Obamacare: Keeping Your Plan

Friday, November 15, 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses as he speaks on the Affordable Care Act in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on November 14, 2013 in Washington, D.C. (ANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty)

WNYC reporter Fred Mogul and Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of Health Initiatives at Community Service Society, discuss the president's announcement yesterday and what you need to know about keeping your insurance plan.

→CSS Health Advocates Helpline: 888-614-5400


Elisabeth Benjamin and Fred Mogul

Comments [54]

Isn't Dr. Emmanuel's message the one you heard from President Obama when he was ginning up support for ObamaCare?

""And if you want to, you can pay for it," said Emanuel."

Dec. 09 2013 12:50 AM
Jim F from NYac

Obama is a liar, liberals are brain dead. Take from the hard working and give to the lazy. Obama represents the dumbing down of this nation. The wealth gap will widen even more, Whites and Asians will always prosper, this is due to family values, education and upbringing combined with work ethic. Sorry to lazy, you cant freebie your way to a good life.

Nov. 20 2013 09:37 AM
marc from L.E.S. Manhattan

Here's my idea to handle the extension of allowing people to keep sub-standard policies for at least a year (occasioned largely by the failure of the gov't. helth exchange registration system). Why not take a page from Medicare Part D which law decrees that, if you don't sign up for Part D within 6 months of becoming eligible for Medicare, when you do seek to sign up, you will pay a penalty (either directly, or more likely, through a higher premium). I think there are various ways to apply this precedent to those who refuse to join ACA, e.g. if you kept your old policy, but now you are sick and your company is dropping your insurance so you want to jump to ACA, you must wait at lest 6 months before receiving coverage under ACA and/or pay an appropriate fine/penalty.

Nov. 18 2013 11:24 AM


"For the record I said earn and that's what was meant
Only the Feds can make money."

Buzz! Only the Feds can *print* money. Lots of factors make money, that is expand the money supply. Banks being chief among them.

and @Jim
"...deserve through honest services..." Profit is a residual so I have my doubt if 'earn' could ever be the right word. Rather than get trapped in semantics, for-profit insurance companies maximize profits by taking in more money in premium than they pay in benefits AND effectively managing that surplus. PPACA dictates that no less than 80% of premium can be used to pay 'non-healthcare expenses' including profit.

Nov. 15 2013 02:33 PM
chantal from ny/dc

my dad's emblem healthy ny plan for businesses was cancelled also! hmo i believe (caller said she had emo)
i think it's great because it was absurd that it didn't cover birth control or mental health (therapist in dc costs $275 an hour and i'm paying $33 a month for birth control) HOWEVER my dad met with the provider this past monday to try to figure out a new policy and the provider didn't understand the options or new system at all. crossing my fingers that things will be worked out.

Nov. 15 2013 01:53 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

The NYT quotes from Obama’s confused, embarrassing speech yesterday-

“There is no doubt that the way I put that unequivocally ended up not being accurate.”

... LOL, that is Obamaspeak for “I LIED.”


Nov. 15 2013 01:15 PM

I didn't vote for goodies
No one else did either.

Nov. 15 2013 01:08 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

..... and the Spanish language Obamacare website STILL isn't working yet.

(The Libre Initiative and others are urging Latinos to reconsider their support of Barry and his party.)

Obama bought millions of votes with bald promises of goodies ... and what good is a "candyman" if he can't deliver?

Nov. 15 2013 12:27 PM

For the record I said earn and that's what was meant
Only the Feds can make money.

Nov. 15 2013 11:40 AM
Soldier's Father

@ jgarbuz: That was my point - you are very good at committing other people's time for things you like (doctors & nurses to work for free, my son to fight in the Middle East), but when your country called on you to serve you hid behind your "congenital medical condition" (i.e., flat feet) and stayed home. How many hours do you volunteer (in a VA hospital or elsewhere) in gratitude to the country that so generously let you sit home while others served?

Nov. 15 2013 11:30 AM
The Truth from Becky

Why dont all of the complainers forget about signing up for ACA and do business directly with the insurance company and report back with results.

I dont hear any solution based conversation here just the usual political and race based rants. Idiots.

Nov. 15 2013 11:27 AM
Tony from Canarsie

Cue the outrage machine.

Nov. 15 2013 11:16 AM


"Using 'earn' rather than 'make' turns this into a loaded question. Did you mean to do that?"

Really? 'Earn', which implies 'deserve through honest services' is an unfair expectation?

Nov. 15 2013 11:14 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Obama: "Nobody's perfect."

Er, Barry, we'll settle for competent ... and honest.

Nov. 15 2013 10:58 AM


"Can someone explain what health insurance companies do to earn their profit."

Using 'earn' rather than 'make' turns this into a loaded question. Did you mean to do that?

InsCo's 'make' their profit by taking in more than they pay out. [simplistic, I know.] Insurance, in general, adds to the general economy by enabling behaviors that would otherwise be too risky. Would you buy a home if you couldn't insure it? Ship a million dollar piece of hardware if you couldn't insure it? Have kids?

In a time when CEO's take out millions of that premium as their compensation, I can't say that ever earn that profit.

Nov. 15 2013 10:55 AM
Mary from Manhattan

NEW WRINKLE - TAXES! As an independent worker and a part time worker we have been in the individual market for some time; couples can take the medical deduction for the premiums we have been paying as well as other medical expenses over 7.5% (for 2013, 10%) of our income. Under the exchanges we would be getting a "subsidy"/tax credit. Can we still apply our subsidized exchange premium to our medical deduction or does one exclude the other? It looks like our plan would be similar in price and coverage, but is price really similar when you factor in tax return?


Nov. 15 2013 10:52 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Soldier's Father

During the Vietnam war I was drafted but was made 4-F due to my congenital medical condition.

Nov. 15 2013 10:46 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Well said Soldier:

I'm not sure JG knows what capitalism is:

In his world, doctors and nurses should work for free - 20 hours a week for life.

Nov. 15 2013 10:43 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

More weasel words from the Weasel-in-Chief.

The American public finally, as Inspector Bucket would say, have seen the real Obama and "know what he is about."

Nov. 15 2013 10:43 AM

Max from northern NJ
When congress passes a law, they generally allow the executive some flexibility in administration of any law.

Nov. 15 2013 10:34 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

How many democrats in Congress are lawyers? Over 20%?

And not a single democratic booster of the ACA, saw this potential conflict, between the President's promise and what the law said.

Now that this debacle is wrecking their 2014 re-election plans, they are now doing their diligence?

Typical party group think.

Nov. 15 2013 10:34 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ J M Stifle from UWS

I saw your comment last time you made it and I too have no idea why they won't discuss it. Most likely because your ACA dissent is not welcome on WNYC. It seems like a genuine issue to me.

Nov. 15 2013 10:33 AM

@jgarbuz from Queens

"When Obama said you could keep your old policy it did not necessarily mean at the same price! You can keep it if you are willing to pay a LOT more."

There you go again, jbarbuz. Making stuff up to suit your 'charitable giving' argument. Non-ACA compliant policies are being CANCELED. They cannot be purchased at any price. The surprise to most of these policyholders is that a plan that worked for them was not compliant AND the added cost of compliant insurance includes coverage for many types of conditions that they don't feel they need to pay for. Maternity for the elderly and single men, prostate exams for women, etc. It's a big healthcare universe and a compliant plan does not get to pick and choose.

My car insurance also covers repairs to hybrid cars - which are much more expensive repaira...Why am I paying for that?

Nov. 15 2013 10:33 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Insurance used to be a business, and like in any business, you had plenty of crooks just as in medicine you had plenty of quacks. But usually, when a business consistently shortchanged their consumers, they'd eventually go out of business.

Since the government got involved as "insurer-in-chief" of almost everything, from banks to FEMA disaster relief and more recently to health care, the question is, is the country better off overall? I think when government relieves citizens of all risks in life, it risks the fiscal health of the government itself. That is why we have so much debt. And the risk/reward equation is unbalanced as well.

Nov. 15 2013 10:32 AM
Joseph Bell from Downtown

Re: President's authority to change rules

The original requirements under the ACA were implemented by Regulation as authorized by law. Regardless of how you feel about the ACA, the point about the President not having the authority to allow some plans to remain in place is a red herring. ALL health insurance policies are and have been governed by administrative regs at the state or federal level. Nothing new, or different. Certainly not a constitutional issue here.

Nov. 15 2013 10:31 AM
Tony from Downtown Brooklyn

The ACA is incredibly flawed. But the thing that the callers and this thread have highlighted is that democrats haven't implemented the plan well at all. People's insurance premiums went up 10% or more a year before the ACA. The Obama administration should have made that point before the plan rolled. out. Insurance companies dropped people before the ACA all the time. The administration should have pointed that out.
Some people are too stupid to do an apples to apples analysis. There should have been a temporary workforce trained to go out and educate people. Whenever you see someone on TV(usually Fox News) talking about how since Obamacare their insurance rates have gone up and their coverage is inferior. Then a reporter goes and knocks on the not terribly bright, change averse Obama haters door and goes to the website and finds them a better policy for less money. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the same wasn't true of the callers who called in to complain about their rates going up. It is not the job of progressive journalists to enroll uneducated people in health care programs.
People are averse to change. Half of the governors and the majority of the Congress are shamelessly working to deny health care access to 30 million people. But the cries to repeal the ACA because the website doesn't work are immoral and entirely political. Would you cancel the Rolling Stones world tour because Ticketmaster crashed the day the tickets went on sale? We need to separate the product from the delivery system and get Americans health care coverage.

Nov. 15 2013 10:30 AM
Susan Goodman from Jersey City

I got a letter saying my plan would be cancelled. I am a self-employed/under-employed very healthy 60-hr old NJ resident. The most decent BC/BS plan I could find in 2009 was $375/month. The premium has gone up $100/month since then-- for coverage I barely use. I can't access the website to find out if something more affordable is available. But if these companies can just keep raising premiums, what's so AFFORDABLE about the AFA?

Nov. 15 2013 10:29 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

It's clear that according to Brian and these two guests the ACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As a show of good faith I think Brian and the crew should CANCEL their employer provided plans for next year and take that $ to the exchanges and see what they get! Talk about a real social experiment we can see and hear about over time... How about it Brian, why not put you and your family's health where your mouth is?

If not you you could always make some intern or staffer do it, just like the big boys do in DC!

Nov. 15 2013 10:29 AM
Soldier's Father

@ jgarbuz: You keep posting that doctors and nurses (i.e., other people) should be required to contribute 20 working hours per week (i.e., half of a 40-hour work week) as some sort of required national service. Remind us again of how you responded when military national service was required via the draft. Did you step up?

Nov. 15 2013 10:29 AM
J M Stifle from UWS

I feel like a broken record making the same comment over and over again, but no one is talking about this.

There are no PPO plans on the exchange.

There is no out of network coverage in any of the plans on the exchange.

All exchange plans require referrals.

In NYC many, many, many doctors do not participate in any, any, any plans.

Nov. 15 2013 10:28 AM


For one, they keep costs lower than retail. For example, I spent a night in the ER and got a bill for over $5000. The insurance company settled the bill for $700.

We should not need insurance companies to get a fair bill, but this is the role that the politicians have allowed them to own. If I could pay what the insurance company pays for my healthcare I would not need insurance at all. It's like paying protection money to the local thug.

Nov. 15 2013 10:27 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I thought "Timothy's Law," passed several years ago, did require mental health to be coveered by health insurance.

Nov. 15 2013 10:26 AM
Nancy from NYC

Last time E. Benjamin was on the show, she said folks could call her agency for help. Just as she's said now.

I've called several times, and had to leave a message for a call back --and no one has called back.

What gives?

Nov. 15 2013 10:24 AM

Can someone explain what health insurance companies do to earn their profit.

Nov. 15 2013 10:23 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

When Obama said you could keep your old policy it did not necessarily mean at the same price! You can keep it if you are willing to pay a LOT more.

But the fact is, when we as a society decided that access to medical healthcare was a universal human right, that alone meant everyone would be paying for others whether they liked it or not, either directly or indirectly in higher taxes or higher health insurance rates.

My personal preference would have been to retain capitalist medicine with charity hospitals and every doctor and nurse being mandated to contribute 20 working hours a week to the indigent at charity hospitals. As for the middle class, they could either pay out of pocket, or buy their own individual insurance plans.

Nov. 15 2013 10:20 AM
RJ from prospect hts

The one issue not addressed in the in vs. out of network plans is the mental health coverage. NYS has a complicated process to obtain mental health coverage, but for those of us who do, our policies were extremely limited. Mental health providers are known for not taking insurance. Mine does not. Switching from a provider of 17 years to a brand-new one is not an option for my mental health. My previous coverage, which included Timothy's law (pls explain Ms. Benjamin) unlimited external visits. I also have chronic medical coverage. I'm a sole proprietor who got my plan through an association. My old comprehensive plan with an out-of-network provider was ~$17,000/yr. On the exchanges, paying my therapist out of pocket, with subsidies etc., approximates $10,000/yr. Yes it is a substantial improvement but remains a massive payment.

Oxford cancelled my association plan back in July. And announced the new rates. yet the provisions were not announced until 10/1., I have no doubt that Oxford had calculated down to the nth decimal point how they could still make substantial profits through the exchanges, and clearly eliminating the out of network coverage was one of those ways.

How does this fit into the percent breakdown of admin vs. health care required vs. ACA?

To keep providers we require we need some provision for out of network care.

Nov. 15 2013 10:19 AM

I'm confused about the last two callers who say that to keep comparable plans their rates will go up. I manage HR at a small non-profit and I can tell you that rates go up EVERY YEAR at the whim of the carrier. I don't see how that has to do with AMA rules. Have those callers had steady rates for years in the past? If so that is remarkable. I have a hunch that most people were not aware of what was happening previous to this and are now conflating all problems with healthcare with the AMA. My small company has stuck with same plan for 5 years (Oxford Freedom Metro) and the rates have gone up every year in various percentages. I think this is a problem with insurance companies. Somehow in all of this healthcare mess it seems like the insurance companies are somehow not looking bad!

Nov. 15 2013 10:19 AM
Ron Fletcher from Yonkers

Maybe sole proprietors are being canceled because the insurance co.s are figuring enough of them will get a subsidy and they can charge more...hench bleeding the taxpayers for a winfall.

Nov. 15 2013 10:17 AM
Cathy from West Islip, NY

I am losing my insurance because my husband and I have a small busiiness, and husband and wife run businesses will no longer be eligible for small group rates unless we add another employee. Instead we'll have to enter the individual market, which is more expensive with less coverage.

Nov. 15 2013 10:17 AM
Max from northern NJ

Can a President unilaterally modify a law that has passed both houses of Congress and survived a Supreme Court challenge in its original form? Where in our Constitution are powers delineated that allow President Obama to simply change the ACA on the fly?

Nov. 15 2013 10:14 AM
Ellie from Brooklyn

As a freelancer, I am generally VERY excited about what I saw on the Exchange. However, I noticed that the website's option to search for plans by providers doesn't work. For example, I entered my doctors' names and clicked on the "filter" button and a bunch of insurance options popped up, then when I called these companies (MetroPlus) for example, they said, No, my doctors we NOT in their network. This is concerning to me since, as your guest said, out of network coverage is not available on the exchange.

Nov. 15 2013 10:13 AM
Joyce from NYC

All of this discussion is confused:

I have it on repeated assurances:
We can all keep our current plans. PERIOD.

We will save $2,500 per year. (I am now approaching my employer to see what portion of that $200 per month comes from my my contribution to my plan--that I can keep--my monthly take-home will go us -- yea!!!!)

And besides, it is the REPUBLICANS who are to blame (although since all is getting better, I am not sure what they are to be blamed for.)

Nov. 15 2013 10:10 AM
James D'Addio from westchester

She is wrong..My individual plan which is all coverage @ 732 went up to 974.00 this through a small union group which I had to join.. they are now limited to few expensive options for thoes that need full coverage with health issues serious ones.

It seems the options for good coverage is not even available..through the government plans.

Nov. 15 2013 10:10 AM
carolita from nyc

Health insurers cancel plans whenever they feel like it, at the drop of a hat. Mine did, way before Obamacare. I don't see why Obama has to take the blame for it now. They do whatever they want, without regard for anyone or anything but profit.

Nov. 15 2013 10:08 AM
Josh Karan from Washington Heights

My individual policy was cancelled.
I am being offered what may be a comparable policy for a 10% increase in premium.

However, my old plan was a POS (Point of Service) allowing me to use out of network doctors with an 80% reimbursement. This may be important, as I have Congestive Heart Failure, and may want to at some future time choose a cardeologist who is not in my network.

The replacement policy offered by my insurance company, as seemingly all policies listed on the exchanges are all HMO's, confined to a set group of providers.

Nov. 15 2013 10:07 AM
gary from nyc

BORING, DULL, REPETITIVE, day after day with this crap,
your producer should be replaced, you should have some balls to stand up and change the topic.

what a waste of air time....

Nov. 15 2013 10:04 AM
Sara from Bushwick, Brooklyn

Could you briefly address how the ACA will effect people like myself that are enrolled in the cities HHC system?


Nov. 15 2013 10:03 AM

How is this legal? Law by decree?

Nov. 15 2013 10:02 AM

@geTaylor Quoting a neocon blog in the WP is not quite the same as an op-ed in the WP, is it, geT?

BHO has taken complete responsibility for the fumbled roll-out and will continue to fix the problems as they arise. His partners in governance, the GOP, have attempted to kill the law and have offered nothing constructive during the laws three years of existence. The Republican mantra seems to no more complex than Robot from Lost in Space, "Destroy! Destroy! Destroy!"

Bush's nadir (and there were many) was the handling of the after-effects of Hurricane Katrina. The nation learned that the emperor had no clothes. In my biased view, a faulty website and a failure to plan adequately for the few satisfied private insurance buyers (<3% of market) is not fatal.

Get to work Congress and get unemployment below 6%! We could use the new income to pay those premiums! (I can wait 2 years for PPACA 2 - which had better give me a public option.)

Nov. 15 2013 10:00 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

It's just amazing how out of touch politicians are. The people who are young or older and displaced have no way to pay for this. NYC despite its high cost of living is actually a good example to use because you don't need a car to live and work here. So how about some quick math?

Single person Income: 12/hr or $400 week net/1600 month/24k per annum (A working poor person, young or displaced, an average to low temp wage. This person qualifies for ZERO government help outside of a healthcare subsidy and reduced student loan repayment rate)

Rent: At least $1000 all utilities included and that is probably for a roommate situation.
Metrocard: $100/month
Food: $200/month
Misc: $100/month
Credit/Student Loans: $200/month

SURPRISE! All the money is spent! And those are low figures.

How does one live at all? Save at all? Prepare for anything at all? Do anything fun, ever, other than work and consume like a slave?

But according the gubment this person should have enough $ to pay toward their Student loans via IBR and pay for a subsidized healthcare program that offers few if any benefits? What about the people working in service industries making $10?

Of course liars on both sides of the debate will claim that THEY could do it through hard work and pure Horatio Alger BS pretending that in a country with a 62% labor participation rate and a job creation rate lower than the number of people entering the workforce a young or displaced worker has ANY chance to find a better job, ANY job... much less the leverage to ask for a pay increase.

For people outside of NYC who (almost certainly) need to pay for and maintain a car just to get to work they are straight sh*t out of luck.

Nov. 15 2013 09:51 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

In order to get past all the partisan BS a few genuine facts have to be acknowledged. It's amazing how easily people can be distracted from the real problems with the ACA by a few scary drudge report headlines.

1.)The fact that people are being dropped from the OLD individual market is not a big deal. These are people b*tching and moaning because they make at least 50K (that is the 400% poverty level cutoff for subsidies)and have to shell out for a more expensive plan. The plans they had were in most cases HDHP's (high deductible) with financial disaster coverage as opposed to genuine health care plans. The essentially limited the liability of the insured for unforeseen things like getting hit by a truck.

2.) ALL PLANS (even employer provided) are increasing in price and reducing benefits (shifting to HDHP's) and this is NOT due to the ACA, this has been coming for a long time, whether the insurance industry and employers are using the ACA as cover or it's just a coincidence is pretty much irrelevant.

3.) The ACA has NO cost controls, that is a genuine issue. The 80/20 rule means that the only way, the ONLY WAY, for the insurance industry to make more money is to allow health care providers to RAISE COSTS. Where before the insurance industry would fight to keep costs down now they have no incentive to do so. They in fact MUST allow healthcare providers to raise costs at contract time to keep wall street happy.

4.) The NEW single payer market (i.e. everyone who does not have employer provided healthcare that doesn't want to be fined by the IRS) is a complete and utter disaster. People who WANT and NEED healthcare but make 15, 20 and even 30K (maybe more in NYC and other high cost of living areas) are getting screwed because they cannot afford a real plan, i.e. NOT a disaster insurance plan (they have no assets to protect anyway) even with the government subsidies. They have ZERO left at the end of the month to shell out and if they take a "Bronze" plan they are basically paying for nothing, just to get out from under the IRS fine, because if they are sick these plans provide very few benefits and they don't have 10K to meet the deductible in the first place. Meanwhile the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

5.) So what is accomplished? The working poor who are in need of healthcare get NOTHING. Aren't these the people the ACA was supposed to help? The middle class get screwed out of their cheap disaster plans. The insurance companies make a mint and the taxpayer underwrites their profits. And this is "Progressive"? What a joke.

Nov. 15 2013 09:22 AM
Ed from Larchmont

I think the thing about the non-grandfathered plans was that people thought they could keep their plan - they weren't told that if it changed in any way, or if they changed it in any way it wouldn't count as being grandfathered. That might change, though I don't see how the president has the authority to change a law, only Congress can do that. When the employer mandate expires 90 million (not 5 million) people's insurance will be cancelled.

Nov. 15 2013 08:28 AM
NYGeorge from Manhattan

#1 Yesterday I tried out, the shopping tool, not the enrollment portion. It worked great. And it refers you to and links to the Kaiser website, which has a calculator which estimates the subsidy. That too worked great.

So what's the big deal? Shop now and enroll two or four or six weeks from now when the enrollment portion of is fixed; or enroll by phone or on paper.

#2 What about the 60 yr old lady who has to pay for pregnancy care? An injustice? On the other hand, what about the 24 yr old who has to pay for coverage for stroke or diabetes? Another injustice? Or mutual help rather than a double injustice. Pooling risk and offsetting cross-subsidies is part of the nature and purpose of insurance.

#3 I believe I've heard the individual market is 15% of the whole market. I know Sec Sebelius testified that 50% of the individual market turns over every year. If both facts are accurate, then after the 3 1/2 years since the passage of ACA, with its grandfather clause, the number of people grandfathered has been reduced from 15% to less than 1%. All the rest voluntarily changed their plan (they did not like their plan enough to keep it.), over the past 3 1/2 years; or were cancelled out for reasons unrelated to the ACA going into effect on Oct 1, 2013.

In other words Obama kept his promise, via the grandfather clause, for 3 1/2 years. As for the less than 1% who have recently been cancelled out because their plans do not meet ACA standards, they now have another year to keep their sub-standard plan. After that, in my estimation, not a big problem when compared to the millions of uninsured who will now have insurance.

#4 When someone complains of being cancelled out, shouldn't they be questioned about a) whether they've truly kept the same plan for the last 3 1/2 years; and b) the details of their plan to find out whether it is in fact sub-standard and/or to highlight just how inadequate it is.

Nov. 15 2013 07:59 AM

I'm thinking that "now" I can keep my plan if I liked it and it hadn't already been cancelled.

Why should the insurance industry and people who were satisfied with their insurance be required to jump through hoops to validate Obama's sensibilities and disprove the verity that: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." (F.A. Hayek)

When did the making and changing of federal law and statutory requirements become a function of fiats delivered at a presidential press conference?

Why isn't the same disastrous policy "cancellation" to be expected next year when the Administration's (non-legislative) exceptions to the "employer plan" mandates expire? Has the Administration intentionally hidden its deleterious effect from the electorate on that market by delaying "employer" mandates?

Will the same "grace" be extended to group plan members when the Administration and its political party are not threatened by upcoming elections?

" . . . Having rolled back his promise that the Web site will be running 100 percent by the end of the month and conveying that the law is likely to change some more, he has given people a disincentive to sign up on the exchanges, which may depress the already meager sign-up numbers.

"This is a president adrift, confused and entirely over his head. He has, in essence, confirmed what his harshest critics have long been arguing: he is incompetent and unknowledgable about how the world operates. And we have three more years left of this."

( )

Nov. 15 2013 06:01 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.