Premiums for Obamacare announced in CA - four times cheaper than current rates - conservative pundit discovers enough testicular fortitude to admit he's been dead wrong from the beginning.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.

    For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" ,  was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con, you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor  ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.

    For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" ,  was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con, you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor  ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" , was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con", you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" , was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con", you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" , was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con", you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" , was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con", you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.For me, this would be one of those moments. FOR CONCERNED CITIZEN...LOL

    A"Conservative pundit" wrote this article in Forbes? A "neo-con" , was it, Concerned Citizen?

    A "neo-con", you say? LOL!!

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    dupe

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Around here, being a neo-con means never having the chutzpah to admit you were wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

     

    Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates.

    Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.

    For me, this would be one of those moments.

    For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the “young immortals” and others under the age of 40.  At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

    It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/



    Rick Ungar a conservative pundit?  That's news to him.

    He is a Democrat strategist, and an Obama apologist.  Oh, and a big proponent of socialism and the march towards a European style socialism.

    Also, it appears that the premiums are lower only for those who are subsidized by the government.  Says this right in the article.  So, the government kicks in until the premiums are lower. 

    What a shocka!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Does it really take half-a-dozen redundant posts to try and obfuscate the facts of the thread?

     

     

    Your blurb doesn't change the underlying facts, now does it.

    Like I said, neo-cons don't posess the testicular fortitude to admit they were wrong, only the skirt needed to try and change the subject.

     

     



    Um, your statement is innaccurate.

    But, your real purpose was to lash out at conservatvies.  Swing and a miss.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    motley fool:

    "Here's the problem
    For one, with UnitedHealth not participating, it tells me that even the largest insurer in the nation is still very skeptical as to how things will play out in these insurance exchanges. California offers a moat of possibilities, but it's simply not worth the price of admission based on UnitedHealth's decision. A lack of a large national insurance presence in California's exchange is only bound to increase the mounting skepticism over how effective these exchanges will ultimately be in manufacturing competition among insurers. Even more so, a lack of recognizable health insurance names could diminish consumer interest in researching these health plans, which would defeat the entire purpose of setting up the health exchanges.

    Perhaps the bigger concern here is that a lack of competition from rivals who are big enough to make a difference -- no offense given to the remaining nine plan participants -- could cause pricing power to clump into the hands of the aforementioned "big four" in California, including WellPoint and Health Net. Some would point out that this could be a good thing, which may result in savings due to less competition. Alternatively, these insurers are under no obligation to pass those savings back to plan holders. So while the costs of competition are dropping, those plan premiums won't necessarily be going any lower."

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill, what we are now seeing in states like California is that the desire on the part of the health insurance companies to increase market share—thanks to the large influx of customers as a result of Obamacare—is driving prices downward.

    That is precisely what the President said would happen.



    motley fool:

    "Here's the problem
    For one, with UnitedHealth not participating, it tells me that even the largest insurer in the nation is still very skeptical as to how things will play out in these insurance exchanges. California offers a moat of possibilities, but it's simply not worth the price of admission based on UnitedHealth's decision. A lack of a large national insurance presence in California's exchange is only bound to increase the mounting skepticism over how effective these exchanges will ultimately be in manufacturing competition among insurers. Even more so, a lack of recognizable health insurance names could diminish consumer interest in researching these health plans, which would defeat the entire purpose of setting up the health exchanges.

    Perhaps the bigger concern here is that a lack of competition from rivals who are big enough to make a difference -- no offense given to the remaining nine plan participants -- could cause pricing power to clump into the hands of the aforementioned "big four" in California, including WellPoint and Health Net. Some would point out that this could be a good thing, which may result in savings due to less competition. Alternatively, these insurers are under no obligation to pass those savings back to plan holders. So while the costs of competition are dropping, those plan premiums won't necessarily be going any lower."

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill, what we are now seeing in states like California is that the desire on the part of the health insurance companies to increase market share—thanks to the large influx of customers as a result of Obamacare—is driving prices downward.

    That is precisely what the President said would happen.



    motley fool:

    "Here's the problem
    For one, with UnitedHealth not participating, it tells me that even the largest insurer in the nation is still very skeptical as to how things will play out in these insurance exchanges. California offers a moat of possibilities, but it's simply not worth the price of admission based on UnitedHealth's decision. A lack of a large national insurance presence in California's exchange is only bound to increase the mounting skepticism over how effective these exchanges will ultimately be in manufacturing competition among insurers. Even more so, a lack of recognizable health insurance names could diminish consumer interest in researching these health plans, which would defeat the entire purpose of setting up the health exchanges.

    Perhaps the bigger concern here is that a lack of competition from rivals who are big enough to make a difference -- no offense given to the remaining nine plan participants -- could cause pricing power to clump into the hands of the aforementioned "big four" in California, including WellPoint and Health Net. Some would point out that this could be a good thing, which may result in savings due to less competition. Alternatively, these insurers are under no obligation to pass those savings back to plan holders. So while the costs of competition are dropping, those plan premiums won't necessarily be going any lower."

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     




     

    Are the facts cited in the article incorrect?




    They don't line up with the title of this thread.

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     




     

    Are the facts cited in the article incorrect?

     




    They don't line up with the title of this thread.

     

     

     

    Are you slow?

    My mischaracterization of the authors politics in no way change the facts... unless you are an idiot who can't argue the facts, then by all means carry on.

     




    I guess I am slow.

     

    Claiming that the California exchange is four times cheaper than current care, then reading the article, and finding out that it is cheaper only for those who are subsidized by the government, means that the facts don't line up with your claim.

    Also consider that this subsidy does not mean that healthcare is cheaper.  A large portion is simply paid for by the tax payer, in order to make it look cheaper.  I call that "progressive goggles".

    You with me?

     

Share