Evil Republicans, scaring America’s young people out of doing what comes naturally to them, which is to click on websites they’ve never heard of to buy health insurance they can’t afford or aren’t really interested in.Right after "Grand Theft Auto", dawg.
9 comments:
Those Obamacare Rape Ads Are a Scam on Conservatives
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/09/those_obamacare_rape_ads_are_a046971.php
Oh, for the donors, it’s presumably about stopping Obamacare.
But for the people putting together the ads, unless they are incredibly stupid and naive, it’s almost certainly about raising money from those donors. And, perhaps, making a name for themselves (or a bigger name — I’m not looking to see who is responsible) within the conservative movement.
These ads could not be better designed to do one thing: to get condemned by liberals. Thus impressing easily scammed conservative marks, who tend to really believe that if liberals hate something, it must be terrific and effective.
...if it does “work” at all, it’s going to work on the people who respond best to the affect evoked by the ads: in other words, people already primed and ready to hate Obama(care), people already primed and ready to hate the government of the United States, people primed and ready to suspect the very worst of the program. And do note: the way it “works” is by convincing them to go without health insurance.
So basically: if you’re a rich conservative who isn’t very smart about how you give your money, this ad is designed to pick your pocket. If you’re a non-rich conservative, you might get duped into some foolish behavior, but that’s just acceptable collateral damage.
...I’ll say again: it’s possible that these ads are not a scam, but a real political campaign undertaken by seriously naive and stupid operatives. Just as it’s possible that the people doing the “defund” campaign sincerely believe that a government shutdown threat would achieve that, as opposed (as Jamelle Bouie and others pointed out) just finding it an effective money-raising tool).
"Kids today, they love buying expensive health insurance"
Right after "Grand Theft Auto", dawg.
All polls show that young adults (ages 18-29) are the most supportive of the health care law, and the most likely to enroll. And by sizable margins in each case. It's pretty much the GOP's demographic nightmare, in medical chart form.
But, like, keep beliebing that Generation Y is totes on the straight-up defunding tip. If you try to run out the clock and delay Kansas twentysomething hipsters from becoming BFFs with insurizzle, Obamacare will be so hella pwned.
Oh yeah, they're gonna buy it - just you wait and see! That's why they're doing a hard sell with celebrity endorsers.
Question: is there a single prediction about Obamacare made by this Administration that has come true?
You forgot another one: the CBO estimated much higher marketplace rates in Oregon, Montana, California, New York, Louisiana, and a half-dozen other states than have come to pass. They're already 18% below projections. Prediction: botched! It's amazing what complying with the law can do for a state's bottom line.
But here come the death panels. Now there's a prediction about Obamacare you can count on.
In other news, I expected your comment to be 100% bullshit but it was only 82%.
So in Oregon (picked at random), rates will go up by 30%, but this is 18% below the CBO's original estimate, so it's a win. Sure.
I'm sure the 27-year-olds in Portland will appreciate the distinction when their rates rise by 54%.
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html
That's for the current lowest-cost, lowest-benefit policies, which are being eliminated for baseline policies with more substantive coverage. Also, most of those affected qualify for tax credits. Many, in and out of Oregon, will end up paying about the same cost, but with better benefits.
A single 25-year-old in Oregon making $25,000 signing up for the lowest-cost "bronze" plan is looking at a $116 monthly fee. In Vermont, the identical 25-year-old getting the same coverage will pay $0.
It would be equally dishonest to say that your comment is "82% bullshit" because of Vermont's most favorable rate. But it's going to be cherrypicking season until the ACA becomes commonplace.
Neither 25-year-old would be paying anything because they can leech off Mom and Dad's insurance.
Why age 25? Why not just make it 50 so everybody's covered? There's no cost.
Can't find age 50.
Family of four, two 40-year-old parents, $60,000 income: $302 in Oregon, $193 in Vermont.
Go up one level in coverage to "silver," and it's an identical $409 in both states.
Two 60-year-old spouses, $30,000 income: $0 in Oregon and Vermont both. An identical $150 for the upgrade in either state.
Oregon has six times the population of Vermont. Neither state is impeding implementation. The pricing discrepancy looks like a local issue more than it does an ACA issue.
Post a Comment