Even the liberal New York Times now admits Obamacare prices are skyrocketing

(NaturalNews) Sometimes there is just no pleasure at all in being right. Instead, there is anger and frustration that you weren't listened to in the first place.

That's what more than a few Obamacare critics are saying these days as all of their worst predictions about the massive, overly bureaucratic law are coming true. One of the worst among them is the amount of increased costs the law has foisted upon both corporation and consumer – costs that are crippling individuals, families and businesses who must pay them or be punished by their government.

Even some of the law's biggest cheerleaders now admit that the tsunami of higher monthly insurance premiums coupled with colossally higher deductions (which dramatically boost out-of-pocket expenses) are hurting Americans. One of them is The New York Times.

The big lie was perpetuated until it couldn't be perpetuated any more

The paper noted on October 30:

In Tennessee, the state insurance commissioner approved a 36 percent rate increase for the largest health insurer in the state's individual marketplace. In Iowa, the commissioner approved rate increases averaging 29 percent for the state's dominant insurer.

Health insurance consumers logging into HealthCare.gov on Sunday for the first day of the Affordable Care Act's third open enrollment season may be in for sticker shock, unless they are willing to shop around. Federal officials acknowledged on Friday that many people would need to pick new plans to avoid substantial increases in premiums.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. In fact, there was a day when Candidate Obama was promising any voter who would listen that his health reform plan would actually lower average premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

That has never happened. Now, even those on the vaunted Obamacare federal exchange are going to have to pull their boot straps up even more, and that's going to hurt in an economy with little to no wage growth.

Even worse, some of Obamacare's biggest cheerleaders continue to serve in that role, ignoring the very real evidence that the law is costing consumers much more than they were told it ever would.

"The Affordable Care Act has created a dynamic, competitive marketplace, with considerable choice and affordable premiums in 2016," Richard G. Frank, an assistant secretary of health and human services, told the New York Times. Of course, this is coming from a six-figured political appointee who – thanks to Congress – has an Obamacare subsidy as a federal employee.

"It really shocks me to see these plans with $5,000 deductibles," Belinda Greb, 56, of Vida, Oregon, told the New York Times. "It becomes an area of stress as opposed to making me feel secure."

Sometimes the lie is so profound the MSM has to report it

For a previous plan through a state Obamacare exchange, Greb was paying $213 a month after getting a $175-a-month taxpayer-supplied subsidy. That "bronze" plan goes away in 2016; she'll get a plan that costs $265 a month if she retains that subsidy.

She's far from alone. "Nearly a third of the people insured through the federal marketplace switched plans this year, and more will probably need to do so to avoid big price increases in 2016," the New York Times reported.

The increases have gotten so bad that even the New York Times, typically a shill for Obama and Democrats in general, can't ignore them:

In Minnesota, officials approved increases averaging 49 percent for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, the largest insurer in the market. Even with the increases, the company said, "Blue Cross is likely to experience continued significant financial losses through 2016."

Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, a Democrat, said he was "extremely unhappy" with the high rate increases.

Frustrating thing, these presidential promises. When the ruling class gets a break and the president himself has been proven to have been an abject liar in passing the largest new entitlement program in decades, sometimes even his cheerleaders in the media have little choice but to point out the obvious.

After all, Obama won't be the president forever, and the New York Times has a reputation to maintain... sort of.

Sources include:

NYTimes.com

YouTube.com

NationalReview.com