BloggeRhythms

The president’s health care tax doesn’t get much attention any more, but an article on FoxNews.com claims that people aren’t very pleased with the plan at all. 

 

Fox quotes The Washington Post as reporting that, “many of the marketplaces set up by the states and the District of Columbia are being hit by high costs and tepid enrollment numbers. In response, officials at state level are mulling raising fees on insurers, sharing costs with nearby states, and are calling for more money to be infused into the system.”

 

Furthermore, “Some officials are even considering handing over their exchanges to the federal Healthcare.gov – an exchange that has had widely reported problems of its own.”

 

What was really eye-opening is the fact that, “The troubling report comes at a difficult time for the law. The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to ObamaCare tax subsidies that, if struck down, could affect as many as 8 million Americans.”

 

The 8% that might be affected equate to .025% of the population, which according to census.gov  is now 318.9 million. 

 

As a practical matter then, the outlay is almost unimaginable because the implementation costs, and other spending, add up to a total over the FY 2010–19 period of about $1.4 trillion, “based on CBO estimates." Beyond that, “obamacarefacts.com reports that “As of March 2015, the net cost of ObamaCare is projected at $1.207 trillion over the 2016 – 2025 period. 

 

Which means that health care coverage for a quarter of a percent of the population is estimated to wind up costing taxpayers roughly $2.5 trillion dollars. Therefore, with careless, unthought out and unbridled spending it’s no wonder that the U.S. economy is going backwards. However, further news is even worse, as follows. 

 

A recent Fox News poll found “The president’s signature law still remains highly controversial. 42 percent of respondents said that they are worse off because of ObamaCare, with only 33 percent saying the health care situation was better since the law was passed in 2010.”

 

Thus, with only 8% of the population in the program, and of those only 1/3 are pleased, it means that $2.5 trillion in spending is only successful for less than 1% (.0083 ) of those involved. And worse yet, “Obama administration officials have suggested they have no alternative plan if the subsidies are struck down." 

 

Reader, sanderdog1 summed the situation up this way:

 

“The reality is that NOTHING IS FREE.The taxes are inadequate to pay for the ACA. 

 

The ACA adds paperwork and bureaucrats and IRS agents. 

 

The ACA has not and will not create one new doctor or nurse. 

 

It is destroying doctor groups forcing them to sell out to Big Hospitals. 

 

Too Big to Fail sounds familiar. 

 

The Only state to have a single payer plan has already GONE BANKRUPT.”

 

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

 

Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife comes from Todd S. Purdum on politico.com who writes: “In the wide-open, Wild West world of political fundraising spawned by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a once-bright liberal star has dimmed a bit in the current presidential election cycle: The Hollywood bundler. 

 

“In the 1990s, a donor who rounded up, say, $50,000 in hard-money contributions from like-minded friends, or gave $100,000 of his or her own money to the Democratic National Committee ranked as a big player – and got a front-row seat – in Democratic politics.”

 

Currently, although  the $50,000-100,000 contributions are still large, “In the gilded age of deep-pocketed conservative donors like Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and the Koch brothers – who can afford to give millions to super PACs backing a single candidate, if they choose – that’s no longer true, as some longtime donors active in Hollywood and New York now acknowledge. 

 

“To compete with her GOP rivals, Hillary Clinton will have to tap Democratic-friendly billionaires like George Soros, Tom Steyer and even Michael Bloomberg in the crunch of the general election campaign. Even celebrity-studded galas and concerts will presumably lose some of their allure.”

 

Therefore, Bill’s wife’s moving toward major donors seems to be causing loss of her allure to Hollywood types, such as one who said, “Here’s the deal. I have to tell you, there is such a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary it’s really kind of stunning. We’re raising our $2,700, but that’s all we’re doing. Nobody’s called us. I mean, in the ’90s, we gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton and the party and the congressional committees. Hundreds of thousands. We might have been minor players compared to George Soros, but nobody’s called us.”

 

Which is purely typical Clinton ideology, because as always, their attention relates directly to the number of dollars “donors” currently invested. So, if those Hollywood types feel slighted, it’s quite clear about how to correct that. Simply dig deeper into their pockets and buy the Clinton’s attention like everyone else. In fact, there’s even a name for their profession, but it won’t be used here because there might be children reading this entry.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios