Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses

Please click on the image for a larger, more readable version.


I escaped Washington, DC and now teach at Stanford's Graduate School of Business.

Posted in health
42 comments on “Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses
  1. Randy Randol says:

    Flow chart is great visual…need to show the flow for Employer insurance as well.

    People are getting lost in the details…some “pundits” need education…individual policies are different than small business grp policies and larger co grp policies.

    Each has its own set of triggers and consequences: premium increases, additions to Medicaid(major state budget impact), reduction in hours(adds to underemployment and loss of tax revenue), reduction in staff(stagnation in job growth), payment of penalties v grp ins.

    Can you also estimate the impact of the Medicaid enrollment v what the Admin assumed?


  2. Subject: OBAMACARE AT 76, ADIOS

    If you don’t read this, and do nothing about it, don’t complain when it affects you or your loved ones!!!!!

    This is the second Judge to have read the Obama Care document and made comments. More highlights of Nancy ‘s “pass it and Then find out what’s in the bill”!!!!!!

    Show this to everyone nearing the ripe old age of 76. These are just a few of the things that we Seniors are going to have to deal with starting in 2014.

    Even far left Democrats will not like these.


    PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be read by everyone, especially important to those over 75……. If you are younger, then it may apply to your parents….

    Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in this year and 2014!

    YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS… At age 76 when you most need it most, you are not eligible for cancer treatment * see page 272 What Nancy Pelosi didn’t want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, “We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what’s in it.” Well, here it is.


    Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB 3200 Please read this……. especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

    JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

    ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

    ** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

    ** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).

    ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.

    (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

    ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees. This is what they do in Sweden too. I know because Alf’s daughter Ann is an OBGYN, and her husband, Thorsten, is a surgeon………

    ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.

    ** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

    ** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

    ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

    HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

    “Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.

    No wonder they did not see the need to read it….doesn’t apply to them!!!


    Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas

    All of the above should give you the ammo you need to oppose Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.

    • temblor4 says:

      Unfortunately, Martha, everything you say is not true.

      You count on no one actually checking, don’t you?

      Well, sorry kiddo, I checked and you do not have one FACT in your entire e mail.

      • richard40 says:

        notice temblor dismisses marthas whole detailed comment as false, while providing no detailed refutation of anything. At least he should have called out several specific ecample lines and say something like “you say xxx, but the truth is xxx”.
        Because of this I suspect martha is correct, and temblor is the spinner.

  3. Jim Morrison says:

    The President also pledged “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. When Americans discover that this is no more true than the pledge about keeping their plans they will REALLY be upset. Unless, of course, they conclude that the doctor they liked was simply “substandard”.

    • Astolph says:

      Of course your doctor was substandard – he was probably planning to saw off your foot anyway!

    • temblor4 says:

      Sorry Jim, you must present PROOF of your allegations. Since there is none, the explanation for why you give none is obvious.

      • crackermike says:

        Jim’s statement is true on prima fascie evidence. Now the dems say the Ins Co’s cancelled the policies that Obama promised people they could keep, not the law. The Ins Co’s must follow the law of the land. And the law states, as an example, pregnancy insurance and birth control MUST be carried by old, single men, and couples in their 60’s, and Gays and Lesbians and if that policy they’re happy with doesn’t have those useless things, they don’t meet the laws stipulations and the policy is therefore illegal and MUST be cancelled to be within this law. But Obama STILL claims it’s not the law. THE LAW IS THE PRECIPITATING FACTOR. Only a very stupid or drug damaged person fails to see this direct relationship. Do you also suggest Obama didn’t make his statements about liking and keeping your Dr and Plan?? This is a Stalinist style denial of obvious, publicly recognized fact. It’s Orwellian, It’s Kafkaesque. It’s surreal. NO PROOF? ARE YOU INSANE??

      • richard40 says:

        We have already heard ample reports that the ACa plan netwroks are severely restricted, and leave out many of the better doctors. And many of the people who had their individual plans cancelled have also reported that the ACA plans that have equivalent price do not cover their doctors. I called you out for spinning in response to a truthful comment once, looks like you are doing it again.

  4. JackT says:

    I don’t see “blame Republicans”.

    • temblor4 says:

      One of us is insane crackermike, and it ain’t me…

      One of us has gone over the edge, and it ain’t me…

    • temblor4 says:

      Prima fascie evidence? Yes, crackermike, the policies will have lots of stuff no one needs, for instance, coverage for pre-existing conditions. Only a small percentage have pre-existing conditions but all the policies will cover it.

      Have you noted that premiums will be the same for men and women of the same age living in the same territory? No, I guess not. It appears you haven’t noticed much of anything execpt the hard right repugnaticans sayings and sprayings. The law provides very broad coverage for everyone, realizing that not everyone will need coverage for pregnancies, or birth control, or pre-existing conditions.

      And what’s wrong with that? It smooths out the premiums so that everyone pays essentially the same, with only a few parameters in differences.

      Time to read up on the program, on your own, cracker.

      • richard40 says:

        On prexisting conditions, you are basically saying that anybody who does not have a prexisting condition has to pay more to subsidize those that do, and you think those people paying more should be grateful for that. And some of the mandates that people are forced to pay for are things that the person could never use in the whole rest of their life, like maternity and birth control for 50 yr olds, or substance abuse treatment for people who have never used illegal drugs, and never plan to, or paying off big pharma by mandating coverage for name brands and not just generic equavelents.
        Basically any group with enough political clout, or enough money to give the right people the right amount of graft, got their pet coverage mandated, and we all have to pay for it whether we want to or not. And you expect all of us to thank you guys for saving us from our so clled bad policies, and saddling us with your more expensive ones, with worse copays, and worse networks, but plenty of politically mandated coverages for junk we dont want or need.

      • Cheryl C. says:

        When you end your diatribe with “cracker”, you out yourself as a filthy racist… ENJOY it you POS! And by the way nimrod, I take care of myself, I don’t eat fast food, and I exercise… if YOU think I should have to help support lazy, Big Mac eating Jelly Belly morons… think again!

  5. I missed the box that says: “Blame Tea Party and Republicans in general.”

  6. Kayleigh O'Twin says:

    The entire reason WHY the Tea Party was founded was because of what Obama lied about: Obamacare. We in the Tea Party KNEW what was in the bill because most of us read as much as we could each time they put it on the internet……Jack T and epador, this has NOTHING to do with Republicans or the Tea Party, you idiots…..Ted Cruz wanted to shut the funding off for Obamacare because of what we are going thru: the web site was a waste of money and it will never work. The Democrats totally left out any and all Republicans and their amendments to this monstrosity of Socialism AND wrote this bill behind closed doors without any debate…..it is a tax law that was created in the Senate, which is unconstitutional, as any tax law must originate in the House. The main creep that led this horrible elitist bill into being is none other than Ezekial Emanuel…Rahm’s brother who is a HORRIBLE doctor and elitist snob…..Obama and Democrats OWN this bill as no Republican voted for it and we the Tea Party got the House back in GOP hands in 2010 solely because of it……

    • temblor4 says:

      The original website for Medicare was also a mess, now it works like a well oiled machine. Give it time, and accept the blame for making the actual implementation so unsure they had to wait to the last minute, then patch something together.

      Also your statement that this was written by Democrats behind closed doors with no Republican input is false.

      When will you people stop braying and spraying and start checking out what you say before you say it?

      That’s a rhetorical question, I know the answer is never.

      • Cheryl C. says:

        You are WRONG! Obamacare was passed by Dem’s alone… EVERY idea put forward by the Rep’s was trashed… every single one… that IS a fact, all you’re spouting off is a LIE… which explains why you are still defending Prince O and his minions… you LIE as much as he does!

  7. Zek202 says:

    Obamacare is NOT H.R. 3200. It is H.R. 3590 . Check out Snopes for a rebuttal of the statements in the first comment. It is unfortunate that these ojections are raised as there is plenty wrong with the law as it is written and implemented.

  8. XisDshizL says:

    Hitler’s health care insurance is cancelled!


    Its hilarious and I am not just saying that because I made it!

  9. Temblor says:

    They say the devil is in the details, well, here’s oe little detail that pretty much blows the entire argument presented here: Obamacare is NOT H.R. 3200. It is H.R. 3590

    Hmmmm. What else is the tea party lying to us about in the above comments? Cancer care rationed? No cancer care after 75? No coverage if admitted to the hospital by an emergency room physician?

    And, why is it that every time a RESPONSIBLE journalist looks at the claims being shrieked from the rafters about those poor poor people whose coverage that they love so much is being cancelled (it’s not, it’s being non-renewed, there is a big difference) and replaced by an Obamacare plan that costs 10 times as much and offers half the coverage, they find out it’s not true? Can’t anybody on the far right check facts before braying and spraying?

    EVERY case that has been examined has been found to be false. Two brayers never checked to see what Obamacare offered them, one had her co-pay and company pay backwards, she had an 80% co-pay in her old plan, not to mention a huge deductible before the 80% co-pay kicked in, and was limited to two medical visits per year. Yes, of course it was cheap, because it gave her no protection. And yes, the Obamacare premium was higher, but it was real insurance that would cost her far less overall

  10. temblor4 says:

    Wouldn’t you think those who are claiming to have read the entire bill, and to have had some obscure Texas judge also read it, would know to read HR 3590, the actual Obamacare bill? What are they actually reading, old Marvel comic books?

  11. Andrew says:

    It’s no surprise that a complex initiative such as ACA has flaws–name one that doesn’t. Clearly, the president should never have made the claim he did. Period. (hee hee). It was a blunder.

    Still, sweeping reforms are ultimately judged not on corner case details, but rather on whether they broadly did more good than harm. Given that the US healthcare system consumes a higher portion of GDP than any other on the planet, and the effectiveness of our system ranks 37th, we should all agree that the current state is indefensible (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064).

    The real shame of this debate is that the Republicans have positioned themselves squarely as defenders of a failed system. If you dispute that, then please describe for me the “replace” part of repeal and replace. 42 votes on repeal–zero on replace. In politics, the smartest position usually leaves enough wiggle room to claim victory however fate and history play out. In this case, the smart political move for Republicans would be to co-operate on modest legislative fixes. Even with Republican reforms, if ACA fails, Democrats will surely wear the stink alone for a decade; if it succeeds, Republicans can credibly claim that it was their fixes that salvaged a national embarrassment.

    As it stands, the GOP has gone all in on ACA to fail. Where will that leave the GOP if the ACA popularity ultimately mirrors Massachusets, where 62% favor the changes, and only 33% oppose them (http://www.wbur.org/2012/02/15/health-care-wbur-poll)?

    Answer: it will put the GOP on the wrong side with no credible claim of contribution to the success. Given the increasing demographic headwinds (generational attitude shifts on gay rights, latino voter growth, etc.), the last thing the GOP needs is one more headwind.


    • Julian Sardor says:

      @ temblor4: So much of what you say is wrong, but here’s the real kicker: “Given that the US healthcare system consumes a higher portion of GDP than any other on the planet, and the effectiveness of our system ranks 37th, we should all agree that the current state is indefensible (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064).”

      You might want to consider broadening your reading before making such stunningly simplistic and demonstrably false assertions. For example, here’s a suggestion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/. The FACTS (not inferences from misleading data) make persuasively make the case that the U.S. in fact has outcomes from medical treatment that are superior to every other country.

      Or, I suppose you might want to continue ignoring sources outside the progressive meme echo chamber – and hope others do as well. If people came realize that in fact have a highly EFFECTIVE health care system, there would be less interest in the total transformation into a significantly approach like Obamacare.

      • Andrew says:

        Oh, Julian.

        How silly and “simplistic” of me to cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal like the New England Journal of Medicine, when there are more rigorous academic sources available, like a partisan hack who blogs on Forbes and appears on Hannity.

        I read the Forbes piece, did you read the NEJM one? Because the Forbes piece attacks a straw man that has very little to do with the poor ranking of our healthcare system. He makes the case that life expectancy is a poor indicator of healthcare quality. But the NEJM piece clearly states that their rankings are much more broad than that. Let’s take just one input as an example. Please explain why are we 37th in infant mortality, and why that shouldn’t matter. Another key measure is access to affordable primary care. As noted in the Forbes piece, we do a great job with people who walk into the emergency room in pain with untreated late stage cancer, but treatment at that point is expensive and ineffective compared to routine screenings and early intervention. Access to affordable primary care is another obvious measure of healthcare system effectiveness–and one where we currently score poorly.

        I’m still waiting for your explanation of the “replace” plan that addresses these issues.

  12. DamnWalker says:

    Its nice to see tremblor & andrew attempt to defend the indefensible. But I agree with andrew that this mess is owned exclusivley by the democrats. And as to comparing ACA to Massachusetts, 2 flaws there. The first is the difference between a limited geographical implementation versus an expanded implementation across multiple markets; see Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Its too big to respond to market triggers and doomed to fail. The other is the assumption that all the other markets are similar to Massachusetts. I can assure you the rest of the country is not similar to Taxachusetts at all. They are the secular descendants of the central control obsessed Puritans, simply replacing the Puritans faith in God with faith in the state, while keeping the idea of an elite that decides for everyone else what is best. Good luck with that. Cheers in November 2014 when Ocare/ACA leads to the 2nd consecutive mid-term shift and republican/libertarian takeover of the senate as well.

  13. […] Hennessy – Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses submitted by The Glittering […]

  14. […] found objectionable. Keith Hennessey, a veteran of the Bush White House, constructed a flowchart of the “keep your plan” defenses made by the president and his allies, the complexity of which […]

  15. […] Place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Keith Hennessy – Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses submitted by The Glittering […]

  16. […] Place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Keith Hennessy –Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses  submitted by The Glittering […]

  17. […] Place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Keith Hennessy –Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses  submitted by The Glittering […]

  18. […] Place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Keith Hennessy – Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses  submitted by The Glittering […]

  19. […] Place t with 1 2/3 votes – Keith Hennessy –Flowchart of President Obama’s “You can keep your plan, period” defenses  submitted by The Glittering […]

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,545 other followers