Obamacare health insurance enrollment kicks off on Wednesday, and in the wake of President Donald Trump draining almost all funding to promote sign-ups, Democratic governor candidate JB Pritzker is paying about $1 million to run radio and digital ads to run all across Illinois.
The ads start on Wednesday and will run through the enrollment period, which ends Dec. 15. The site to enroll is www.healthcare.gov.
Pritzker, locked in a Democratic primary, is making the ad buy as Democrats at the local and national levels are trying to fill in the gaps caused by Trump’s attempts to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s signature Affordable Health Care Act. […]
In one spot, Pritzker says,”There are hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans currently benefiting from Obamacare, but one of Donald Trump’s strategies to kill the program is to make it harder to sign up. This year, he’s cut the period to enroll in Obamacare by half and cut advertising to tell people about it by 90 percent. We can’t let Donald Trump win.
PRITZKER: That’s what Donald Trump said, and now that he’s in office, that’s exactly what he’s trying to do. This is JB Pritzker. There are hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans currently benefiting from Obamacare, but one of Donald Trump’s strategies to kill the program is to make it harder to sign up. This year, he’s cut the period to enroll in Obamacare by half and cut advertising to tell people about it by 90 percent. We can’t let Donald Trump win.
If you’re interested in signing up, the enrollment period is from November 1 to December 15. For more information, go to www.healthcare.gov. That’s www.healthcare.gov. Again, this is JB Pritzker. The truth is, there’s a lot that can be done in Illinois to fight against what’s going on in Washington, but Bruce Rauner’s doing nothing. As your governor, I’ll stand up to Donald Trump and always fight for Illinois.
The 21st had a good interview on this recently: October 23, 2017 Signing Up For Health Insurance (use your Google), and NPR had a piece this morning on how MN is able to extend their sign-up period compared to other states because of how they crafted their program:
That’s nice and all but JB has no policies here other than “anti trump”, If Trump came out in favor of universal healthcare tomorrow, JB would find an excuse against it, if Trump came out in favor of raising taxes tomorrow, JB would find an excuse against it. These, of course, are very unlikely scenarios but the point remains. We can’t just be the party of anti Trump, we need actual policy positions, and JB isn’t the guy for that.
Where are his policies? All he does is talk about Trump and Rauner. That’s fine, no one likes either one of these characters, but where are his stances on the issues other than the generic establishment democratic answer of blaming the other party?
Why is Pritzker carrying water for Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc?
Self-employed/small business people, with average middle class income (slightly >400x FPL), cannot sustain the Obamacare insurance premiums that do not provide any health maintenance.
Why doesn’t this matter to Democrats and Progressives?
At 400% Fed Pov Level for a household of two, the subsidy income cap is $64,960. That is the threshold where the magic-club premium subsidy becomes unavailable.
Last night, on the healthcare.gov portal for my zip code, the avg bronze premiums are $1500 for a family of two in their 50’s. This is with a $12,000 deductible, before anything is covered.
This premium is annually $18,000. For a house hold of two, making $40 over the FPL cap at $65,000, they’re premiums will be …… wait for it …….
28% of their gross income.
That is messed up, beyond words. Absurd? Immoral?
Again, why is Pritzker, and all Democrats, carrying water for the health insurance companies?
Interesting strategy. The proof in the pudding will be how many “middlers” he affects with this. It’s the first thing I’ve seen and heard that points toward winning the primary first. The Democrat base should reward him for this.
Is this really a new way to spend money? It’s certainly laudable, but at the end of the day it’s an ad attaching his name to a popular policy position.
Thank you Rich for engaging with “Anonymous” and pointing out their shortcomings in terns of understanding politics and policy.
Many of us refuse to give any credence to or even acknowledge those who refuse to pick a name.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:10 am:
Good for Pritzker. Trump is sabotaging the ACA and the health and well-being of millions. Republicans have been sabotaging the law all along. Now the excuse is that there should be no corporate welfare for insurance companies—after supporting tax cuts for the super-rich and corporations.
The ACA can be made stronger and prices could be brought down through political cooperation. There is a bipartisan effort now in the federal legislature. If Republicans cooperated from the start, something could have been done. But they have the base and others screaming at them, so-called Christians who are trying to push their religion onto others and the government but don’t want to give a penny to help the least of these, those who need help getting vital health insurance.
It’s clever, not bad at all when money is no option - maybe Rauner should personally appear in State funded ads encouraging people to use getcoveredillinois.gov
Is this going to be another bad-faith argument where, once several policies are articulated for you, you move the goal posts to criticize those policies?
==It’s the first thing I’ve seen and heard that points toward winning the primary first.==
I think every time he goes after Trump (and this is certainly part of “going after Trump”), that’s a Primary First move. God knows the suburbs have little love for Trump, but I think it’s a play for the Resistors first (and I think it’s working).
- Quinn's batting average - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:18 am:
Smart move. Aligns with policies popular in both the primary and “independents” aligns with Obama, another swipe at Trump. He would like nothing better than to provoke Trump to tweet about him.
I have looked at JB’s website and all of the statements are general and merely contrarian to the current Presidential administration as well as our current governor. Anyone can say “Lets balance the budget” and propose progressive taxes, but how? Where’s JB’s experience in responsible financing? The Pritzker family owned a 50 percent share in Superior bank and embarked on a lending model making mortgages and auto loans out to customers with checkered credit and sold these loans as securities to investors. You can guess how that went in 01.
===Again, why is Pritzker, and all Democrats, carrying water for the health insurance companies?===
Because Obamacare in its current form is fairly conservative. It’s modeled off of what Romney did. Lieberman singlehandedly killed Medicare buy in.
Bill would have looked a lot different if they didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate.
They’re “carrying water” for it today because it’s significantly better than literally nothing, which is all Republicans have offered as a replacement. The more people sign up the lower premiums are.
If you want to stop carrying water for insurance companies, you can always jump on the “Medicare for all” bandwagon.
==I have looked at JB’s website and all of the statements are general and merely contrarian to the current Presidential administration as well as our current governor.==
Just blatantly false. I just checked the website myself and the first entry under “my vision” describes a health care plan centered around a public option based on Medicaid.
(There is a typo in the write-up of that plan, but that’s not what you were complaining about).
==Anyone can say “Lets balance the budget” and propose progressive taxes, but how?==
Because explaining how won’t get him elected. Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would have to include taxing retirement income won’t get him elected. Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would probably translate to a tax hike on anyone making over $60,000/yr won’t get him elected.
I don’t suspect any Dem candidates will offer a definitive “how” until they get through the primary, if at all.
==I think it’s a play for the people who are covered by the ACA. That’s more of a primary base to me.==
Advertising for ACA coverage is a play for a little broader audience than that (there’s really not that many people covered by the ACA), but I agree that the audience is mostly centered in the Democratic Primary.
But my point is that every time he plays off anti-Trump sentiment- and he’s done that more than a little bit- that’s a play for a primary audience, too. After all, Trump certainly isn’t popular among Indies in IL, but the locus of anti-Trump sentiment is definitely in the Democratic Party.
=== Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would probably translate to a tax hike on anyone making over $60,000/yr won’t get him elected.===
What? Silly and wrong.
Just goes to show that it’s impossible to shill for a flat income tax structure without resorting to making things up. The brackets that would see an increased percentage would be way higher than 60k. You made that up out of thin air. Same with retirement income. Taxing that is good fiscal policy and in line with most other states, but has absolutely nothing to do with a progressive income tax.
I have repeatedly emailed both the Pritzker,Kennedy and biss campaigns. “Do you support the implementation of the Cadillac tax to pay for Obamacare?” ZERO responses. That tells me all I need to know anout their sincerity to fix the health insurance problems.
I will be interested to see how this strategy plays out. I can think of a couple instances where using campaign funds to promote/better government services was frowned upon.
Thin air is more than no air. Where are the specifics? Probably not in their best interest to communicate that just yet, otherwise it’d be out there.
Specifics on how to pay for their platforms won’t help any candidates.
==Same with retirement income. Taxing that is good fiscal policy and in line with most other states, but has absolutely nothing to do with a progressive income tax.==
Each and every state with a progressive income tax taxes retirement income. Every. One. It has everything to do with a progressive income tax. So I agree it’s good fiscal policy. Do the candidates believe in good fiscal policy?
===Specifics on how to pay for their platforms won’t help any candidates.===
Right. True. Still don’t see how that relates to claiming that 60k is where the increase would be set. It just wouldn’t. It isn’t necessary to go that low to increase revenue.
===Each and every state with a progressive income tax taxes retirement income.===
Because those states are using good fiscal policy. But there’s absolutely no requirement to do one to implement the other. It’s entirely possibly to increase revenue via a progressive tax without taxing retirement income. They often get paired but that’s correlation (sound fiscal policy) not causation.
==But there’s absolutely no requirement to do one to implement the other.==
Indeed. When IL implements a progressive income tax (and I’d say one is coming eventually), it won’t start taxing retirement income at the same time. It may do so relatively soon thereafter, but it won’t be both at once.
Republicans don’t need to sabotage the ACA because the ACA sabotages itself. Middle class self employed have been hit extremely hard. I’m here to tell you that the 54% premium increase I saw this time last year was painful. It can not continue and JB won’t be the one to “fix” it.
==But my point is that every time he plays off anti-Trump sentiment-==
Time will tell. But the whole anti-Trump thing may just not be that big of a card in an off year election in a State that acts contrary to national trends. On the Dem side, national politics is a demotion in Illinois. It’s the JV team. There’s no Hillary Trump at the top of the card. The undercard is always more important here (especially since Obama timed out)
I may be wrong, but counting on the anti-Trump sentiment better not be the highest priority.
==But the whole anti-Trump thing may just not be that big of a card in an off year election in a State that acts contrary to national trends.==
IL doesn’t really defy national trends, it just starts off with such a Democratic lean that a couple Democrats can survive Republican waves. ‘06, ‘08, ‘12 were good years for Dems nationally and good years for Dems in IL. ‘10, ‘14 were bad years, and Dems in IL lost key races but held on to a few. ‘16 was pretty mixed at both levels. IL follows national trends, it just starts out from a further-left position.
Great idea–this will be a national story–trump kills off sign-up ads–JB steps in—hundreds of thousands of middle-income downstaters getting their health insurance through the exchange–These downstaters didn’t vote for Trump so he could take their health care away.
cdog - feel your pain and example is real and and shows the extent of the pain.
One point to add, Even with these on the moon pricing - the program is not solvent and will not be and the choices are fewer - that why it needs to fail.
Notice rarely do the socialist types “do not the math” and they do not discuss it.
I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian here. 28% doesn’t sound that bad when.I compare it to my son’s situation. He makes just a bit above minimum wage and is the sole earner of a family of 4; if he was to take his employer’s health insurance plan, he would be spending about 81% of his gross on health insurance for the family. Luckily he doesn’t have to; he makes so little that the family is all on Medicaid. There is a whole group of “working poor” who are in the same situation …
- Mr.Black - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:27 am:
Brilliant strategy.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:31 am:
Sounds like he’d rather run for congress than governor.
- doofusguy - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:33 am:
Good for him - but doesn’t enrollment period go until the 15th?
- Texas Red - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:36 am:
linking himself to a program with a an average premium rate increase of 31% in Illinois may not be the PR coup he is hoping for.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:38 am:
Good for him (no snark). The State has also expanded hours, including Saturday and Sunday, and many agents are doing the same. There will be a media briefing today by the State at 2:30 pm in Chicago- http://insurance.illinois.gov/newsrls/2017/10/DOI_GH_Media_Advisory.pdf
The 21st had a good interview on this recently: October 23, 2017 Signing Up For Health Insurance (use your Google), and NPR had a piece this morning on how MN is able to extend their sign-up period compared to other states because of how they crafted their program:
http://wglt.org/post/need-help-picking-aca-health-plan-some-states-are-reaching-out
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:40 am:
That’s nice and all but JB has no policies here other than “anti trump”, If Trump came out in favor of universal healthcare tomorrow, JB would find an excuse against it, if Trump came out in favor of raising taxes tomorrow, JB would find an excuse against it. These, of course, are very unlikely scenarios but the point remains. We can’t just be the party of anti Trump, we need actual policy positions, and JB isn’t the guy for that.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:41 am:
===JB has no policies===
I don’t think you’re following too closely.
- InvolvedMillennial - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:44 am:
Check JB’s website! Policies are pretty clearly stated. JB will do good things for the state!
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:45 am:
===I don’t think you’re following too closely.===
Where are his policies? All he does is talk about Trump and Rauner. That’s fine, no one likes either one of these characters, but where are his stances on the issues other than the generic establishment democratic answer of blaming the other party?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:52 am:
===Where are his policies?===
Are you seriously that stupid to think I will believe that you can somehow find this website but cannot find his?
Go take a nap.
- cdog - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 9:53 am:
Why is Pritzker carrying water for Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc?
Self-employed/small business people, with average middle class income (slightly >400x FPL), cannot sustain the Obamacare insurance premiums that do not provide any health maintenance.
Why doesn’t this matter to Democrats and Progressives?
At 400% Fed Pov Level for a household of two, the subsidy income cap is $64,960. That is the threshold where the magic-club premium subsidy becomes unavailable.
Last night, on the healthcare.gov portal for my zip code, the avg bronze premiums are $1500 for a family of two in their 50’s. This is with a $12,000 deductible, before anything is covered.
This premium is annually $18,000. For a house hold of two, making $40 over the FPL cap at $65,000, they’re premiums will be …… wait for it …….
28% of their gross income.
That is messed up, beyond words. Absurd? Immoral?
Again, why is Pritzker, and all Democrats, carrying water for the health insurance companies?
#fakeprogressive
- A guy - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:05 am:
Interesting strategy. The proof in the pudding will be how many “middlers” he affects with this. It’s the first thing I’ve seen and heard that points toward winning the primary first. The Democrat base should reward him for this.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:06 am:
Is this really a new way to spend money? It’s certainly laudable, but at the end of the day it’s an ad attaching his name to a popular policy position.
- illini - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:10 am:
Thank you Rich for engaging with “Anonymous” and pointing out their shortcomings in terns of understanding politics and policy.
Many of us refuse to give any credence to or even acknowledge those who refuse to pick a name.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:10 am:
Good for Pritzker. Trump is sabotaging the ACA and the health and well-being of millions. Republicans have been sabotaging the law all along. Now the excuse is that there should be no corporate welfare for insurance companies—after supporting tax cuts for the super-rich and corporations.
The ACA can be made stronger and prices could be brought down through political cooperation. There is a bipartisan effort now in the federal legislature. If Republicans cooperated from the start, something could have been done. But they have the base and others screaming at them, so-called Christians who are trying to push their religion onto others and the government but don’t want to give a penny to help the least of these, those who need help getting vital health insurance.
- Grand Avenue - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:12 am:
It’s clever, not bad at all when money is no option - maybe Rauner should personally appear in State funded ads encouraging people to use getcoveredillinois.gov
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:14 am:
==Where are his policies?==
Is this going to be another bad-faith argument where, once several policies are articulated for you, you move the goal posts to criticize those policies?
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:16 am:
==It’s the first thing I’ve seen and heard that points toward winning the primary first.==
I think every time he goes after Trump (and this is certainly part of “going after Trump”), that’s a Primary First move. God knows the suburbs have little love for Trump, but I think it’s a play for the Resistors first (and I think it’s working).
- Quinn's batting average - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:18 am:
Smart move. Aligns with policies popular in both the primary and “independents” aligns with Obama, another swipe at Trump. He would like nothing better than to provoke Trump to tweet about him.
He is mostly smart campaign strategies so far.
- Anon - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:27 am:
=== thank you rich ===
I have looked at JB’s website and all of the statements are general and merely contrarian to the current Presidential administration as well as our current governor. Anyone can say “Lets balance the budget” and propose progressive taxes, but how? Where’s JB’s experience in responsible financing? The Pritzker family owned a 50 percent share in Superior bank and embarked on a lending model making mortgages and auto loans out to customers with checkered credit and sold these loans as securities to investors. You can guess how that went in 01.
- PJ - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:30 am:
===Again, why is Pritzker, and all Democrats, carrying water for the health insurance companies?===
Because Obamacare in its current form is fairly conservative. It’s modeled off of what Romney did. Lieberman singlehandedly killed Medicare buy in.
Bill would have looked a lot different if they didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate.
They’re “carrying water” for it today because it’s significantly better than literally nothing, which is all Republicans have offered as a replacement. The more people sign up the lower premiums are.
If you want to stop carrying water for insurance companies, you can always jump on the “Medicare for all” bandwagon.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:31 am:
==I have looked at JB’s website and all of the statements are general and merely contrarian to the current Presidential administration as well as our current governor.==
Just blatantly false. I just checked the website myself and the first entry under “my vision” describes a health care plan centered around a public option based on Medicaid.
(There is a typo in the write-up of that plan, but that’s not what you were complaining about).
- City Zen - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:34 am:
==Anyone can say “Lets balance the budget” and propose progressive taxes, but how?==
Because explaining how won’t get him elected. Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would have to include taxing retirement income won’t get him elected. Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would probably translate to a tax hike on anyone making over $60,000/yr won’t get him elected.
I don’t suspect any Dem candidates will offer a definitive “how” until they get through the primary, if at all.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:38 am:
Needs to somehow saddle 1.4% with drumpf. The ad shows he is trying to look out for his future constituents.
- A guy - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:40 am:
== but I think it’s a play for the Resistors first (and I think it’s working).==
It may work. We should pay attention and see. I think it’s a play for the people who are covered by the ACA. That’s more of a primary base to me.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:44 am:
==I think it’s a play for the people who are covered by the ACA. That’s more of a primary base to me.==
Advertising for ACA coverage is a play for a little broader audience than that (there’s really not that many people covered by the ACA), but I agree that the audience is mostly centered in the Democratic Primary.
But my point is that every time he plays off anti-Trump sentiment- and he’s done that more than a little bit- that’s a play for a primary audience, too. After all, Trump certainly isn’t popular among Indies in IL, but the locus of anti-Trump sentiment is definitely in the Democratic Party.
- PJ - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 10:47 am:
=== Explaining that his “progressive taxes” would probably translate to a tax hike on anyone making over $60,000/yr won’t get him elected.===
What? Silly and wrong.
Just goes to show that it’s impossible to shill for a flat income tax structure without resorting to making things up. The brackets that would see an increased percentage would be way higher than 60k. You made that up out of thin air. Same with retirement income. Taxing that is good fiscal policy and in line with most other states, but has absolutely nothing to do with a progressive income tax.
- Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:02 am:
I have repeatedly emailed both the Pritzker,Kennedy and biss campaigns. “Do you support the implementation of the Cadillac tax to pay for Obamacare?” ZERO responses. That tells me all I need to know anout their sincerity to fix the health insurance problems.
Campaign rhetoric is all this is.
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:02 am:
I will be interested to see how this strategy plays out. I can think of a couple instances where using campaign funds to promote/better government services was frowned upon.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:12 am:
==You made that up out of thin air. ==
Thin air is more than no air. Where are the specifics? Probably not in their best interest to communicate that just yet, otherwise it’d be out there.
Specifics on how to pay for their platforms won’t help any candidates.
==Same with retirement income. Taxing that is good fiscal policy and in line with most other states, but has absolutely nothing to do with a progressive income tax.==
Each and every state with a progressive income tax taxes retirement income. Every. One. It has everything to do with a progressive income tax. So I agree it’s good fiscal policy. Do the candidates believe in good fiscal policy?
- PJ - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:20 am:
===Specifics on how to pay for their platforms won’t help any candidates.===
Right. True. Still don’t see how that relates to claiming that 60k is where the increase would be set. It just wouldn’t. It isn’t necessary to go that low to increase revenue.
===Each and every state with a progressive income tax taxes retirement income.===
Because those states are using good fiscal policy. But there’s absolutely no requirement to do one to implement the other. It’s entirely possibly to increase revenue via a progressive tax without taxing retirement income. They often get paired but that’s correlation (sound fiscal policy) not causation.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:31 am:
==But there’s absolutely no requirement to do one to implement the other.==
Indeed. When IL implements a progressive income tax (and I’d say one is coming eventually), it won’t start taxing retirement income at the same time. It may do so relatively soon thereafter, but it won’t be both at once.
- Tequila Mockingbird - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:36 am:
Republicans don’t need to sabotage the ACA because the ACA sabotages itself. Middle class self employed have been hit extremely hard. I’m here to tell you that the 54% premium increase I saw this time last year was painful. It can not continue and JB won’t be the one to “fix” it.
- A guy - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 11:50 am:
==But my point is that every time he plays off anti-Trump sentiment-==
Time will tell. But the whole anti-Trump thing may just not be that big of a card in an off year election in a State that acts contrary to national trends. On the Dem side, national politics is a demotion in Illinois. It’s the JV team. There’s no Hillary Trump at the top of the card. The undercard is always more important here (especially since Obama timed out)
I may be wrong, but counting on the anti-Trump sentiment better not be the highest priority.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 12:09 pm:
==But the whole anti-Trump thing may just not be that big of a card in an off year election in a State that acts contrary to national trends.==
IL doesn’t really defy national trends, it just starts off with such a Democratic lean that a couple Democrats can survive Republican waves. ‘06, ‘08, ‘12 were good years for Dems nationally and good years for Dems in IL. ‘10, ‘14 were bad years, and Dems in IL lost key races but held on to a few. ‘16 was pretty mixed at both levels. IL follows national trends, it just starts out from a further-left position.
- anon - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 2:38 pm:
Great idea–this will be a national story–trump kills off sign-up ads–JB steps in—hundreds of thousands of middle-income downstaters getting their health insurance through the exchange–These downstaters didn’t vote for Trump so he could take their health care away.
- cannon649 - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
cdog - feel your pain and example is real and and shows the extent of the pain.
One point to add, Even with these on the moon pricing - the program is not solvent and will not be and the choices are fewer - that why it needs to fail.
Notice rarely do the socialist types “do not the math” and they do not discuss it.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Nov 1, 17 @ 6:14 pm:
== 28% of their gross income. ==
I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian here. 28% doesn’t sound that bad when.I compare it to my son’s situation. He makes just a bit above minimum wage and is the sole earner of a family of 4; if he was to take his employer’s health insurance plan, he would be spending about 81% of his gross on health insurance for the family. Luckily he doesn’t have to; he makes so little that the family is all on Medicaid. There is a whole group of “working poor” who are in the same situation …