countries, you have to know a little about that country, otherwise it's waste of time because you won't be able to establish a baseline agreement.

RecChief said...

what is more important is the demographic break down of who has enrolled.

Paco Wové said...

Just trying to put things into simple enough terms for you to understand, Inga. Using bigger words seems to be fruitless.

RecChief said...

Original Mike said...
All those people with cancelled plans (is it up to 5 million yet?) listen to the President call them "subpar"

I think Democrats should run on the whole substandard thing: "Having your policy cancelled is good for you. You just didn't know how stupid you were, when you bought that plan. How do we know it was substandard? Why, the ACA defines substandard. It's a good thing the Democrat Party came along and defined substandard so you could see how stupid you were, you stupid prole."

Henry said...

Unfortunately, Inga, to get from the bad old yesterdays to the bright new tomorrows you have to go through now. Yet everyone with a plan for bright new tomorrows is bailing on now.

Transition is a ditch.

RecChief said...

Inga said...
Nothing is perfect Lydia. It's far better than what we have now isn't it?

In general, I think this utilitarian argument falls down when the person espousing it gets their policy cancelled

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

A lot of those sign-ups are people who are signing up for Medicaid. In other words, they are not paying anything.

It should be easy to get people to sign up for "free" stuff. The website's so bad, they can't even do that.

Amazing how much of the Obama administration is designed to get people to sign up for welfare. One sixth of the country on food stamps. Now using Obamacare to get people to sign up for Medicaid.

His plan has always been to get massive numbers of people dependent on government, so they would always vote for the Democrats. Sign up people for food stamps and Medicaid, and then redistribute wealth.

I don't think he's given any thought to the economics of it. Certainly he didn't give any thought to the website. It's political campaigning, 24/7.

Lem said...

There is open talk of impeachment on twittersphere... pass it on.

Titus said...

pathetic.....tits

Titus said...

I am a gay giver and this is outrageous.

I despise any takers...including those getting welfare, farm subsidies, social security and medicare.

Fend for yourselves bitches!

Anyone receiving a government check needs to stop receiving a check!

SOJO said...

What are the numbers if you count all the people who can now get on their state's expanded version of Medicaid (which didn't exist before Obamacare)?

In CA, it is called Medi-CAL and everyone below about 16K per year doesn't get subsidized by the exchange, they are shunted to Medi-CAL. There are a LOT of people that meet those requirements, yet didn't qualify before; they wouldn't be counted as now having health insurance under Obamacare, but IMO, they should be.

I have heard that in states w/o expanded Medicaid, poor or low income people are just shit out of luck because the insurance only helps a slice of the people that make from 16 - 45K ish.


Although I actually do not know if Medi-CAL really is accepting people below a certain income limit now. The covered CA site implies that, but who knows? I do know someone from the hospital that was informed her (low income) plan would be changing to Medi-CAL as of Jan 1.

Big Mike said...

Obamacare was merely a legislative accomplishment. Apparently no one in the entire Democrat party realized that that was the easiest part.

Lauderdale Vet said...

It seems more people were interested in asking the whitehouse to build a death star.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

Alex said...

But but I thought there were 40 million people clamoring for this! I know this because Paul Krugman told me so!

Alex said...

Inga reveals her true socialist colors again.

Joe said...

The next two shoes to drop are when employer plans are dropped and the IRS fines start.

Republicans need to get their act together. If so, we're going to see even "safe" democrat seats fall.

(And any Republicans who propose fixes, should be run out of town on a rail.)

Michael The Magnificent said...

Paco Wové,

+1!

God damned Kool-aid drinking OFA propaganda whores!

MayBee said...

The insurance being offered was designed to make political friends happy, not to entice people who already don't want to pay for insurance because they think they don't need it.

They've larded up requirements to make it so you have to use a lot of medical services to get your money's worth. It's the opposite of what they should have done. But instead of listening to people like the founder of Whole Foods, they started a boycot. Obama told Ryan and Canto to shut up at the Health Care summit. They wheeled out Sandra Fluke.

It was politics over logic, but denial only works for so long.

Rusty said...

Alex said...
Inga reveals her true socialist colors again.

More like a fascist.

Either way you have to suspend economics and morality to believe that crap.

Marshal said...

Big Mike said...
Obamacare was merely a legislative accomplishment. Apparently no one in the entire Democrat party realized that that was the easiest part.


I think this mis-focuses the error. To Democrats the legislative issue was the important part. Causing 15 million people to lose their insurance just wasn't important until they (belatedly) realized it would reduce their chances of passing future legislation.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Either way you have to suspend economics and morality to believe that crap.

I think the problems we now find ourselves in is a result of more than just Low Information Voters. We are also cursed with Low Intelligence Voters, Low Skepticism Voters, Low Morality Voters, and Low Ethics Voters.

I managed to read the first 300 or so pages of the "Affordable" Health Care Act, where I saw more than enough perverse incentives baked into the legislation to see this was the train wreck it's becoming.

Armed with that information, you'd think I'd be able to change Obama voter's minds by showing them the actual verbiage in the legislation, and pointing out how people's hours would get cut, people's jobs would get cut, people's policies would necessarily get canceled, and the costs of policies would necessarily have to go up.

But no. I didn't manage to change even one mind. It's not just a lack of information that makes an Obama voter.

Rusty said...


Armed with that information, you'd think I'd be able to change Obama voter's minds by showing them the actual verbiage in the legislation, and pointing out how people's hours would get cut, people's jobs would get cut, people's policies would necessarily get canceled, and the costs of policies would necessarily have to go up.

To the fascists like the above all those are features.

Concierge106 said...

I found your website the other day and after reading a handful of posts, thought I would say thank you for all the great content. Keep it coming! I will try to stop by here more often. To get new information visit here
CT Personal Assistant
CT Senior Care services
CT personal shopper