Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Obamacare reaches 8 million: Honk (and Vote) if you support it!

ACA, better-known-as Obamacare, enrollment reached another milestone: 8 million enrollees (and still counting).

President Obama on Thursday announced the final numbers for the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment period.
Eight million people have signed up for private insurance plans through the new federal and state marketplaces. And within the federal marketplaces, 28 percent of enrollees are ages 18 to 34.
This is good news—very, very good news.

Remember, the Congressional Budget Office originally predicted that 7 million people would get insurance through the marketplaces in 2014, with more joining in future years.  source

Who'd have thunk it?

After a disastrous roll-out that even had Obama's most ardent supporters wincing, it seems hard to believe. As stated, Obamacare has exceeded optimistic forecast by well over a million participants.

And -- not being a cheerleader -- most reliable polls (non-Fox News) consistently show that the more Americans actually learn about Obamacare provisions -- and not GOP propaganda -- the more supportive they become.

The consistent misrepresentations, distortions, and bogus lies (remember Obama wants to kill granny) regarding Obamacare should put a end to the myth of mainstream media liberal bias.

Just think, back in Oct/Nov 2013 when the roll-out was mired in IT glitches, the GOP mid-term election strategy was based on killing/repealing Obamacare.

The GOP movers and shakers -- Koch brothers, Karl Rove and co. -- are still banking on anti-Obama hysteria to win control of the Senate and buttress their control of the House of Representatives. To counter the deep pockets of the far-right, Obamacare supporters have to grassroot rally the base to match GOP energy.

If progressives vote in force, 2014 does not have to be the bloodbath pundits have predicted. Once again, Honk and Vote if you support the progressive agenda.


  1. I'd like to know more than the number of enrollees. I can clinch my jaw, squint my eyes and make myself believe that the final number is accurate. Despite government's propensity for lying its ass off at every turn, acting as little more than a career-maker for cronies, I can bring myself to believe that the number of ACA signups isn't compiled in the same blatantly dishonest fashion as the number of "unemployed," the average student performance, and every other cherry-pick-a-stat nonsensical number that politicians manufacture to feed talking points to the public. Okay.

    What's behind the numbers though? How many have packages that offer everything their private packages did? How many were previously uninsured? How many had no choice but the ACA due to losing their private insurance? How many are actually paying premiums?

    If this thing is going to work for America, then it has to be more than a good final number. That's speech fodder and a rallying cap for supporters, a big thumb-in-the-eye, how-do-you-do to opponents of the bill.

    On a side note: Not sure what the "progressive agenda" is, but you guys should be more careful who comes in on the wagon. There have been some complete nutters carrying the progressive torch lately.

    1. Great probing and legitimate questions. Skepticism of government information is healthy for a democracy: trust but verify Personally, I am very happy with my new insurance via Obamacare. My premiums and co-pay are lower and I was accepted even with my pre-existed condition ( diabetes).

      On a related subject (government lies): I wish conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party folks demonstrated the same level of scrutiny (and same volume) when Bush/Cheney told all those lies used as an excuse to attack Iraq. Trillions of dollars, hundred of thousands lives, millions of casualties could have been saved.

      Oh, and the undisputed winner of that war: Iraq.

    2. I can't disagree with you on your second point really. I would only say that it was far more than those considered to be right-wing who were gung-ho for a fight. Many Democrats, liberals and progressives were also on board...until it was no longer chic to be on board. But many wanted a fight as bad as the next guy.

      Bush was widely loved until he was widely hated. And when it came to that hate, conservatives and libertarians were amongst those voicing their disapproval to give Bush an abysmal barely 30% approval rating. They didn't take to the streets, but the earliest incarnations of the Tea Party, back when it was welcoming all comers by default, displayed ample hatred and blame for Bush.

      Hard for media to spin a polarizing story out of that, though. Better ratings if you edit the head and arms off a black guy with a gun, say it's a white guy with a gun, and then ask "do white people want to shoot the president?" and other such nonsense.

      But "polarized" is the keyword there and in every political context.

      In many cases, I can only explain it like Slim Charles told Avon: "If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie."

  2. Josh you state:

    "Bush was widely loved until he was widely hated. And when it came to that hate, conservatives and libertarians were amongst those voicing their disapproval to give Bush an abysmal barely 30% approval rating. They didn't take to the streets, but the earliest incarnations of the Tea Party, back when it was welcoming all comers by default, displayed ample hatred and blame for Bush."

    This was true of Bush/Cheney very high disapproval polls by late 2008. But it strangely does not explain the present day standing ovation Cheney receives at conservative and Tea Party events.

    Cheney was the architect of the Bush policies (especially during the first term) and war profiteer (can we say Halliburton, no-bid contracts and billions of dollars of over-charge) is heralded as a hero by the right-wing folks.

    To say I appall selective outrage (from the left, right or center) is an understatement.

  3. If you're asking me to answer for why politically polarized people choose sides and root for their own, particularly as it concerns a previous administration (more than 6 years removed), I don't have anything but a shoulder shrug.

  4. The polarization of our contemporary politics can be traced to post-civil rights legislation backlash. LBJ, the political force and will behind the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Right Act, prophetically stated:

    "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

    Henceforth, by 1968 President Nixon's election team understood the power and used The Southern Strategy. In plain words, this strategy employed divisive wedge issues to further polarize the electorate.

    The saddest irony: we have poor whites, Latinos, Asians and blacks divided and fighting over the scraps falling from the table of our rulers...

    And to be fair, the 1980's rhetoric of Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson further exacerbated rising tensions. Instead of being thoughtful, methodical power builders, they opted for self-serving sensationalism.

    Give me a builder over an orator any day!

    And, in conclusion, I can't leave out the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing press. Yes, MSM may have a slight liberal lean, but right wing press has a political agenda: divide and conquer.

    I once watched, comically, a report about the rise of the new black panthers on Fox. I was born in Philly (raised in NJ) thus I still have very deep Philly ties. My Philly people laughed at the absurdity of this story on the new black panthers in Philly.

    I was emphatically informed that a band of five to seven misfits -- very irrelevant in the Philly progressive community -- constituted a rise in BP membership and activity.

    Fast forward: Today this is the tainted ocean we metaphorically fish in...