Obamacare 'rate shock' victim changes her mind, calls the law a 'blessing in disguise'

As the #Obamacare website gets fixed, expect to see more stories like this

Well, just not on FOX news.

In Colorado, A Couple Finds Relief In Obamacare

There's plenty of criticism of the Affordable Care Act and how it's being implemented.

But let's introduce you to someone who is quite pleased with her Obamacare experience: Lela Petersen of Flagler, Colo. She's a small business owner with a very big health insurance bill.

But thanks to the health law, she expects that bill will be cut by more than half in January.

Petersen is 57, and her husband, Mike, is 60. They have some pre-existing conditions. He has diabetes. She has a back injury. The HMO policy they've carried since 1992 has risen over the years to $1,950 per month, just for the two of them.

"When you pay $1,950 for insurance you might as well forget retirement," says Petersen says. "There's just no way." Five years ago, she was planning on an early retirement, but she didn't anticipate health insurance costing as much as the rest of her bills combined.

At the beginning of October she checked out Colorado's insurance exchange and found the exact same policy from the same insurer for only $832 a month. "It's dropping us down about $1,100 a month. We can retire. We can go fishing. We can actually see a future," says Petersen.

The rest (surprisingly from NPR) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/05/242416423/in-colorado-a-couple-finds-relief-in-obamacare

Fellow NY'ers, how are you voting on Prop 1 and other amendments?

Non NY'ers feel free to give your opinion on how you would vote as well.

Proposal 1 | Authorizing Casino Gaming

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?

An umbrella prohibition against gambling was added to the State Constitution in 1894. The Constitution has since been amended to allow certain forms of gambling – including state lotteries and wagering on horse racing – but casino gambling remains illegal in New York.

This proposal would amend the State Constitution to permit casino gambling at no more than seven facilities statewide for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Under a law enacted by the state legislature this year, if the ballot proposal is passed, up to four casinos could be placed right away in three upstate regions: the Hudson Valley-Catskill area, the Capital District- Saratoga area, and the Southern Tier. The law prohibits additional casinos for at least seven years.

Under this law, if this ballot proposal does not pass, gambling would be authorized at up to four new video lottery gaming facilities.

From the website:

Reasons to Vote YES»
Casinos will jumpstart the economies of economically depressed regions upstate by attracting tourists, creating jobs, and generating revenue.» This will generate substantial tax revenues for state and local governments. Most of these revenues would be used to finance public education and lower property taxes.» Casino gambling is a fun recreational activity that should be more accessible to New Yorkers.» Many state residents already visit casinos in neighboring states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. New York should reap the profits from New York residents’ gambling, not these other states.» There should be a coherent, uniform state policy with respect to casino gambling. New York already permits video lottery terminals at racetracks and has five Vegas-style casinos on Native American tribal land, as permitted under federal law.

Reasons to Vote NO»
Legalized casinos are a predatory scheme to raise money from the poor and vulnerable. They would lead to an increase in compulsive gambling, which has financial and social consequences for victims and their loved ones.» Casinos attract illegal activities such as forgery, fraud, theft, embezzlement, and prostitution. These and other problems caused by gambling could cost the state nearly $400 million per year.» We should not permit casinos in New York before we more carefully study their potential impact. Casinos do not guarantee economic development, and sometimes have little overall economic effect.» Casinos in New York will not be especially profitable, and will have a limited impact on regional economies, because the Northeast has recently become saturated with casinos.» This proposal would have minimal short-term impact downstate because casinos would not be developed in New York City and nearby counties for at least seven years.» We’re always promised that new state revenues will go toward education and lowering taxes, but this never seems to happen.
---------------------------------------------
The AFL-CIO is endorsing it while the NY State Conservative party is opposing it.

Here's all 6 proposals on the ballot, how will you be voting?:
http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2013/ballot_proposals.aspx

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why:

Anti-Obamacare conservatives are chuckling over an exchange from the House's grilling of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday morning, in which Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) challenged Sebelius to explain why men should have to pay for maternity coverage in their health insurance plans.

"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Ellmers asked. Ellmers and her cheering section seem to think this was hilarious, a conclusive, slam-dunk, let-me-hear-a-rimshot punchline. "Ellmers was on her 'A' game," the deep thinkers over at Breitbart decided.

The reality is, of course, that Ellmers' question revealed only her profound ignorance about how health insurance works, and her lack of desire to learn. And that goes for everyone else who thought this was a smart, telling blow.

Let's examine why maternity care is written into all insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The reasons fall into three categories. In ascending order of importance, they are:

The rest: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-pregnancy-20131101,0,5148721.story#axzz2jVUwhB7l

GOP Unveils Its Own Healthcare Website

G.O.P. UNVEILS OWN HEALTH-CARE WEB SITE, EMERGENCYROOM.GOV


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that “the American people are fed up with a disastrous Web site that doesn’t work and never will,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and a phalanx of congressional Republicans today unveiled their own health-care Web site, EmergencyRoom.gov.

“At EmergencyRoom.gov, every American can access the one tried-and-true health-care system that has worked in this country for decades,” he said.

While Healthcare.gov has frustrated many users with its difficult-to-navigate design, Rep. Cantor said that at EmergencyRoom.gov, “Health care is just three easy steps away. One: enter your zip code. Two: see the list of emergency rooms. Three: get to the nearest one before you die.”

The Virginia Republican wasted no time touting the cost savings of EmergencyRoom.gov, comparing it favorably with the notoriously expensive Obamacare site: “Unlike Healthcare.gov, which private contractors built at a cost running into the hundreds of millions, EmergencyRoom.gov was built for nine hundred dollars by my intern Josh.”


The rest: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/gop-unveils-own-health-care-web-site-emergencyroomgov.html?