The recession is over. Unemployment is history. And Greece, well they are going to be just fine. As soon as ObamaCare passes, money will rain down as if God has released it from the clouds of partisanship. Food will be ample. Fuel will be plentiful. And health care premiums will drop 3,000%.
It’s a Christmas miracle.
“You’re employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000% which means they could give you a raise,” Obama told a sparse crowd of 200 yesterday in Ohio.
Not only will ObamaCare lower premiums, Obama assured, but it’ll rake in dough. Massive dough. Actually, we’ll all be rich. Except for health insurance providers. They’ll be very, very poor.
If premiums fell by a trifle 100%, that would mean insurance would be free. But no. The magic doesn’t end until America goes home drunk with health care coverage and the money they’ll be making. Forget working for yourself. Forget investing. Just buy an expensive health insurance policy and start shopping for your second home in Tuscany.
If your current health insurance policy costs $5,000 a year, insurance companies will pay you $145,000 a year (2,900 percent multiplied by $5,000). If you’re fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year. There’s no word whether you can purchase a more expensive health insurance policy to increase the amount of money that insurers pay you each year.
When considering how ObamaCare will be the end of poverty, disease, and poor-fitting shoes, it’s difficult to understand why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having to pat her head, rub her belly, and perform all other forms of weird human tricks to secure the current 37 Democrats still “no” on ObamaCare, with 11 still solidly “undecided.”
What’s the holdup? Utopia and a 3,000% premium decrease is just one House vote away.
But you have to hand it to Pelosi. She got it right last week. We really don’t know what’s in the ObamaCare bill. And it’s appears neither does Obama.









March 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Tara,
Another example of the best you can do: excreting words and calling them paragraphs.
Yellow does not match your eyes, oh wait, it does!
March 16th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
@mizdaice
You’re such a sweetie. Thank you for noticing my eyes. I’m flattered.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Mizdaice.
Is that really the best you’ve go to offer?
I mean, come on… you’re better than that. The least you could of done was to come up with was something a little more critical than just attacking the grammatics of the authors post.
How bout we actually take look at and discuss this sht thats being curammmed down our fckng throats.
Wanna talk about “YELLOW”?
Maybe that yellow stripe down your back is what really needs approaching. Because you’re the one too chkn sht to actually debate/discuss the real issue
March 16th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Mickey,
I’m calling out Tara on her yellow journalism. Here’s an example of what yellow journalism does to lucid thinking. You wrote: “this sht thats being curammmed down our fckng throats.”
That’s right Mickey, Tara’s writing “his sht thats being curammmed down our fckng throats.”
It’s not about grammar or mechanics its about ideas and they way people write about them. Now I’m calling you out for being an idiot.
But I still like you and especially like reading and commenting on all the hokey stuff you folks put up here. Thank God for the first amendment.
Tara,
You’re very welcome.
March 16th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
damn it jim
obama is a socialist not a mathematician
March 16th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
yeah, he misread his speech. What he meant to say was $3000 per person.
March 16th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Yeah Missdaize, you’re still the loser
I presented in the beginning because of the attention and time you spend on pedantic and irrelevent issues.
“YELLOW JOURNALISM”?
You have no right to speak or represent terms anymore than an illitrate misspelling SOB like I am most of the time.
Get off your high horse, the one most call a “Unicorn’ with a rainbow shooting out is a$$
March 17th, 2010 at 1:41 am
“yeah, he misread his speech. What he meant to say was $3000 per person.”
damn it Arriba
obama is a socialist not a reader
March 17th, 2010 at 5:00 am
You people are pathetic. The figure is $3000 not 3000%, the whitehouse quickly issued a statement to correct this presidents mis-speak. He uses this figure often, here is an example of the correct wording: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-insurance-reform-st-charles-mo
Seriously, this is why we are ‘ramming it down your throats’ – you are so ignorant of the facts here, and you do realize the BILLS ARE FREE ONLINE AND SO ARE ALL THE CBO ANALYSES! Educate yourselves, please, your ignorance is embarassing for you.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:14 am
facts plaese [sic] – aside from mis-spelling your own nic on your comment, you berate ‘you people’ as being pathetic for repeating what the president mis-spoke. You call ‘you people’ ignorant and pathetic and then explain that the president mis-spoke but went back and the White House went back and corrected it.
Do you even see the irony in that or are you intentionally being ironic?
March 17th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Will this windfall be available in all 57 states??
March 17th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I thought we only had 56 states. Maybe Kenya was just annexed too.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I’m just going to assume the writer didn’t know the Whitehouse quickly corrected Obama’s statement, i.e., that he meant to say premium decrease by $3K. While his statement was certainly a gaffe on Obama’s part, what I find even more stupid is that there are Americans apparently ok with leaving our current health insurance system exactly as is. If you paid what my healthy family pays per month for insurance, you might feel differently.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
[...] our wallets and healthCanton RepositoryCONGRESSMAN WAITING UNTIL BILL IS READWatertownDailyTimes.comNew ObamaCare Claim: 3000% Rate Decrease Means Health Insurance Companies …Right PunditsFiredoglake (blog) -NPRall 683 news articles » No Comments [...]
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Math Lesson: Percentages
A reduction “by” is not the same as a reduction “of.” A reduction “by” means you divide (by), ie if an employer pays $10,000, a 3000% reduction is $10,000/ 3000% = $333. A reduction “of” would be $10,000 multiplied by 3000% giving you the crazy numbers, and that wouldn’t be a reduction! It would have been simpler if he had said employers may be paying up to 3% “of” their current cost. But then what sounds more profound, 3 or 3000? After-all it is politics.