Boehner Tweets Link Showing Obamacare Works — After Voting to Repeal It for the 40th Time

boehner12While Republicans are rarely known for making a whole lot of sense, a tweet I saw from House Speaker John Boehner yesterday really takes the cake.  In an apparent attempt to claim that the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” will raise health care premiums for Ohioans by 41%, Boehner actually tweeted a link to a story that shows premiums will go down for most people in the state.

Boehner tweeted:





Sure, in the story Boehner linked, the top paragraph of the article reads:

Ohio insurance regulators Thursday released rates for health insurance to be sold on the new state marketplace and said premiums for individuals will rise an average of 41 percent compared with 2013 rates.

Good news for Boehner and his fellow Republicans, right?

That is until you read all the way down to the—third paragraph:

But the average 2014 premium of $332.58 a month for individuals, unveiled by Ohio Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, masks the fact that for many individuals, premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses will go down.

In fact, the article goes into some great detail on the many benefits of Obamacare.  It claims about 80 to 90 percent of people who, according to the non-partisan CBO, use the state exchanges will qualify for federal subsidies to reduce or eliminate costs.

The article also goes on to tell how the 41% figure was calculated, essentially saying that specific health care coverages and plans were picked to artificially create a much lower 2013 average premium expense.  For example, the individuals they used for the 41% figure were taken from a much healthier pool of people than the average population.  Of course, healthier people usually pay less for health care.

Now the article does allude to one group of people which might see their premiums increase—young, healthy individuals who buy their own coverage.  But, that’s of course before you factor in subsidies that will offset some of the cost.  Older, pre-Medicare individuals will most likely see lower premiums.

The article also states that because of the requirements the Affordable Care Act establishes, most citizens will have access to a wider range of health care services.

Basically, what Boehner and his fellow Obamacare opponents often do is quote prices for premiums before any subsidies are taken off.  But in this “41%” number, they not only used costs before federal subsidies, they skewed the pool of data for 2013 to reflect a much lower premium costs than you see with the general population.

Something this article clearly points out.

So, in Boehner’s rush to bash the Affordable Care Act on his Twitter account, apparently he either didn’t read the article—or didn’t make it past the first paragraph.

Because what he ended up doing was tweeting a link to a story which actually shows Obamacare will help most citizens living in Ohio, and Americans in general.

I would encourage everyone to please head over to Boehner’s website and send him a big thank you for tweeting a story that actually shows Obamacare will help not just most of the people of Ohio—but most of the country as well.

But email him soon, I’m sure he’s already preparing for the House to vote for the 41st time to repeal the health care law as soon as they return from their 5 week summer vacation.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Mainah

    I am tired of this. It’s law. Why don’t they work on something that isn’t? Oh … like, say the jobs bill? That would be just peachy.

    • Jealith

      They have decided they don’t want to work at all because corporations are paying them more not to than we pay them to do their job. They need to be fired but since all we can do is vote them out we are pretty much screwed. By the time the vote comes up they will have done something big. It will be in the news and they will have it plastered all over and their idiot followers will vote them back into office again-to do nothing, all the while saying it was Obama’s fault nothing was accomplished.

      • Bob

        Just the same way you said everything was Bush’s fault…. funny circle huh?

      • Skip Batz

        Yeah but Bush had a one-party congress for far longer than Obama – and because of that he accomplished a lot. Going to war for fraudulent reasons, gutting the constitution, turning a surplus into a deficit rather than use it to run down the debt (well, he DID have to make good on his vote-buying promise and paid out $300 to citizens), wrecking public education, signing unfunded mandates into law that were DESIGNED to wreck government programs for the elderly, destroying the economy… *sniff* Good times, eh?

    • Gary

      First of all the Republicans in this House have not worked on one single Issue or Bill to help Working American Families, the Poor or our Seniors in over Four Years.. They have however made sure the Rich did not get taxed.. Its time to remove the Trash from the House my friends.. its time to replace those who will not work with those who love our Country and want a better America…

      John Boehner promotes the Key Stone Pipe LIne saying it will create jobs and help all of America.. The truth is this man had a chance to create Jobs with the Jobs Bill and the Bill for our Infrastructure and refused to work on that .. but he still promote the pipe line, but I guess its because he has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN STOCK IN IT…


      • moonkat51

        I thought it was Cantor who invested heavily into it, Could it be both of them? I’m sure they are not the only ones either. I’m sure there are some Dems too. Like maybe Schumer

    • Matthew Reece

      A statutory law is an opinion enforced at gunpoint by agents of the state. As the enforcement of law requires the initiation of force, which is immoral because it violates the logical right of bodily ownership, and an unenforced law is of no significance, we may conclude that statutory law is inherently immoral.

      As for jobs, the belief that government can create net jobs is an example of the broken window fallacy.

      • Mainah

        How is statutory law an opinion? It’s the law of the land. No, it simply states, much like car insurance, that if you don’t have it you will be fined by a percentage of your net income filed. Much like if you chose not to have insurance, there’s a fine associated with it. The same issues were brought up when the Social Security Program came about. As for stating it violateds the bodily ownership, how so? Just because you have access to affordable healthcare doesn’t mean you have to use it? If it was so inherently immoral then you think they would stop regulating women’s organs. I suggest you read your history. The New Deal did bring about jobs in way of infrastructure and jobs to those that were jobless. Please back up your argument in regards to that being a fallacy.

      • Matthew Reece

        Please read America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard to know the truth about the New Deal. FDR made the problems much worse.

      • Shane Randy Lee Burlech

        I’m pretty sure he asked YOU to provide evidence to that fact, and in your own words using research that you’ve done. I’m pretty sure he didn’t ask you to throw a book at him. Try again please, Matthew Reece.

      • Mainah

        Yes I did Shane. Oh, and I’m a she and … yes, I did not need another libertarian book hurled at me. Ha!Ha!

      • Shane Randy Lee Burlech

        *chuckles* My appologies then, Mainah. I’ll be more careful in the future.

      • Mainah

        He’s no different than Ayn Rand and comes from the same era. He’s an extreme libertarian and of course he would write adversely to The New Deal. If you know economics than you know that part of the equation in a demand economy is AD=C+I+G+(X-M) now in the opposite supply side argument is back off tax and that will cause the private sector to invest … which Regan tried in his “Trickle Down Theory.” So, how about replying to the rest of my post? Thanks so much.

      • Pipercat

        Murray Rothbard was the the pinball of the esoteric Libertarian intelligentsia of the last century.

      • Mainah

        I just have a hard time with anything that screams “Let loose the dogs of war” style economics and yes, I have read some of his ideas but … like Atlas shrugged … I really couldn’t get into it.

      • Suzanne Longo

        A government can not be run like a business. A business’ main goal is to create profits. A government’s goal is to take care of the people. The federal or state governments can create jobs and do create jobs all the time. They hire construction companies for fixing and building our roads and bridges. They hire teachers. They hire police. They hire people to help run the government. I could go on and on. The next time you need your driver’s license renewed, it will be a government worker who will renew your license.

      • Matthew Reece

        I agree that a government cannot be run like a business. A business cannot force people to buy its products or lock people in cages for refusing to support it.

      • Carlos

        That’s because monopolies and trusts are illegal and cartels are heavily discouraged by government regulation. In places where businesses are unregulated and without competition they can and do force people to buy their products. Plus forcing them to work for slave wages in inhumane conditions.

      • Skip Batz

        No, no – in the Republitarian mythology, there is no such thing as a monopoly, and no such thing as abuses. Businesses can do no wrong, people are lazy, shiftless bastards unless they are above the 47% We just… Imagined all that history. Yeah thats it. It never REALLY happened!

      • TommyNIK

        Libertarian crap-speak.

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • Mainah

        Actually Argumentum ad lapidem is a term used to dismiss an argument as absurd without giving proof of it’s absurdity. You should try a different fancy word. Like ad hominem? I think that would be more appropriate since it is an ad hominem.

      • humblydefiant

        I’m learning lots of fancy new words. Reading this threat, I feel like I’m taking Rosetta Stone Latin! Kudos, though, Mainah. You seem to have a much better grasp on this language (not to mention rationality, in general). Matthew is just repeating the same Latin words ad nauseum.

      • Pipercat

        This is an example of anti-statist rhetoric. The notion of statutory law is inherently immoral, is a conflation of natural law and common law. Statutory law, when legislated and enacted, is a process of investigation, consensus and then of conclusion; not of mere opinion. So, the notion that enforcement is by gunpoint is hyperbolic at best. The legitimacy of enacted legislation (statute) is granted by the Constitution. The legitimacy of the Constitution is granted by the people. In a Republic, the state enforces the law that the legislature creates; who were chosen by the people to represent them.

        An interesting choice of words but, there is no logical right of bodily ownership. The closest I can come is the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What you are describing is the foundation of anarchy.

        The broken window fallacy is interesting and warrants some thought. Thank you.

      • Matthew Reece

        No, it is an example of logical argument, something statists generally do not understand, or at least do not use consistently and rigorously. The Constitution is illegitimate because it violates the will theory of contract and the logical right of freedom of association.

        The logical right of bodily ownership is proven as follows: Assume that a person does not own his or her own body. This would mean that a person has no right to use that body. It is impossible to communicate without using the body that one can control. It is impossible to make a logical argument without communicating. Thus to argue against bodily ownership, one must implicitly assume bodily ownership. Implicitly assuming the opposite of what one is trying to prove will lead to a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions equal falsehood. Therefore, each person must own his or her own body.

        The inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness follow from bodily ownership, because killing people, depriving them of liberty, or thwarting their pursuit of happiness violates their bodily ownership.

        You are correct to say that this is the foundation of anarchy; specifically, this is the foundation of market anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, philosophical libertarianism, and voluntaryism (all closely related).

      • Lawrence Hartman

        Well Matthew, show me that in a statutory law or a court decision that proves your point. You won’t be able to because what you are talking about is a philosophical thought that has no resemblance to reality. You are living in your own dream world and you know what, You are a Legend, IN YOUR OWN MIND. You really need counseling before you do bodily harm to yourself or someone else. You are a total lunatic. They do have medication today to take care of your delusionalism.

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • Pipercat

        Forgive me, but it is an example of a fallacious argument. The problem you have is you cannot prove the Constitution illegitimate by using the examples given. The will theory is an extension of laissez faire economics. The Constitution is the framework for the creation of cooperative statesmanship. The will theory is well, a theory of unfettered economics. The concept of Constitutional governance is the acceptance of the rule of law. In essence, they are diametrically opposed to one another. So, the argument is a non-sequitur.

        There is no such thing as a logical right. It’s a made up term. Bodily ownership is another term for personal sovereignty. Personal sovereignty is the correct term. Logic is reasoning; rights are concepts. Ownership is also concept that actually requires the rule of law, in some basic fashion, to enforce. Sovereignty of being is the ultimate freedom or liberty. You will always possess you own thoughts, if you will. Your physical body, possessions and freedom, is a different matter all together. There are always caveats, exceptions and dangers.

        This was always the big problem with purist Libertarianism. This notion of ownership but, the shunning of the rule of law. Outside of your thoughts, or sovereign being, how do you prove your ownership without the application of the most rudimentary rules?

      • Matthew Reece

        No, the logical proof of bodily ownership is sound because arguing against it leads to a contradiction.

        The need for there to be a monopoly on the enactment and enforcement of law has never been proven, and as a positive claim, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

        A logical right is an inalienable natural right that does not come from God, government, contracts, or our humanity. It is valid simply because it logically must be valid, whether through direct proof, contrapositive proof, or proof by contradiction (although I have yet to see a contrapositive proof for a logical right).

      • Pipercat

        You’re spending too much time trying to logically prove an exercise in semantics and human concepts. You run into trouble when you use words like ownership to describe the most basic of underlying components. The overall term for what you call “bodily ownership” is better served by personal sovereignty. I must confess, both sound pretentious; but, the word choice is key. When you use the word ownership, you are basically using a word that also requires, for lack of a better word, a title. Bodily infers, a body that contains (fill in the blank). Not all bodies are owned, or controlled, by the contained person.

        Then need has never been dis-proven either. It’s a nowhere argument because need is irrelevant and proof is not required. The monopoly exists and is in force; so, the burden is actually upon the detractor.

        That’s the false dilemma. Rights are concepts. Natural rights are concepts. Nature does not guarantee rights nor does it conceptualize; it only creates existence. Concepts require abstract thought. Abstract thought is created by sentience. Only sentient humans create abstract thought. Only humans can conceive of rights. Conclusion: Human rights. Your logic may be sound but, logic is being misapplied because concepts do not have to be proven valid by logic progression alone.

      • ugliest

        “The Constitution is illegitimate because it violates the will theory of contract and the logical right of freedom of association.”

        HAHAHAHAHAH that’s more or less like saying “I lose, I have no idea what I’m talking about.”

        Thanks for clearing that up 🙂

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad lapidem is an admission of ignorance.

      • Mainah

        So you ascribe to the Chaos Theory then, as opposed to the Functionalist view? That explains a lot. As for your philosophical empirical argument still does not show any link to how the enforcement of a law, which was upheld as lawful and constitutional, infringes upon your right of ownership over your own body. It is not logical.

      • Matthew Reece

        The Constitution and all statutory laws under it are illegitimate for anyone who does not agree to be bound by them. Forcing these upon people is a violation of bodily ownership.

        Of course there must be rules, but these are best derived from logical discourse (natural law) and custom (common law), not imposition by people who claim a monopoly on the supposedly legitimate initiation of force (statutory law).

      • Wil Dunlap

        If you’re going to tell us the constitution, the very foundation of the United States of America as an entity, is illegitimate… well I don’t know what to say. It sounds like you should find some island or other slab of land without any laws because you will never happy in America.

      • Matthew Reece

        You clearly do not understand the logical rights of freedom of association or private property ownership.

      • Mainah

        Oh Matthew … the constitution is a legally binding document and is the law of the land. Built within it is a series of checks and balances … rudimentary I know but not meant as an insult. But it was a concept when drafted. Then that draft became ratified. Even business requires contracts which is basically what the Constitution is. A contract. Also, the framework for other “contracts” that define a particular issue of societal ailment can be addressed by means of legislataion, executed and adjudication. As for the rights of Freedom of Association, you mean in terms of Human rights? That is the freedom of assembly and association. You have the right to assemble and associate what does that have to do with your point? Private property ownership also has it’s boundaries. I guess I am not seeing what your saying. They don’t make any real sense. It is just a mash of different philosophical ideals and sociological perspective. Even in the most primitive of cultures, they live by an approved societal boundaries written or not. Much like the Symbolic Perspective, we use this macro view to define us … then some will diverge to the Chaos Perspective while others the Functionalist Perspective. I guess that is why they split the sciences up … but I digress. Either way, the Constitution is a contract and by your own posting that there must be rules … that would be it. A legally binding Contract of rules.

      • Matthew Reece

        The Constitution is a contract which was signed by 40 men, the last one of which died in 1836. It makes little sense to sign a contract with oneself, so we should look at when the penultimate signatory died, which was in 1828. That is when the Constitution lost all legitimacy to be a binding contract.

        Outside of those 40 men and those who consent to be bound by the contract, it cannot legitimately be applied to anyone. Of course, agents of the state will apply it (or some skewed interpretation of it), but this is nothing but an argumentum ad baculum fallacy, as well as a violation of logical rights.

      • Matthew Reece

        Also, the United States of America is a concept, not an entity. Component parts of what is commonly considered the USA, such as the landmass, each person, each building, each trade good, etc., all exist as entities in physical reality, but the USA does not. It is only an idea.

      • Lawrence Hartman

        You must be one of the chartered members of the American fascist Party. How much do you get paid by the Koch Brothers for your idiotic moronic posts??

      • Matthew Reece

        Market anarchists are not fascists. Also, argumentum ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • Lawrence Hartman

        I had a lengthy reply to your comment back to me, but I will now just give you the Cliff Note version. You are a pathetic moronic fool just like your idol Rand Paul who calls himself a Libertarian. Another word for a bigoted pathetic soul. Go crawl back under that rock you came out from.

      • Lawrence Hartman

        You are saying you are a Market anarchrist, is that the same as Rand Paul saying he is a Libertarian which is an eupheism for being a full fledged Bigot. You are trying to pose as somebody that you are not. Admit that you believe in the Mein Kampf theory of goverance you moronic idiotic shill of the Koch Brothers. You still have not answered my question about the payment you are recieving from the Koch Brothers. If I had the beliefs you had, I would be screaming from the mountain tops and telling the world how great Fascism is, what No Gonads you little wimpy Rand Paul supporter, Bigoted Pathetic Soul. They should charge and try you for treason with your other fellow treasonous, unpatriotic traitors. Oh, that’s right, you are probably one of John Boehner’s drinking buddies. You make as about sense as that drunken fool of the Speaker of the House. Orange man should resign and seek treatment for his addiction. and for you Mattew Reece, just go lay by your dish or go crawl back under that rock you came out from.

      • Ian

        Bodily ownership? When did we ever have that? We are required to follows laws passed by congress under penalty of jail, young people can be drafted into war and killed, all people can be not given health care or food until they die, you may or may not be protected by police and other civilian protections, government and religion of regulates body issues – transplants, birth control, water you drink.. You may “own” your body, but government has a heck of a lot to do with how long you have that body.

        How do you figure a government can’t create jobs? Government can change tax structure and encourage growth for *all*, not just the rich like it does now.

        Sorry, I don’t see any of your points making any sense. If you hate Obama, just say so. Most other conservatives are fine with that…

      • Matthew Reece

        Bodily ownership is a logical right because assuming it is invalid leads to logical contradictions. It is fair to point out that it has always been infringed upon to some degree since the state apparatus has had influence.

        Government can create jobs, but it cannot create net jobs. The broken window fallacy explains why.

        I am not a conservative. I am a market anarchist.

      • humblydefiant

        “I am a market anarchist.” That’s the truest thing I’ve read in your posts. The whole “bodily ownership” thing is just smoke and mirrors.

      • alcinoe

        I am trying to connect the government making jobs with the broken window fallacy.

      • Matthew Reece

        The money that government uses to create jobs was either stolen at gunpoint (taxation), borrowed (taxation deferred to the future), or created out of thin air through currency debasement (the Federal Reserve). If that money (or value in the case of the Fed) had not been taken by the government, it could have been used by the private sector to create jobs. Many people ignore this part, which is how the broken window fallacy is involved. So while government can create jobs, it cannot create net jobs.

      • alcinoe

        Ah. I think. In honesty though, all of the history I have studied, businesses WERE given a chance to do just that, before any of this got out of hand. Guess what? People died by the hundreds and sure, there were jobs, all very low wages, barely enough for one person to live on, and even then, they were not living comfortably at all. People also had an option, which bigger business stole away by become corporate agriculture. There were so many other systems in place before taxes that wouldn’t be here now because of changing times and larger populations.
        When the corporations weren’t hog tied as some like to put it, people were slain in the streets for demanding a decent wage, and because they had money, they could hire police to do the dirty work for them.
        Corporations HAD their chance and they screwed the pooch big time. Privatization does not work, when it does, it only helps those the private industry or party considers worth saving. The rest? Ya know, those who weren’t the right religion, or the right ethnic group, they all got to pound sand up their asses and go further down a spiral because there was no help for them.
        Have you seen what corporations have done to our prison industry? Instead of shrinking, it has expanded and now we have more people in prison than at any other time in history and more than any other country per capita. How is that better?

      • Matthew Reece

        Privatization has not been tried, because all government influence has not been removed. Also, corporations are a creation of the state that would not exist (at least not in their current form) in a free society.

      • alcinoe

        I beg to differ. In the very beginning of industry everything was privatized. Look at some of the company towns that were created. Private schools, businesses that took company vouchers for which the worker remained indebted through a credit system. For all intents and purposes, companies purchased police forces to fight unionization. There were NO standards at all, so I am not sure how anyone could look at our country and say that we haven’t tried privatization.
        We haven’t privatized government, and that would be impossible in a democratic society which is also “free”. Have you seen what corporations do to the schools and prisons they privatized? Paying off judges to give long sentences for minor offenses, paying judges for delivering a quota. What about schools? Private schools do not help all children, just the ones whose parents have the money and/or time to be at their side all of the time to help, often with things even the parents don’t understand (new math anyone?). Private schools can throw a student out simply because they are not excelling. Yes, that works out perfectly.
        ALL government influence being removed means anarchy. Not the mamby pamby sitting in a circle discussing your issues kind of anarchy, the kind where the inmates run the asylum.

      • Matthew Reece

        You have to go back farther than the late 19th century. Utilitarian judges and bribe-seeking politicians favored wealthy industrial leaders in the early 19th century, which created the environment of labor exploitation and environmental pollution of the late 19th century.

        You correctly say that government cannot be privatized, because to privatize government is to abolish it. What separates non-government from government is the ability to compete, the absence of a monopoly. But you describe an incomplete privatization, as the state maintains a monopoly on prosecuting criminal offenses. Incomplete privatization brings out the worst of both the market and the state by lending efficiency to evil.

        The problem with public schools is that they cannot be objective, and will always have a pro-government bias. To see this more clearly, imagine if Coca-Cola ran the public schools, and everyone were forced to pay for them and send their children to them, as is the case now. Would the children get objective information about tooth decay and childhood obesity? Of course not; they would be watching Coca-Cola commercials.

        While a private school can expel anyone it wishes to expel, the owners of the school would not want the bad reputation that would result from unjust expulsions. Also remember that competition drives down cost, which would make private education more affordable than it is now.

        As for inmates running the asylum, that is the current state of affairs. Almost all members of the political class are guilty of mass murder, armed robbery, slavery, trespassing, communicating threats, and conspiracy, but they get away with it because they have established a monopoly on the enactment and enforcement of law.

      • alcinoe

        Preface: I am in a great deal of pain, so this may not be up to my abilities, but here it goes
        The part of this that really reaches out to me is that it seems you are claiming that companies who run these now public systems would not be biased? Your example of coke running a school is pretty much what would happen with privatization.
        As far as expulsion, that is how it is now. I have seen dozens of private schools, helped tutor kids that were in them and watched as they drove the spirit out of kids because if they did not excel they would lose their place in this primo situation and mom and dad will be angry.
        Not to mention, the education gap would be even larger than it is now, and it isn’t great now. There would be nothing to stop them from cherry picking students, leaving those who cannot reach those standards are out of luck, and if you can’t afford it, well, ta ta education.
        I certainly do not want private industry to take on crime and punishment. Again, it is bad now, but that will make it worse. I have already cited examples of abuse, and, when I can concentrate better I can find the sources of these private companies and what they do when they take over things.
        Personally, I am not up to living on Ferengnar.

      • rdwybldr

        FDR didn’t create any jobs during the depression?????

      • Matthew Reece

        He did not create any NET jobs.

      • rdwybldr

        my parents were jobless and then went to work for wpa and tva…seems like that is creating jobs

      • Matthew Reece

        Again, net jobs. You can’t know what private enterprise could have done if their money had not been stolen by the state to spend on job programs.

      • rdwybldr

        u know what private enterprise done….they laid people off and didn’t hire anyone for years …govt created soup lines to keep people from starving to death and jobs tva,wpa to benefit these private enterprises you tout so highly that would not and could not build

      • rdwybldr

        what companies would have built the dams & electric power stations in Tennessee and any other programs during that time!

      • Matthew Reece

        Any company that saw a demand and wanted to profit by meeting it. If there was no demand, then such construction was not the best economic course of action.

      • rdwybldr

        no one benefits from FDR course of action today???it employed people of that time and we still get the benefits look at where that electricity goes to extremely good return on the investment!!!!

      • Matthew Reece

        Yet again, you cannot know what would have happened if the money had stayed in the private sector.

      • rdwybldr

        i base my comment on history..yours is on conjecture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • rdwybldr

        if u like what ifs…what if Clinton got bin laden in the 90s there wouldnt be a 9 11 no Afghan war no Iraq war no big deficit 1 term 4 w and obama would have not got elected…..u want more WHAT IFS

      • Pat Durkin

        “if a company saw a means of profit, it would do so, need be damned”
        there, fixed it for you
        why are you still on the statist internet?

      • Pat Durkin

        Society is an exchange of Liberty (!!!!) for the Security (!!!) of Law (!!!), it *is* a free country, with plenty of space to go and free yourself from the oppression of law, not much ADARPA created net, and please don’t call 911, ever, no matter what
        Atlas clutched his chest…

      • Matthew Reece

        The great false argument of statism is as follows:
        1. The state provides service X.
        2. Without the state, service X would not be provided.
        3. Therefore, anyone who does not want the state to provide service X does not want service X to be provided at all, and does not care about those who need service X.
        This logic fails because (2) is a positive claim. Positive claims must be proven, and such a proof would be an inexhaustible proof by exhaustion because it must show that there is no possible way for a free market to provide service X.

        No reasonable libertarian/anarchist suggests that we do not need laws at all. We simply argue that there should be no monopoly on its enactment and enforcement, and that there are ways for a free society to provide law through private competition. Also, be careful not to confuse society with government; they are two very different concepts.

  • Jeanette Le

    most people who are part of the Republican ilk don’t read past the headlines or the 1st paragraph…just saying

    • AlbertCat

      They can READ??????

      • PhotoshopDoc

        I guess just like most democratic Senators who didn’t even READ the affordable care act before voting on it. Nancy Pelosi didn’t read it. It was filled with so much pork
        Pig farmers must be the wealthiest people in the land.

      • Dorjam

        Its not the pig farmers who are getting wealthy… our representatives in Congress are growing rich from corporations and special interests. Being a representative is quite a lucrative business, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constituents are only considered and lied to when election rolls around again. Make sure everyone you know, family, friends, neighbors, fellow workers are registered to vote and get them to the polls. We MUST HAVE A CHANGE IN CONGRESS!

      • Lawrence Hartman

        It is probably the best piece of legislation passed in a long very long time. You are nothing more than a domestic terrorist. You should be charged and tried just like those other members of the American Fascist Party that reside in the congress; John Boehner, MItch McConnel and I better not leave out Eric Cantor. The list could go on and on; Cruz, Rubio, Paul and all the tea baggers in the House of Representatives. They have done more harm to this great country than any of our enemies would ever fathom. You are such a idiotic, moronic and pathetic soul and I hope your soul burns in Hell, Fascist Pig.

      • Pat Durkin

        your hate makes us all look bad, try an actual counter argument

      • doridori

        ALL farmers, including those in the House, take HUGE farm subsidies.. and usually vote themselves more!

    • Saeedo

      Dammit, I just wrote something similar…oh well, “like” for you 🙂

  • jeanabella

    gop congress keep busy doing nothing as if we can’t see what they’re up too. They are the definition of insanity!

    Liberals know that “great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds”. Albert Einstein

    • AlbertCat

      Well, Boehner obviously consumes a lot of great spirits.

      • Nancy Reiff

        ^ Bwahahahaha!

      • JaxGirl

        LOL! How true!

  • Jason Sweet

    Forget this crap, just make it all one price, same price for everyone. That would be fair. Also, make it elective cause this shouldn’t be mandatory.

    • Deborah McAnallen

      I guess car insurance shouldn’t be mandatory either, huh? But it is the law you must carry it.

      • w000t

        Fortunately cars, as opposed to human bodies, aren’t mandatory.

      • poo bah

        The mandatory insurance you are expected to carry for your car is called “liability” insurance and it is for the protection of another driver, should you crash into them. That is why it is mandatory.
        Health insurance, however, affects no one but the carrier and should NOT be mandatory. Its about forcing you to be a customer.

      • karensc

        poo bah, sadly, you are wrong that not carrying health insurance affects no one but the carrier. Every time someone with no health insurance goes to the emergency room for treatment, that cost is passed on to the insured patients. Please, get a clue before you spout ignorance.

      • JaxGirl

        Right on! ER visits are extremely expensive and everyone pays more when they’re used by people without insurance.

      • Lawrence Hartman

        You are a total imbecile, if you do not have insurance that cost is borne by other people with insurance or we as taxpayers are paying for it. Haven’t you ever heard the saying, “There is never any free lunch.” Quit watching the Cartoon Network and do a little due diligence before you engage your fingers.

    • Raylusk

      Can’t require insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions with out making insurance mandatory. You clearly don’t understand the issues and that makes you a typical conservative and low information voter.

      • w000t

        Yes we can.

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      I believe that would be “single payer” which is hopefully where ACA is ultimately headed. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good first step.

    • Photoshopdoc

      I want the same health plan that the Senate and House get. Why should THEY get special treatment? They are US citizens, and OUR employees. And it doesn’t matter if we vote them out, they get full health benefits and 100% of their retirement AFTER we fire them, I mean vote them out. I’m sure they would all sing a different tune if they became just like us!

      • Photoshopdoc

        How do I know this is true? My BROTHER started that program…

      • Pat Durkin

        and I doubt the ACA caused this

      • Lawrence Hartman

        You are a total imbecile, I was a government employee and we paid about 20-25% of the total cost of health care. The same as Corporate America employees who get benefits because I use to work for Corporate America also. And all government employees get the same health insurance. You are a real idiotic, moronic pathetic soul. And if one hospital turns away patients, the law requires that there is one hospital in a metro area that will receive indigent patients. You have no facts, only Faux News Talking Points that you are reciting from the Cartoon Network. I guess the studies are right, the people that watch Fox News are more stupid than the people that don’t watch any news at all. Thanks for that affirmation.

    • Photoshopdoc

      University of Penn Primary Care once started a program to reduce repeat indigent patients coming to the ER to help reduce cost. They implemented a follow up visit Primary Care Clinic for these patients to make sure they had followed ER instructions and were doing okay, at not cost to the patient. It worked SO well at reducing recurrent ER visits and rehospitalization by these indigent patients that they asked the director of this program to CLOSE the program. Apparently the Hospital was losing TOO MUCH FEDERAL FUNDING for these indigent patients because their numbers were down

  • radsenior

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning.
    : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
    : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
    a : extreme folly or unreasonableness
    b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
    At this point I submit the TEA-Republicans in the House for yet another definition of insanity!

  • maxiemom

    What, Boehner and his fellow Republicans bother with pesky things like facts or reality?

    Read? I don’t think they, or their followers, even know how. Certainly they can’t comprehend the little bit they bother to TRY to read.

    They don’t even understand their job description nor the meaning of the oath of office they took.

    They’re like a pestilence over the entire country.

  • Pamela Stranc

    that was intentional on his part, he knew only an educated person would check into the facts. He posted his comment to his constiuants to keep them happy and his ass in a job, but he knew that would be the extent of their reading! They have their supporters believing that they really will get the ACA null in void , but they know damn well they cant do it and probably dont really want to. They keep relealing it just to please and comfort the feeble minded, Just like they bring forward bogus bills that they know will never pass, just to waste time. For example: Lets pass a bill where no woman can show her purtruding nipples through hur top …. didnt pass and lets try this one, a rapist should have perental rights to a child he may have fathered …. didnt pass, because its bullshit, but their supportes cheer them on …. they are well aware of this. They are happy to keep their corporate welfare (which is their only agenda) and they really dont care about your poverty welfare that you need to collect just to make ends meet while you’re working your ass of and they’re on vacation for months on end, as long as you’re supporting them, they’re happy! Oh yeah, just a thought LMAO!

  • skywryter

    In GOP world everything’s the opposite of what it is, isn’t it?

  • skiweed

    looks like he deleted that tweet.

  • Jeeebusss

    Republicans aren’t known for critical thinking. He could just say whatever he wants in his tweet and then to support it link to a site on how to make applesauce. None of them would actually follow the link and read it, they’d just assume he’s right.

    • lindylou

      Same thing happens when someone visits the Snopes site: they claim their hypothesis is true because the idea was investigated, without reading further for the conclusion. I have brought that to the attention of several friends who think they are proving a point, when very often they have helped to prove my opposing one.

  • trixr4kids


  • cyd602

    Boehner knows that the people who support Teabag ideas won’t read past the first paragraph either.

  • armoredsaint

    Ridiculous article from the perpetually unstable.

  • Trust butverify

    Boehner is two heartbeats away from Presidency and it is evident that he will say and do anything to keep his position!

    • Pipercat

      Empty chair with a napkin over the gavel…

  • unStunned

    The GOP spin engine is working overtime. I’ve been seeing the “rate shock” stuff all over the internet. It’s the Meme of the Week.

    • Helena Torres


  • janetmamajo4

    So the speaker of the house can’t even read an article he is citing to condemn something in it’s entirity?? That is a perfect metaphor for how this entire congress acts…. don’t do or pass anything that will help real Americans…. idiots….. wish we could impeach the whole congress… including the democrats who have no backbone…. Obamacare is the law… and it’s working well in many states…. if you don’t like something about it, work together to change it… but repealing it 40 times… just shows what idiots they really are…

  • Ray Dilfield

    Tried to go to his website to send him a message thanking him for finally telling the truth about the ACA, if only inadvertently.
    Funny thing – as soon as I typed the word “truth”, the site crashed.

    • Hintermoon

      that would be funny if not so true.

  • dorjam

    Boehner must have been feeling froggy! He jumped at the chance to disparage Obamacare. Boehner is such a bad joke!

  • heatherrosetsu

    Ugh! For those of you that aren’t reading closely the lower premium is the one offered by the state. Premiums in the private sector will be going up because they are being forced to offer more services per policy and add coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. My family’s insurance has gone from 80% coverage and $500
    Deductible per person, to 75% coverage and a 1,500 per person deductible for a HIGHER PREMIUM. Unlike the State, in the real world when the cost to the provider of the plan goes up the premium must go up for a company to stay in the black. And the difference between the state premium and the private premiums is not just their profit. insurance companies today have a vested interest in staying relevant in the market and would adjust their prices accordingly rather than just get low-balled out of existance. Of course that is assuming that there was ever intended to be a real market for us to choose from. This will bankrupt our states and the country.

    • Pat Durkin

      your private sector company did that not the ACA, and in a free market you could just go elsewhere, why don’t you switch plans, because in a free market that’s how it works
      but no, it’s Obama’s fault

  • doridori

    If your side has to LIE, you know you are doomed. Poor Boehner, he is one weak minded leader in so many ways!

  • Saeedo

    You are correct in every facet of your analysis, and the fact that Boehner tweeted a link that disproves his point is hilarious. I’m saddened by the reality that most people don’t read past the point in an article that coincides with their own beliefs, and this probably reinforced the will of some “Obamacare” skeptics anyways, despite the rest of the article.

  • Rebelle

    Damn you are so uninformed it’s overwhelming. Unless the government is paying YOURS, without the single payer/public option all he did was sell us out to the insurance industry. Those rates do not include ANY of the many riders we will need to cover SOME costs of catastrophic illnesses. The enormous out of pockets will still leave those of us who have worked hard for what we have, in bankruptcy. The taxes on what obama deemed as “Cadillac” insurance will now barely be covered for anything including catastrophic that leaves us unable to work. Millions upon millions will completely lose their employer based health care and obama did NOTHING to compensate them or protect them when the max fine is less than the premiums. I officially hate republican obama or bush.2 as much or more than I hated bush or chenny! At least I expected them to try to kill us off!

    • Pat Durkin

      under the ACA, your delusions are covered

  • Ed Shafer

    Every state so far that has posted data about the ACA, including redneck state Montana has discovered that rates over all will go down. It is time for the racist redneck radical Republicans to find something else to do with their time, such as pass the Jobs bill.

  • Victor Amon Reis Schmidt

    Republican reading only the first sentence? That’s odd. Thought they can’t read at all.

  • pammd

    get rid of it. it’s not what it’s made out to be. qualifying for procedures oxygen etc will be more difficult. it’s a bunch of crap. common the gov’t. payin so you know there’s a catch somewhere