fayfreethinkers.com

Americans For Prosperity has put out another ad featuring the Buckleys of Marion, Arkansas, who expressed disgruntlement regarding Obamacare. This time, they lamely address the Arkansas extension for grandfathered policies, which makes them both (hubby is in the ad, too) look like goobers. Lazy goobers.

I left the following comment on the Facebook page of "A Bit of Hope", which is a non-profit run by the Buckleys. "A Bit of Hope" is an outdoor activity program for "all special-needs children". I doubt that there will be a reply; I seriously doubt that it will be there for long.

"Do you not suppose that some goodly number of Arkansas families with special-needs children are glad that Obamacare has given them access to insurance and affordable healthcare? How many of those families couldn't afford insurance and care at all until now? How many of those children were excluded from family policies because of preexisting conditions? How many special-needs children might be moved off of Medicaid because their parents can afford insurance now? This seems like an outcome that would please you, given your concern for special-needs children.

"I just saw the 'correction' for your first anti-Obamacare ad. It is interesting to me that after being in an ad that made you look rather foolish, you've agreed to be in another ad that makes you look lazy.

"Never mind the fact that both ads make you look strangely incurious about losing something that is supposedly very important to you. (They give the impression that you find complaining to be much easier than getting answers.) You also blame Obamacare as a whole for the failure of your own insurance company and the state insurance department to notify you of the extension. Did you call your insurance company? The state?

"Obamacare works-- or doesn't work-- at the state level. Obamacare encourages innovation at the state level, which is why the Arkansas exchange works pretty well. That's because Obamacare is not a socialist takeover of healthcare by the federal government. Did Americans For Prosperity forget to tell you that?

"You aren't victims of Obamacare; you're victims of Americans For Prosperity. 'Living in a haze,' indeed."

I haven't seen either of the ads, (don't watch a lot of tv,) are they online somewhere? Could you post links?

Indium Flappers wrote:I haven't seen either of the ads, (don't watch a lot of tv,) are they online somewhere? Could you post links?

I'm sure you could find them yourself, as you clearly are connected to the Internet. However:

First ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 ... 63747.html

Second ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhgGInYl3zE

Here's my little compilation of whoppers on this topic:
We have the Hannity embarrassment where he had his best three people and it was all wrong. They all benefited from the ACA. It's not easy to be that wrong, but Hannity has a gift. See:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_ ... obamacare/

Then comes the WSJ with their big doosey of an example, except oops, it's all rubbish too: "The Cancer Patient From The Wall Street Journal Will Likely Save Thousands Under Obamacare"
http://tinyurl.com/kvrsswu

Are these people lying or stupid? Maddow gives it a nice toasting:

"With a choice of plans in California in which she’ll save thousands of dollars a year in premiums, have a lower deductible, and gain coverage that can’t be taken away. Indeed, in addition to saving money, Sundby will gain the new consumer protections that will strengthen her health security.
Remember, this story wasn’t cherry-picked by ThinkProgress to make the Affordable Care Act look good; this story was cherry-picked by the right to make the law look bad.
In this “horror story,” we’re talking about a consumer who’ll pay less for better insurance and greater security. It’s these relevant details that didn’t seem to make the cut in many of the reports this week."
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -the-op-ed

And now: "UPDATED-Koch bros' fake "Obamacare victim" Julie Boonstra made to look even more foolish & exploited"
" Boonstra’s old plan cost $1,100 a month in premiums or $13,200 a year, she previously told The News. It didn’t include money she spent on co-pays, prescription drugs and other out-of-pocket expenses.

By contrast, the Blues’ plan premium costs $571 a month or $6,852 for the year. Since out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100, including deductibles, the maximum Boonstra would pay this year for all of her cancer treatment is $11,952.
When advised of the details of her Blues’ plan, Boonstra said the idea that it would be cheaper “can’t be true.”
“I personally do not believe that,” Boonstra said."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/1 ... -exploited