More Stories

President Obama’s campaign promise:

I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Chris Conover comments:

There’s 21 different taxes stuffed into ObamaCare designed to raise more than $1 trillion in taxes over the next decade. Last October I showed that only 30% of these taxes would actually be borne exclusively by “rich” households ($200,000+ for singles/$250,000+ for couples)…

Even the lowest income families (earning less than about $19,000 in 2012) will be on the hook for nearly $7,000 in ObamaCare taxes over the decade that started last year. [See the graph.]


Let’s be clear. ObamaCare also absolutely and positively is socking it to the “rich” (approximately the top 2%). I calculate that families in that income range will end up paying $177,000 over the same decade. But the much more surprising figure is that such families will end up bearing only 34% of the ObamaCare tax burden. It’s true that the top 20% of families will bear about 56% of the overall burden, but such families also account for 50% of after-tax income (at least according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey data I used to make my calculations). (John Goodman)

Paul Krugman (Leftist “economist”): “No, what the right wants are struggling average Americans, preferably women, facing financial devastation from health reform. So those are the tales they’re telling, even though they haven’t been able to come up with any real examples.”

Yes, they have, just not ones that an elitist Progressive Liberal would accept because they can’t accept ANYTHING that is negative about their moral and political superiority. So not a surprise.

Maybe he should read this morning’s WSJ. Here is Stephen Blackwood, the president of Ralston College, describing his mother, a cancer victim whose insurance was cancelled because of ObamaCare:

The repeated and prolonged phone waits were Sisyphean, the competence and customer service abysmal. When finally she found a plan that looked like it would cover her Sandostatin and other cancer treatments, she called the insurer, Humana, to confirm that it would do so. The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible, all treatments and medications — including those for her cancer — would be covered at 100%. Because, however, the enrollment agents did not — unbelievable though this may seem — have access to the “coverage formularies” for the plans they were selling, they said the only way to find out in detail what was in the plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)

With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.

The news was dumbfounding. This is a woman who had an affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our lawmakers weren’t happy with that because…they wanted plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they gave her a new one. It doesn’t cover her condition and it’s completely unaffordable.

But bet your bottom dollar (because you will have to) a Liberal will have an excuse or a high-handed blow off for this kind of story, after all, ObamaCare is perfect and everyone’s happy and better off… 🙂

And Liberals are never wrong. Just ask them… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy