Previous post:

Next post:

NYTs: Obamacare Burdens the Middle Class

by Keith Koffler on December 21, 2013, 12:30 pm

The White House never stops talking about the middle class.

Based on what we hear out of the White House, it’s safe to assume that President Obama wakes up every morning, gargles, and immediately begins thinking about what he can do for the middle class.

At a certain point you've made enough money. Like at around $50,000 At a certain point you’ve made enough money. Like at around $50,000

Photo by Keith Koffler

After lunch, before taking his nap, he wonders to himself, Have I done enough so far today for the middle class? If the answer is no, he still takes his nap, but he gets on the case immediately upon waking up two hours later. Sometimes, an aide will be talking about, say Iran, or something, and Obama will suddenly interject, “WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASE TODAY??”

The middle class, of course, is not what this White House is about. Its incessant assertions of providential care for average income earners has a distinct doth protest too much, methinks, ring to it. Rather, the White House’s voluble concern for the middle class is a political tactic – the middle class has lots and lots of voters –  and a smokescreen for what Obama is really up to: Transferring wealth from the upper and yes, the middle class, to the lower class.

We see this today in no less than the New York Times – I know, a famous Tea Party news outlet – which is running at the top of its website a story titled, “Health Care Law Frustrates Many in the Middle Class.”

Even the Times, it appears, has finally discovered that the Affordable Care Act is not at all about making care affordable. It’s about taking money from the middle class and giving it to poor people. It’s a wealth redistribution scheme.

Many in the middle class do not qualify for assistance with their purchase of insurance, even as premiums rise to pay for the new costs to insurers caused by Obamacare. Middle class people who work hard and pay for their insurance are, to use a technical term employed by financial advisors, screwed.

From the piece:

An analysis by The New York Times shows the cost of premiums for people who just miss qualifying for subsidies varies widely across the country and rises rapidly for people in their 50s and 60s. In some places, prices can quickly approach 20 percent of a person’s income.

Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income. By that measure, a 50-year-old making $50,000 a year, or just above the qualifying limit for assistance, would find the cheapest available plan to be unaffordable in more than 170 counties around the country, ranging from Anchorage to Jackson, Miss.

A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there.

The subsidies “are well targeted for people who are uninsured or underinsured,” said Sara R. Collins, an executive with the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that finances health policy research. “That is really where the firepower of the law is focused.”

Did you think Obamacare was for you? Did you?

Well, Obamacare is for you, in the sense that, it’s coming for your money.

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

DeniseVB December 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Sounds like trickle down poverty to me. Those premium costs mean less disposable income to spend in the economy, whether at the Dollar Store or Neiman Marcus.

What the hell is he thinking? No wonder Harry Reid had a bad case of the vapors, you can’t fix stupid and Reid is stuck defending him. Ocare is stupid. Period.

Reply

Star December 21, 2013 at 12:59 pm

Wait a hot one! Only I get the vapors. The nerve!

Reply

Sadie December 21, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Denise, did you actually mean that – “What the hell is he thinking?” ; – ) Democrats and think in the same sentence.

Two of the better quotes on the net today I found at Instant Pundit:

“ObamaCare is a debacle, wrapped in a catastrophe, shrouded in a disaster.”

“This IS Obama’s Katrina. Except Obama isn’t Bush. He’s Ray Nagin.”

Reply

Lee December 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Thank you for mentioning Ray Nagin.
Everyone blames Bush. The Governer, The Mayor, BOTH failed. I had 10 family members at my house that came 2 to 3 days before it hit. We were in tears that no one was call a mandatory evacuation. They failed!!! It has always been known if a small hurricane comes up the mouth of the river, N.O. would be under water. There was a FIVE in the Gulf and the mayor and governer did nothing!!! The elderly or people who did not have a car could have been helped if they would have started right away. All the buses ended up under water. As far a FEMA, …. speehless.
I lived though Betsy, with no levee break, parts of city under water. People on the roof. THE RED CROSS knew how to help.
I would like to thank the citizens of America for their help with Katrina. People all over were trying to help. I know that for a fact!!! I thank all of you. As far as all the people that week who stated: They should not live there! Well N.O. has been there a long time. Every part of America has some type of weather threat from time to time. Hurricanes, Tornados, Landslides,
Wildfire.

Reply

Sadie December 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm

Nagin – what a piece of work. He lives in Texas now. Indicted on federal corruption charges x 21. Lee, you’re spot on the Gov. and Mayor really screwed up. Katrina should be a lesson to one and all – never depend on government in a crisis.

Reply

Lee December 21, 2013 at 3:12 pm

My neighbor could have handled it better than them, along with many other people that did not sit in a government positionl.

Reply

AFVet December 21, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Harry Reid has the vapors.
Hah !!!
I love it !

Reply

Lee December 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm

Vapors, I missed joke. Please explain.

Reply

Star December 21, 2013 at 7:20 pm

Some of my fellow commenters were twitting me for objecting to foul language on this site–like a punch in the eye to me, but I guess to them, edgy or sophisticated or something. They said I got the vapors. I actually had those once after my mother died–not good.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Trickle up poverty, Denise. That’s acceptable because Obamacare defies all logic.

Reply

Margie Saunders December 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

like Heather responded I’m in shock that a stay at home mom can profit $6937 in a few weeks on the computer. visit the website… WWW.T­E­C­8­­0.C­O­M

Reply

Oriese42 December 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm

my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $78 every hour on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her check was $12071 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go to the website,,,,,,,
http://x.co/3UKi3

Reply

Owen_Kellogg December 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Paging Captain Obvious. Please pick up the white courtesy phone. Captain Obvious . . .

Reply

srdem65 December 21, 2013 at 12:53 pm

lol. My first thought was “duh”.

Reply

Lee December 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Sadie December 21, 2013 at 12:52 pm

Speaking of technical terms – screwed. Anyone notice how President “I” did a little pronoun switcheroo during the press conference yesterday.

“The fact is it didn’t happen in the first month, first six weeks, in a way that was at all acceptable. And since I’m in charge, obviously we screwed it up.”

“I’m in charge; we screwed it up.”

Reply

srdem65 December 21, 2013 at 12:54 pm

CNN misheard it and wrote “…we screwed the duck.”.
really.

Reply

Sadie December 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Read about that. Makes sense – they’ve got quack reporters.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Oh you guys, I’m rolling my eyes. Sadie, I don’t know what the psychologists call it, but I’ve seen that gambit so many times. When things go well, I did it. When things go wrong, we did it. But with his staff behind doors, I’m sure it’s YOU did it.

Reply

Radegunda December 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Remember “I got burned by a website”? — i.e. “They ruined my legacy project!”

Reply

Playrighter December 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

The following 22 minute video was linked in a local paper. It’s rather dry, but gives a good explanation on the economics of “health care”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Y-5rjsaJY

(It even includes an email address for further questions)

Reply

srdem65 December 21, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Why now, why not earlier. Last year, the year before? Why now.
Is the MSM piling on Obamacare and MrObama now because they can’t cover or spin anymore, or are they setting us up for the implementation of single payer?

Reading political tea leaves is tough enough, but finding the motive for a 180degree turn by the MSM is mindboggling. Perhaps the powers in print and airtime were shocked by the incompetence of the IT Markeplace rollout, maybe they can read public polls, too.
Whatever the reason for their sudden return to journalism, it’s refreshing and a step in the right direction.

Reply

Star December 21, 2013 at 1:14 pm

If it lasts–I have my doubts…

Reply

Sadie December 21, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I wondered about the pivot as well. There have been dozens of articles planted touting the success of ocare as it continued to flounder. The comment section in any of the articles were overwhelmingly negative. I am convinced that they were used to poll the public and the public is pissed off. I don’t believe for a moment that the MSM has suddenly done anything more than to cover their asses with a couple of “Oh, gee whiz, things are as bright as shiny as we reported for five years.” The mere fact that Fox news has obliterated the competition is also a factor. Me thinks, it’s also an ego thing, they suddenly want to play with the big kids on the block.

Reply

srdem65 December 21, 2013 at 1:57 pm

Your remark on the comment sections is something I noticed, too. The negative Obama comments seemed to start at the faux government shutdown, and have only become more pointed as the lies and trickery become known.

We’ve all seen the former Obot admit they were tricked, lied to by someone they were supposed to trust with their very lives, the POTUS.
Very interesting times, now.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:44 pm

If they try to implement single payer now, will Obama just declare it by fiat? No Republican in Congress would actually vote for it, and I wonder how many Democrats would at this point. By fiat, would John Roberts declare it Constitutional?

Reply

srdem65 December 21, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Speaking of JusticeRoberts: would he have decided as he did if he knew what Obamacare really meant to the citizens.

Had he known that single men would be forced to buy insurance that covers women-only issues and pediatric care, or that millions of people would lose their affordable health insurance because of the act, would he have voted differently?

Would any or all of them have voted to strike down the law if they knew what really was intended by the Dems with this mess?

Reply

Girly1 December 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm

There is a 2004 Chicago NPR interview floating somewhere in cyberspace where Obama is attacking the Constitution for not going far enough in providing for ‘wealth redistribution’. He actually says he is NOT interested in the middle class.
He expressed the same thoughts in another interview: “I am not interested in the suburbs”.

By victimizing the middle class with Obamacare, he is hoping there will be a quick transition to single payer.

Reply

Susan December 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm

It’s not just single payer they want, Girly1. It’s all about control. The ruling class elites have contempt for those of us who reject their big city government plantations. It’s hard for the central planners to control suburbanites, so we must be stripped of our wealth and individuality and shoved into the cubbyholes they have created for us, by any means necessary.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/02/obama_s_plan_to_eliminate_suburbs

Reply

Owen_Kellogg December 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm

There is a 2004 Chicago NPR interview floating somewhere in cyberspace where Obama is attacking the Constitution for . . .

It was from 2001: 2001 Obama WBEZ Interview Redistribution Wealth Warren Court

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Obama views, and would like to treat, the American middle class like kulaks.

Reply

DMcG December 21, 2013 at 1:35 pm

When Obama is losing the NYT, it may be that he is losing. Let’s hope,

Reply

Otis Driftwood December 21, 2013 at 1:38 pm

I was more thinking along the lines of “What can I do to the middle class today”.

Reply

Lee December 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm

What did our parents teach us from young children on up?
Did they say: Lay back: Don’t worry about anything
Blow off school studies, Blow off working,
The Government will take care of you!!!!!!
Some day, instead of being considered an adult at at 18, you can claim to be a kid to your mid to late thirties.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:34 pm

Starting to have the smell of federal grand larceny.

Reply

Radegunda December 21, 2013 at 3:43 pm

Considering that I’m quite healthy and take care of myself, I consider 10% of my income definitely too much to pay for insurance against the small possibility of something happening that I can’t pay out of pocket and that costs more than I would otherwise have sent down the drain paying insurance premiums over the years.

The 10% figure comes from people who think “health insurance” ought to include (relatively) routine dental care, new eyeglasses, an annual physical — things that are more economical when they’re paid out of pocket. And they intend that those of us who have taken a rational view of insurance ought to start paying for other people’s routine expenses. Especially people who might vote Democrat.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 3:55 pm

I thought the NYT article said ‘approaching 20%’. After housing, food, utilities, transportation, and that kind of premium, there is no disposable income left. But become an indentured servant with education loans anyway and you don’t need to provide for retirement even though SS will be long gone. Save for a rainy day, bah. Home ownership, forget it.

Reply

Star December 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Big article in WSJ today on how you may not need “quite” as much to retire as people have been saying–do you ever get the idea that all this is orchestrated? People broke and angry over health–so let’s not print the ten-thousandth story on how much they should be saving…

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm

They have been silent on the topic lately. I also forgot to mention in my reply to Radegunda all the people who have had their income reduced by being fired or had their work hours cut down.

Reply

Julie Brueckheimer December 21, 2013 at 8:21 pm

I also left out the ordinary taxes we all pay.

Reply

Girly1 December 21, 2013 at 7:01 pm

Agree! If everyone but the indigent paid for routine office visits, vision and dental exams, eyeglasses, chest x-rays, CBC’s, and other minor items , it would lower the cost of H/C and medical insurance.
Why on earth do we have to pay for sex-therapy, marriage counseling, drug rehab, contraception pills, breast pumps, pediatric vision and dentistry, etc.?
How did people survive before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society?

Reply

TJ December 21, 2013 at 5:03 pm

I notice the NYT fails to include the obnoxious deductibles in their accounting. Is it just $1K a month or is it $1K a month payment PLUS a $5K to $7K deductible?

Reply

Sadie December 21, 2013 at 5:52 pm

Good catch and the first five words sums it up.

Reply

Star December 21, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Wait’ll the words You Have Not Met Your Deductible enter the everyday vernacular for real.

Reply

Nina Murphy December 22, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Mr. Koffler – Loved the shot — he looks like a donkey braying. Good job!

Reply

April December 23, 2013 at 11:09 am

Amazing! Its really remarkable article, I have got much clear idea on the topic
of from this paragraph.

Reply