‘Twas the day before Thanksgiving, and Facebook comments on the Healthcare.gov Facebook page summarized the Obamacare rollout…or did they? Before coming to any conclusions, it might be best to mention a few caveats, to wit:
1. People who refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with the Affordable Care Act are not likely to be posting on that site, so the comment samples are most certainly skewed.
2. Since it’s an official government site designed to help the administration sell Obamacare to the public, there are undoubtedly a number of government shills having their say.
3. Some comments on the site have remarked that negative (anti-Obamacare) comments seem to mysteriously disappear a lot. I’ve not reviewed the Facebook page on any sort of regular basis and thus cannot say for certain if that’s true or not.
With that said, let’s take a look at a few of the fairly typical comments from the page. I spent several hours, scrolling and reading. Pro-Obamacare comments are not shown in the screen shots here–after all, I detest Obamacare with a purple passion, so why would I promote those?
Wait a sec. Some of those will be mentioned a bit later, but only the Amy Williams effort to promote multiple email accounts….
Mary Lou’s post points out one of the key elements of Obamacare: It’s a redistribution scheme, pure and simple. I spent twelve years as a commercial insurance underwriter. As a new trainee in the industry, one of the first courses my boss put me through was a primer on the origin and function of insurance. Wikipedia has this to say about that:
…The (insurance) market began in Lloyd’s Coffee House, opened by Edward Lloyd in around 1688 in Tower Street, London. This establishment was a popular place for sailors, merchants, and ship owners, and Lloyd catered to them with reliable shipping news. The shipping industry community frequented the place to discuss deals among themselves, including insurance….
The way it worked was this: John Ship Owner would go to the wealthy men hanging out at Lloyd’s. “I’ve got the good ship Lollipop heading over to the Americas,” he would say, “scheduled to bring back a load of the finest tobacco leaf. But the value of the shipment scares me some; would any of you noble fellows care to take on part of the risk?”
Knowledgeable about marine matters, the underwriters would speak up. Henry figured he could handle 20% of the total risk, Thomas took 15%, and it went from there until they had 100% of the cargo covered. The ship was the owner’s problem, but if it did go down in an Atlantic storm or get taken by pirates or whatever, the price of the precious tobacco would be reimbursed by the underwriters.
A few key points here:
1. Insurance was all about spreading risk.
2. Those putting their fortunes on the line to protect the ship owner against major cargo loss knew exactly what they were facing and participated voluntarily.
3. Premium was calculated by knowledgeable people and paid willingly by ship owners who knew they were getting the best deal possible, the most bang for the buck.
Clearly, this is not what Obamacare is all about. It’s not about voluntary participation in order to spread risk. It’s about forced participation to steal Mary Lou’s son’s money to pay for someone else’s pregnancy.
Socialist style redistribution of wealth and nothing else.
This one personifies the seemingly endless frustration encountered by a whole lot of those who’ve attempted to get signed up through the federal exchange.
But wait. It gets worse.
Let’s see, here we have (a) people sending hard copies of their driver’s licenses through snail mail, (b) problems with income verification, and (c) a recommendation (by a user, no less) to “open another account”.
Wow. For sure, nothing could go wrong with any of that. No crook could ever possibly get hold of your snail mailed driver’s license, for starters…but let’s jump down to that “open another account” item. Surely, hardly anyone would think that would be a good idea, leaving multiple accounts floating around out there with all your “private” (Hah!) data on it…would they?
Okay, in this one (above), Amy Williams is still touting the concept of setting up a new account, but Heather Northrop Tucker makes it clear she considers that to be B.S. (which it is). Of course, Heather’s a bit testy, having been accused of being institutionalized, either a nutcase or a felon, take your pick. I do believe I’d be a touch testy, too….
Hm. Anybody else notice that it seems to be primarily women trying to deal with Healthcare.gov, or at least primarily women commenting? I did notice a handful of male pro-Obamacare trolls out there, federal employees no doubt, shilling for the boss and claiming great results for lots of people. It’s not hard to identify a troll, though, especially when he claims ridiculously low monthly premiums for people not on Medicaid.
Wait a sec. Here’s Amy Williams again (next screenshot), still pushing the idea of setting up new (multiple) accounts. Bet you a dollar to a donut hole, she’s a pro-Obamacare troll. “…It went like a breeze the second time,” she says.
Yep. Just down the page a bit, here she is again, AMAP, Amy the Multiple Account Promoter.
Ah, but at least Helen Susan Tosti had the sense to sign up with LifeLock. You go, girl. (Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a LifeLock fan, either.)
Aha! A male commenter! Eli defines insanity (below).
Most of the comments speak for themselves, so we’ll just add a few more screenshots….
The screen shots on this page were gleaned from fewer than 200 of the 2,000 comments available for viewing on Facebook a couple of days ago. The “Affordable Car Act” (shown in the two photos immediately above) seemed like a good stopping point, though there’s much more of the same available–and that’s just on the government’s own Facebook page.
We’ll close with just one more image. Dorie Leland sums it up rather well.