Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
tommyboy

Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face

Recommended Posts

Just wondering, anyone ever watch the movie Sicko?

Cuba even has a better website?! My god our government sucks!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Kathy Sebelius is having trouble understanding the new health care laws.

"If I have affordable coverage in my workplace, I'm not eligible to go into the marketplace. ... It’s illegal."

Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 in testimony before Congress

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says 'it's illegal' for her to use the health insurance exchange

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before Congress Oct. 30 for the first time since the federal health care marketplaces went online, answering questions about problems with the website and facing accusations that President Barack Obama lied to the American people about who could keep their health care plan.

At the tail end of three and a half hours of testimony, Sebelius had a testy exchange with Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who asked the secretary why she wasn’t enrolling in the exchanges herself.

"If I have affordable coverage in my workplace, I'm not eligible to go into the marketplace. ... It’s illegal," she said.

The Twittersphere lit up after Sebelius’ remarks, questioning whether they were valid. Even the government’s own website instructs people with job-based insurance that "if you'd like to explore marketplace coverage options you can."

So was Sebelius right and the Obamacare website wrong, or vice versa? Given the vast amount of misinformation circulating around the health care law and the insurance marketplaces, we thought it necessary to straighten this out.

Employer insurance vs. Medicare

We went right to the source on this one, asking the Department of Health and Human Services if Sebelius misspoke. It turns out she did.

Individuals who have health insurance through their employer can sign up for the online marketplaces, it’s just not financially beneficial for most to do so. If an individual forgoes affordable insurance through work, he or she won’t qualify for subsidies to help pay for insurance on the government-run marketplaces. And plans purchased through an employer are typically cheaper because the company is paying a portion of the costs.

A spokeswoman for the department said Sebelius meant to say, "Marketplace plans cannot be sold to a Medicare enrollee, and the secretary is a Medicare enrollee."

While Sebelius receives health benefits from her government job, as of May, she is also 65 years old and therefore eligible for free Medicare Part A, which covers hospital visits. She can couple those benefits with her employer insurance, but according to guidelines released Oct. 4 by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "it is illegal to knowingly sell or issue a Qualified Health Plan to a Medicare beneficiary" on the government-run insurance marketplaces.

That hasn’t always been clear, said David Lipschutz, a policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act mentions whether Medicare enrollees are eligible for the health insurance marketplaces, he said, but the administration lately has cited a section of the Social Security Act also known as the Medicare Anti-Duplication provision that bars private insurance companies from offering coverage to Medicare enrollees.

There are some exceptions. A small fraction of individuals who are not eligible for free Medicare Part A and those with end stage renal disease can still buy insurance on the exchanges and receive federal subsidies. Neither of those situations apply to Sebelius.

Hypothetically, Sebelius could abandon her government health care plan and get out of Medicare Part A. But that would require her to revoke and forfeit her Social Security benefits for the rest of her life, something we can’t envision anyone volunteering to do.

"It’s really not going to be an option to drop it in order to get into an exchange," said Andrea Callow, also a policy attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

Our ruling

It’s pretty clear Sebelius was wrong when she said "it’s illegal" for her to buy insurance on the exchange because she already has affordable insurance through her employer. Those inclined to do so certainly can, though the financial incentives to stay with the employer-based plan are quite convincing.

We rate her statement Pants on Fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals who have health insurance through their employer can sign up for the online marketplaces, it’s just not financially beneficial for most to do so. If an individual forgoes affordable insurance through work, he or she won’t qualify for subsidies to help pay for insurance on the government-run marketplaces. And plans purchased through an employer are typically cheaper because the company is paying a portion of the costs.

This is very, very important and I don't believe it was explained properly to the American public - as I've seen people here saying that they can drop their "expensive employer plan" and get cheaper subsidized coverage on the exchange to replace it. That's not the case, if you (or your spouse) has group coverage offered to you, you are not eligible for a subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals who have health insurance through their employer can sign up for the online marketplaces, it’s just not financially beneficial for most to do so. If an individual forgoes affordable insurance through work, he or she won’t qualify for subsidies to help pay for insurance on the government-run marketplaces. And plans purchased through an employer are typically cheaper because the company is paying a portion of the costs.

This is very, very important and I don't believe it was explained properly to the American public - as I've seen people here saying that they can drop their "expensive employer plan" and get cheaper subsidized coverage on the exchange to replace it. That's not the case, if you (or your spouse) has group coverage offered to you, you are not eligible for a subsidy.

Didn't know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals who have health insurance through their employer can sign up for the online marketplaces, it’s just not financially beneficial for most to do so. If an individual forgoes affordable insurance through work, he or she won’t qualify for subsidies to help pay for insurance on the government-run marketplaces. And plans purchased through an employer are typically cheaper because the company is paying a portion of the costs.

This is very, very important and I don't believe it was explained properly to the American public - as I've seen people here saying that they can drop their "expensive employer plan" and get cheaper subsidized coverage on the exchange to replace it. That's not the case, if you (or your spouse) has group coverage offered to you, you are not eligible for a subsidy.

Didn't know that.

I'm here to help.

If you want a technical answer, if you have group coverage available to you that would cost the employee only 9.5% of their gross pay or less (after the employer pays their portion, just what the employee would have to pay to enroll), then the government feels that you have "affordable coverage" available to you, and that the ACA wasn't designed for you. It does not matter if in order for you to enroll the employee plus their spouse and children would cost that person more than 9.5% of his income, it's just for the employee alone. That person and their spouse is ineligible for any subsidized coverage for an ACA plan.

So take the guy making $30k a year at his job. He can enroll just himself on his group for $200 a month, or 8% of his before tax pay. According the the ACA, that's "affordable". It doesn't matter if it would cost him $1,000 a month to enroll himself and his family on that play (which is $12,000 a year or 40% of his pay), they only ask what it costs for him to be on it and if that's "affordable".

That's a reason why some companies said that spouses and dependents are no longer eligible for that group - they are actually doing some employees a favor. Now that employee's spouse (who's no longer eligible for group sponsored coverage) and children would be eligible for a subsidy, if they meet the financial guidelines that is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

Unintended consequences like this will contribute to cost overruns which ALWAYS occur with govt. programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the largest fraud ever sold to the US public.

good job Dems! :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

Yes, they'd have to do the first in order for the second to be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

This is much more serious, since it's a misrepresentation about policy, and affects millions of people. A better analogy, (though still not quite accurate) would be George H. W. Bush's "read my lips- no new taxes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, youll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.
Except Clinton's situation didn't affect anyone personally. Maybe my standards are low, but I'm ok with that and don't really care about personal matters that don't affect me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've been saying for months....

University of Chicago economist John Cochrane predicts that, because of this overreach, "Obamacare could actually increase the number of people without insurance, because you are not allowed to keep (consumer) or sell (insurance company) simple cheap insurance."

People who don't qualify for federal subsidies to help pay their insurance coverage face a choice: Pay higher premiums and deductibles, or go without and pay the modest penalty — with the assurance that if illness strikes, they can't be denied coverage later. It's easy to see why people in good health would take that limited risk.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health-20131031,0,1815563.story

For every person who will now get a policy who couldn't before, there will be a person who drops coverage altogether because it's now too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

This is much more serious, since it's a misrepresentation about policy, and affects millions of people. A better analogy, (though still not quite accurate) would be George H. W. Bush's "read my lips- no new taxes."

Or Jimmy Carter's "Trust me, the government is in good hands."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've been saying for months....

University of Chicago economist John Cochrane predicts that, because of this overreach, "Obamacare could actually increase the number of people without insurance, because you are not allowed to keep (consumer) or sell (insurance company) simple cheap insurance."

People who don't qualify for federal subsidies to help pay their insurance coverage face a choice: Pay higher premiums and deductibles, or go without and pay the modest penalty — with the assurance that if illness strikes, they can't be denied coverage later. It's easy to see why people in good health would take that limited risk.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health-20131031,0,1815563.story

For every person who will now get a policy who couldn't before, there will be a person who drops coverage altogether because it's now too expensive.

Ouch. We should make an "unintended consequences" tattoo mandatory for all these folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now some REAL techies are being turned loose to take care of the ACA web site. I wouldn't be surprised if they redid it from the ground up. Meanwhile CGI gets their millions for what?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge

Google Inc. (GOOG:US), Red Hat Inc. (RHT:US), Oracle Corp. (ORCL:US) and other companies are contributing dozens of computer engineers and programmers to help the Obama administration fix the U.S. health-insurance exchange website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now some REAL techies are being turned loose to take care of the ACA web site. I wouldn't be surprised if they redid it from the ground up. Meanwhile CGI gets their millions for what?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge

Google Inc. (GOOG:US), Red Hat Inc. (RHT:US), Oracle Corp. (ORCL:US) and other companies are contributing dozens of computer engineers and programmers to help the Obama administration fix the U.S. health-insurance exchange website.

I heard these new companies are helping in exchange for the NSA to stop spying on them. That should save us from having to spend even more money on the website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

This is much more serious, since it's a misrepresentation about policy, and affects millions of people. A better analogy, (though still not quite accurate) would be George H. W. Bush's "read my lips- no new taxes."

Or GWB will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

This is much more serious, since it's a misrepresentation about policy, and affects millions of people. A better analogy, (though still not quite accurate) would be George H. W. Bush's "read my lips- no new taxes."

Or GWB will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

"Dammit! They're coming up with valid criticisms of Obama. I must find a way to criticize GWB. Sure, my complaint has nothing to do with what's being discussed, but I gotta let my hatred of him be known for the millionth time!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long and complicated read but this guy spells out how about 130Million people in this country are going to lose the insurance they were allegedly supposed to keep. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/30/no-david-axelrod-the-vast-majority-of-people-in-this-country-are-not-keeping-their-plan/1/

reminder:

President Obama June 15, 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Regarding your "reminder" - He said that while all along KNOWING it was a crock...much like Clinton's bald-faced lie about Monica. Democratic presidents make good liars.

This is much more serious, since it's a misrepresentation about policy, and affects millions of people. A better analogy, (though still not quite accurate) would be George H. W. Bush's "read my lips- no new taxes."

Or GWB will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

"Dammit! They're coming up with valid criticisms of Obama. I must find a way to criticize GWB. Sure, my complaint has nothing to do with what's being discussed, but I gotta let my hatred of him be known for the millionth time!"

lol Obama can do no wrong with the brain washed dems lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debacle is a godsend for the GOP.

It sucks for the country but if you are looking at it purely as some GOP politician looking to gain or keep an elected office, you have to secretly love this massive mistake.

I doubt this. I continue to believe the Tea Party antics hurt the Republicans far worse than Obamacare hurts the Democrats. But we'll see in a few months...

You mean the antics of wanting a one year delay of the ACA so that the administration could fix this mess before rolling it out to the public? I think voters are going to read things a little differently than you think

You may very well be right. I wrote that last night before reading that NBC News article. That opened my eyes. I think Obama might be in real trouble over this.

I don't get the uproar over the NBC article. Didn't everyone know years ago that lots of people were going to have their existing plans cancelled? This should have been obvious, given that so many existing plans didn't meet the new requirements for ACA-compliant plans.

Anyone with a brain knew it.... but the President kept saying over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep it." and often he would go on to talk about how the people who were saying that were not so were liars and trying to scare people etc.

This bill was sold in a way that would make the slimiest used car salesman blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of spin from the WH is doing to try to get out of the fact that the President knowingly lied numerous times to sell a policy to this country if mind blowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

It's GWB's fault. Didn't you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

Yes, they'd have to do the first in order for the second to be an option.

That is my point. Though it isn't as simple, 5-10 years ago they offered a top end insurance and paid a fair portion, despite not having to even provide insurance. With price changes to insurance conbined with soft economy, they have went to a less exhaustive plan and have put more costs on their employees. At this point, it may be cheaper for their employees to use the vouchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

This debacle is a godsend for the GOP.

It sucks for the country but if you are looking at it purely as some GOP politician looking to gain or keep an elected office, you have to secretly love this massive mistake.

I doubt this. I continue to believe the Tea Party antics hurt the Republicans far worse than Obamacare hurts the Democrats. But we'll see in a few months...

You mean the antics of wanting a one year delay of the ACA so that the administration could fix this mess before rolling it out to the public? I think voters are going to read things a little differently than you think

You may very well be right. I wrote that last night before reading that NBC News article. That opened my eyes. I think Obama might be in real trouble over this.

I don't get the uproar over the NBC article. Didn't everyone know years ago that lots of people were going to have their existing plans cancelled? This should have been obvious, given that so many existing plans didn't meet the new requirements for ACA-compliant plans.

Anyone with a brain knew it.... but the President kept saying over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep it." and often he would go on to talk about how the people who were saying that were not so were liars and trying to scare people etc.

This bill was sold in a way that would make the slimiest used car salesman blush.

It's like the price increases. You can't do away with pre-existing conditions and blend them with the people already having coverage and not have the rates for those people that had coverage in the past face rate increases. Somebody has to pay for it. The plan is that it's those that had coverage and the healthy and young who were uninsured that are going to pay for it. The problem is, what is the incentive if you are a healthy 28 year old male to get it? With no pre-existing condition limitations now just wait for something to go wrong and then buy it. People may have been stupid enough to not get it when the bill of goods was being sold but they aren't so stupid to go pay higher prices for something they weren't buying in the first place. That being said if you were uninsured to start with, why not be for this plan even if you didn't intend to buy. With no pre-existing conditions now to get insurance you have a safety net to safely skate by now without ever buying in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now some REAL techies are being turned loose to take care of the ACA web site. I wouldn't be surprised if they redid it from the ground up. Meanwhile CGI gets their millions for what?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge

Google Inc. (GOOG:US), Red Hat Inc. (RHT:US), Oracle Corp. (ORCL:US) and other companies are contributing dozens of computer engineers and programmers to help the Obama administration fix the U.S. health-insurance exchange website.

Why are they bringing in all of these private companies when the government is so great at everything it does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guise are having a nice circle jerk in here, aren't you?

What's there to say? :shrug: The website is a disaster. That part can be fixed, but the higher costs and the fact that the reality of people losing their plans was hidden from the public can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guise are having a nice circle jerk in here, aren't you?

Yeah - but only when I dress up as Valerie Jarrett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and FIL run a small company. They don't have to provide insurance, but always have. Prices have gotten out of hand recently. They are considering dropping insurance so employees can qualify for subsidies.

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

This debacle is a godsend for the GOP.

It sucks for the country but if you are looking at it purely as some GOP politician looking to gain or keep an elected office, you have to secretly love this massive mistake.

I doubt this. I continue to believe the Tea Party antics hurt the Republicans far worse than Obamacare hurts the Democrats. But we'll see in a few months...

You mean the antics of wanting a one year delay of the ACA so that the administration could fix this mess before rolling it out to the public? I think voters are going to read things a little differently than you think

You may very well be right. I wrote that last night before reading that NBC News article. That opened my eyes. I think Obama might be in real trouble over this.

I don't get the uproar over the NBC article. Didn't everyone know years ago that lots of people were going to have their existing plans cancelled? This should have been obvious, given that so many existing plans didn't meet the new requirements for ACA-compliant plans.

Anyone with a brain knew it.... but the President kept saying over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep it." and often he would go on to talk about how the people who were saying that were not so were liars and trying to scare people etc.

This bill was sold in a way that would make the slimiest used car salesman blush.

It's like the price increases. You can't do away with pre-existing conditions and blend them with the people already having coverage and not have the rates for those people that had coverage in the past face rate increases. Somebody has to pay for it. The plan is that it's those that had coverage and the healthy and young who were uninsured that are going to pay for it. The problem is, what is the incentive if you are a healthy 28 year old male to get it? With no pre-existing condition limitations now just wait for something to go wrong and then buy it. People may have been stupid enough to not get it when the bill of goods was being sold but they aren't so stupid to go pay higher prices for something they weren't buying in the first place. That being said if you were uninsured to start with, why not be for this plan even if you didn't intend to buy. With no pre-existing conditions now to get insurance you have a safety net to safely skate by now without ever buying in.

Wait... are you saying that the entire idea behind this law is flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guise are having a nice circle jerk in here, aren't you?

Well, all the Obamaniacs are either jumping ship or too embarrassed to come in here and pull the company line like "We didn't lie", because they cant even bring themselves to believe that BS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice how Tim has mostly disappeared since this debacle started. When the government shutdown was going on he was averaging 275 posts per day. Now, he is averaging 2 per day.*

*figures used are exact.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea Party timed the whole government shutdown thing absolutely perfectly. Bunch of geniuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Davis wrote:

"It's like the price increases. You can't do away with pre-existing conditions and blend them with the people already having coverage and not have the rates for those people that had coverage in the past face rate increases. Somebody has to pay for it. The plan is that it's those that had coverage and the healthy and young who were uninsured that are going to pay for it. The problem is, what is the incentive if you are a healthy 28 year old male to get it? With no pre-existing condition limitations now just wait for something to go wrong and then buy it. People may have been stupid enough to not get it when the bill of goods was being sold but they aren't so stupid to go pay higher prices for something they weren't buying in the first place. That being said if you were uninsured to start with, why not be for this plan even if you didn't intend to buy. With no pre-existing conditions now to get insurance you have a safety net to safely skate by now without ever buying in."

I like this...as it drives to the very heart of the debate. Why should a healthy 28-year old male have any incentive to get this? They shouldn't. It's the same thing as asking why any healthy 28-year old male would have any incentive to contribute any portion of their hard-earned income into Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Or unemployment. Or ____________. They shouldn't. Because a healthy 28-year old male is invincible. Probably near their physical prime, with a little meaningful bank rolling around in their wallet for the first time in their life.

Problem is, that healthy 28-year old male will wake up one day, and will all of the sudden be 50...60...70. Broken, tired. Running out of years to fund any sort of quality of life as they steadily ride that downward spiral toward death. If you're a healthy 28-year old male, you might not say it out loud. But part of you is thinking "if those guys weren't smart enough to put away what they needed to in order to make it into and through retirement? #### 'em. That's their problem...not mine." But most healthy 28-year old males don't yet possess the wisdom to take care of themselves for the long haul either. Only they've got 50-60 years in front of them to try and work it out. Versus that 50-60-70 year old, who might only have a decade or two, max.

So you're 100% correct. Your average healthy 28-year old male? "If those guys weren't smart enough to put away what they needed to in order to make it into and through retirement? #### 'em. That's their problem...not mine." Only when those people wake up and they are a not-so-healthy 58 year old male, they'll probably be singing a different tune. And the tune they'll be singing will have someone else singing harmony, a la "I paid into the system for the past 40 years...so I want what's MINE!"

Edited by datonn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

All the idiots that pushed for this better be in the ####### exchanges themselves. Subsidy or not, they belong in there. Time for them to put there money where there mouth is.

But I'm sure they won't because when progressives pass laws, they typically mean it's for everyone else BUT them.

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful people can get insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions, God bless America.

Edited by Ballstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

The underlying problems have nothing to do with the website. From a financial perspective the whole premise is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

The underlying problems have nothing to do with the website. From a financial perspective the whole premise is flawed.

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

The underlying problems have nothing to do with the website. From a financial perspective the whole premise is flawed.

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful people can get insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions, God bless America.

Yeah, I'd like to buy a car, drive it without insurance, then if I wreck it, get insurance then to pay for the repairs.

Or maybe I can not bother to insure my house, but if it burns down, I can go get insurance then, which will pay for it to be rebuilt...and everything it that burned of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

The underlying problems have nothing to do with the website. From a financial perspective the whole premise is flawed.

What's scary is we are just seeing the tip of the Iceberg of the level of cluster#### this is going to end up being... I hope all the idiots that pushed for this are proud of themselves.

Yes, i am sure people that pushed for affordable health care are very proud of themselves for the ####ty implementation of the website

The underlying problems have nothing to do with the website. From a financial perspective the whole premise is flawed.

why?

Because the only way it sustains itself is if young healthy people who currently don't pay for insurance suddenly decide to subsidize the ones who are sick or have pre-existing conditions. If they don't have insurance today, why on earth would they pay more now than they could have before? Keep in mind, on top of that they can now even wait until something happens to them to buy anything now that pre-existing conditions are no longer something that prevents you from signing up.

Insurance now works as if person A pays $X for his policy worth approximately $X. You now want to allow people in the same pool where the policies they are buying are really worth $X+$Y (some premium for their pre-existing condition or other risk factor) for only the cost of $X. Who's footing the bill for the $Y piece? It has to be the other insured, it doesn't come free.

Edited by Mark Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful people can get insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions, God bless America.

Yeah, I'd like to buy a car, drive it without insurance, then if I wreck it, get insurance then to pay for the repairs.

Or maybe I can not bother to insure my house, but if it burns down, I can go get insurance then, which will pay for it to be rebuilt...and everything it that burned of course.

Yeah, that's exactly how it works. Or maybe it works like it did for my MIL. Insured through her work, then found out she had leukemia and eventually had to quit her job (or they had to let her go) because she couldn't work anymore. And with that pre-existing condition (leukemia), nobody would touch her with a ten-foot pole. So...she and my FIL ended up having to go on State/Federal assistance after pretty much losing everything they had...then having him (polio survivor, only one good arm) need to fix up a house that was scheduled to be demolished that he bought from its owner for around $5,000. Until she reached the point where the leukemia killed her.

But never you mind that both of them were gainfully employed prior to the leukemia and his arm getting so bad that he himself couldn't work anymore. Never mind that they had insurance through their employers all their lives prior. They're just another statistic who fit the bill as "unprepared" and/or "societal leeches" since they needed MN and DC to at least try to keep her alive (made it seven years). In your mind, she should have been "better prepared." Or just crawled in a hole and died.

And you align yourself with a political party that wraps itself in the Christian flag?! Wow.

Edited by datonn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful people can get insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions, God bless America.

Yeah, I'd like to buy a car, drive it without insurance, then if I wreck it, get insurance then to pay for the repairs.

Or maybe I can not bother to insure my house, but if it burns down, I can go get insurance then, which will pay for it to be rebuilt...and everything it that burned of course.

Yeah, that's exactly how it works. Or maybe it works like it did for my MIL. Insured through her work, then found out she had leukemia and eventually had to quit her job (or they had to let her go) because she couldn't work anymore. And with that pre-existing condition (leukemia), nobody would touch her with a ten-foot pole. So...she and my FIL ended up having to go on State/Federal assistance after pretty much losing everything they had...then having him (polio survivor, only one good arm) need to fix up a house that was scheduled to be demolished that he bought from its owner for around $5,000. Until she reached the point where the leukemia killed her.

But never you mind that both of them were gainfully employed prior to the leukemia and his arm getting so bad that he himself couldn't work anymore. Never mind that they had insurance through their employers all their lives prior. They're just another statistic who fit the bill as "unprepared" and/or "societal leeches" since they needed MN and DC to at least try to keep her alive (made it seven years). In your mind, she should have been "better prepared." Or just crawled in a hole and died.

And you align yourself with a political party that wraps itself in the Christian flag?! Wow.

Your story sounds fishy. If she had insurance through her work, she was covered. They couldn't just drop her because got sick. Why would anyone have insurance if that was the case? Something doesn't add up there.

For instance, my wife needed knee surgery. Guess what, our insurance paid for it; they didn't and couldn't just drop her.

BTW, I'm agnostic, leaning towards atheist, so leave me out of the Christian flag thing...is there really a Christian flag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wonderful people can get insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions, God bless America.

Yeah, I'd like to buy a car, drive it without insurance, then if I wreck it, get insurance then to pay for the repairs.

Or maybe I can not bother to insure my house, but if it burns down, I can go get insurance then, which will pay for it to be rebuilt...and everything it that burned of course.

Yeah, that's exactly how it works. Or maybe it works like it did for my MIL. Insured through her work, then found out she had leukemia and eventually had to quit her job (or they had to let her go) because she couldn't work anymore. And with that pre-existing condition (leukemia), nobody would touch her with a ten-foot pole. So...she and my FIL ended up having to go on State/Federal assistance after pretty much losing everything they had...then having him (polio survivor, only one good arm) need to fix up a house that was scheduled to be demolished that he bought from its owner for around $5,000. Until she reached the point where the leukemia killed her.

But never you mind that both of them were gainfully employed prior to the leukemia and his arm getting so bad that he himself couldn't work anymore. Never mind that they had insurance through their employers all their lives prior. They're just another statistic who fit the bill as "unprepared" and/or "societal leeches" since they needed MN and DC to at least try to keep her alive (made it seven years). In your mind, she should have been "better prepared." Or just crawled in a hole and died.

And you align yourself with a political party that wraps itself in the Christian flag?! Wow.

There was insurance for people with pre-existing conditions... There was also Cobra insurance for anyone who left their job/insurance for whatever reason but wanted to continue coverage.. It wasn't very affordable, but the price then isn't much different from what it is now.. My uncle couldn't afford it then, and still can't afford it now.. So, only difference is that instead of his insurance being expensive, now everyone's is...

Edited by Carolina Hustler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.