Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (5 Viewers)

Andy Dufresne said:

datonn said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Foosball God said:

So only the wealthy can have kids?

Click to expand...

Only people that can afford to raise them should have kids.

I would think that's an axiom.

Click to expand...

Only the people that can afford to raise them and WANT them should have kids.

That's where I've never understood the Right's position on contraception. Most of the people who have an "oops" are too stupid, selfish, or poor to use a condom or other forms of birth control. But the Right holds firm to the idea that abstinence is the (only) way to prevent a train-wreck. Only NON-SINFUL way, I suppose. At any rate, how many ~15-25 year-olds do you know who possess even 30% of the willpower to not insert object A into warm, moist hole B when they're feeling all tingly? How many millions of selfish morons do you know who might be rational before they've had their first 5-6 beers...who have the maturity of a six-year old after they're drunk/baked?

Condoms and other forms of birth control aren't the end-all, be all. But if folks want to greatly-reduce the drain of social services on our country/economy, it would be a great place to start. Yet the Party/group(s) that are railing the hardest against social services are the ones railing the hardest against contraception. I understand why. But maybe they could also, then, understand why people think that their answers/solutions are the wrong answers/solutions. Or at least about as likely to happen and work as us seeing flying rainbow-colored unicorns during our daily commutes.

Click to expand...

I think you're painting with pretty broad strokes here.

And it's also a little bit of a straw man argument as 89% of all Americans (which includes 82% of Catholics - the category normally associated with contraception opposition) say birth control is morally okay. Link

Click to expand...

datonn said:

Andy Dufresne said:

datonn said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Foosball God said:

So only the wealthy can have kids?

Click to expand...

Only people that can afford to raise them should have kids.I would think that's an axiom.

Click to expand...

Only the people that can afford to raise them and WANT them should have kids.That's where I've never understood the Right's position on contraception. Most of the people who have an "oops" are too stupid, selfish, or poor to use a condom or other forms of birth control. But the Right holds firm to the idea that abstinence is the (only) way to prevent a train-wreck. Only NON-SINFUL way, I suppose. At any rate, how many ~15-25 year-olds do you know who possess even 30% of the willpower to not insert object A into warm, moist hole B when they're feeling all tingly? How many millions of selfish morons do you know who might be rational before they've had their first 5-6 beers...who have the maturity of a six-year old after they're drunk/baked?

Condoms and other forms of birth control aren't the end-all, be all. But if folks want to greatly-reduce the drain of social services on our country/economy, it would be a great place to start. Yet the Party/group(s) that are railing the hardest against social services are the ones railing the hardest against contraception. I understand why. But maybe they could also, then, understand why people think that their answers/solutions are the wrong answers/solutions. Or at least about as likely to happen and work as us seeing flying rainbow-colored unicorns during our daily commutes.

Click to expand...

I think you're painting with pretty broad strokes here.And it's also a little bit of a straw man argument as 89% of all Americans (which includes 82% of Catholics - the category normally associated with contraception opposition) say birth control is morally okay. Link

Click to expand...

Probably (painting with very broad strokes). But who basically has the power/control of the Republican/Tea Party? Who speaks on behalf of all those Libertarians and Independents who vote "R" because their candidate wouldn't even get 2-3% of the vote (and they settle for what they think is the lesser of two evils)?Theocrats control the Republican Party. Their media, where the money goes, et al. Yet most non-evangelicals, non-Catholics, and "moderate" evangelical/Catholic Christians (from people who don't believe all that the church is teaching, to all those Sunday/Christmas/Easter Christians out there) who don't buy what the Theocrats are buying will STILL vote for them and send them money...because they think it is better than the alternative (Democrats).

Click to expand...

Foosball God said:

matttyl said:

Why are you just accepting that all of "us" pay for it? Why can't the individual pay for their known expense? What's wrong with a $5k or even a $10k maternity deductible? It can be covered just like any other OOP cost so that if your income is low enough you'd still get cost sharing subsidies to assist you with it.

Again, if you can't handle a $5k or a $10k maternity deductible, you can't handle the cost of raising a child.

Click to expand...

So only the wealthy can have kids?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Foosball God said:

matttyl said:

Why are you just accepting that all of "us" pay for it? Why can't the individual pay for their known expense? What's wrong with a $5k or even a $10k maternity deductible? It can be covered just like any other OOP cost so that if your income is low enough you'd still get cost sharing subsidies to assist you with it.

Again, if you can't handle a $5k or a $10k maternity deductible, you can't handle the cost of raising a child.

Click to expand...

So only the wealthy can have kids?

Click to expand...

Again, where are you people getting that from what I'm saying? Go back and read what I underlined, please. If you understood my proposal, only the wealthy would be the ones paying to have children - those not so wealthy would have it subsidized. Isn't that the plan of the ACA anyway, for the wealthy to pay more?

Click to expand...

White House Official Website Still Features Video "Debunking" the "Disinformation" That People Will Lose Their Coverage;
Features Obama Promising Twice "If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance" —AceFrom @benk84.

The video is hosted by a former ABCNews reporter who joined the Obama Administration (big shock!), Linda Douglas.

The post is titled "Facts Are Stubborn Things."

I think Jake Tapper tweeted this out to his followers on Monday. Video below, but here's the White House still making its false promise. It starts with the "UPDATE" part; that isn't a mistake on my part.

UPDATE: As part of our effort to push back on the misinformation about health insurance reform, we've launched WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck. It's full of videos and tools you can use to share the facts with your friends and family. Check it out.
Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.
In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.
For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.

Click to expand...

Sometimes these rumors travel via a notification from one's insurance company that one's policy is being canceled due to Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Attkisson, doing the heavy lifting?

Tony Trenkle, the Obamacare official in charge of HealthCare.gov security efforts
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...ficial-behind-obamacare-website-to-step-down/announced his resignation
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...ficial-behind-obamacare-website-to-step-down/Wednesday, effective next week.
CBS News has learned that Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was originally supposed to sign off on security for
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-2286/obamacare-kicks-off/the glitch-ridden website
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-2286/obamacare-kicks-off/before its Oct. 1 launch, but didn’t. Instead, the authorization on September 27 was given by Trenkle’s boss, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner.
As CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ed-final-security-requirements-before-launch/reported Monday
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ed-final-security-requirements-before-launch/, security assessments fell behind and the website never had the required top-to-bottom tests.
Trenkle and two other CMS officials, including Chief Operating Officer Michelle Snyder, signed an unusual “risk acknowledgement” saying that the agency’s mitigation plan for rigorous monitoring and ongoing tests did “not reduce the (security) risk to the … system itself going into operation on October 1, 2013.”

Click to expand...

“So a convicted felon could be a navigator and acquire sensitive personal information?” Cornyn asked.

“That is possible,” Sebelius acknowledged. “We have contracts with organizations and they have taken the responsibility to screen the individual navigators and make sure they are sufficiently trained for the job.”

Asked by Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson if they would be open to a federal requirement for background checks, Sebelius said it was up to congress, but that they would certainly look at it.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/06/sebelius-possible-for-convicted-felons-to-become-obamacare-navigators-video/#ixzz2k59ZUcNi

Click to expand...

We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.

Click to expand...

This is BS, and Obama must know it. So far, many of the canceled policies that have hit the news have, in fact, related to the individual market. The fact that individual policies are being canceled left and right can’t possibly come as a surprise to Obama; in June 2010, his administration predicted (as we pointed out here) that once Obamacare was implemented, “more than” a range of 40 percent to 67 percent of all individual policies would be illegal, and therefore would be canceled.

But individual policies are only the tip of the iceberg. At the same time, the Obama administration predicted that up to 69% of all employer-sponsored plans would also be canceled in the first year of Obamacare (i.e., 2014). The tens of millions who will lose their employer-sponsored plans will dwarf the number who lose individual policies. Much as the Obama administration would rather talk about web site travails than canceled insurance, it prefers to talk about individual policies rather than the employer-sponsored policies where most Americans get their health insurance, and which are also doomed under Obamacare. But unless the Democrats intend to repeal or postpone the implementation of Obamacare indefinitely, they are only delaying the inevitable.

Click to expand...

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

administration person in charge of security of website resigning now, apparently wouldn't sign off on website so now either 'resigning' or being forced out. Developing story...

Attkisson, doing the heavy lifting?

Tony Trenkle, the Obamacare official in charge of HealthCare.gov security efforts announced his resignation Wednesday, effective next week.

CBS News has learned that Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was originally supposed to sign off on security for the glitch-ridden website before its Oct. 1 launch, but didn’t. Instead, the authorization on September 27 was given by Trenkle’s boss, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner.

As CBS News reported Monday, security assessments fell behind and the website never had the required top-to-bottom tests.

Trenkle and two other CMS officials, including Chief Operating Officer Michelle Snyder, signed an unusual “risk acknowledgement” saying that the agency’s mitigation plan for rigorous monitoring and ongoing tests did “not reduce the (security) risk to the … system itself going into operation on October 1, 2013.”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

tommyboy said:

administration person in charge of security of website resigning now, apparently wouldn't sign off on website so now either 'resigning' or being forced out. Developing story...

Attkisson, doing the heavy lifting?

Tony Trenkle, the Obamacare official in charge of HealthCare.gov security efforts announced his resignation Wednesday, effective next week.

CBS News has learned that Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was originally supposed to sign off on security for the glitch-ridden website before its Oct. 1 launch, but didn’t. Instead, the authorization on September 27 was given by Trenkle’s boss, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner.

As CBS News reported Monday, security assessments fell behind and the website never had the required top-to-bottom tests.

Trenkle and two other CMS officials, including Chief Operating Officer Michelle Snyder, signed an unusual “risk acknowledgement” saying that the agency’s mitigation plan for rigorous monitoring and ongoing tests did “not reduce the (security) risk to the … system itself going into operation on October 1, 2013.”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This thing is going to die like a wounded duck, flapping around, in the road, messy, ugly, inhumane at times, finally a squashed mass of feathers and red guts no one notices while driving by at some point down the line.

Worse than bad, it's innocuously banal.

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

obama still lying about his lies:

This is BS, and Obama must know it. So far, many of the canceled policies that have hit the news have, in fact, related to the individual market. The fact that individual policies are being canceled left and right can’t possibly come as a surprise to Obama; in June 2010, his administration predicted (as we pointed out here) that once Obamacare was implemented, “more than” a range of 40 percent to 67 percent of all individual policies would be illegal, and therefore would be canceled.

We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.

Click to expand...

But individual policies are only the tip of the iceberg. At the same time, the Obama administration predicted that up to 69% of all employer-sponsored plans would also be canceled in the first year of Obamacare (i.e., 2014). The tens of millions who will lose their employer-sponsored plans will dwarf the number who lose individual policies. Much as the Obama administration would rather talk about web site travails than canceled insurance, it prefers to talk about individual policies rather than the employer-sponsored policies where most Americans get their health insurance, and which are also doomed under Obamacare. But unless the Democrats intend to repeal or postpone the implementation of Obamacare indefinitely, they are only delaying the inevitable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

Because the public loves it. They love Medicare. They love Medicare plan B. They love the no-pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare. They love this stuff; it's here to stay.

Click to expand...

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

Because those are the only two options in DC with a political constituency?

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

Because the public loves it. They love Medicare. They love Medicare plan B. They love the no-pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare. They love this stuff; it's here to stay.

Click to expand...

Really? Bold statements there about all this love being thrown around. Found this and thought it might represent a better top down view about how the public views these new regulations.http://www.gallup.com/poll/165776/uninsured-americans-ignoring-health-exchange-sites.aspx?ref=more

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Schlzm

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

They love the no-pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

Schlzm said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

avoiding injuries said:

"Full steam ahead! No matter what!!!"

This is why having political ramifications mixed in with health care is scary for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

This is why government should stay out of individual commerce and personal health decisions.

Click to expand...

However laudable this attitude might be in theory, it makes no sense in practice. The government was knee deep in commerce and health prior to the ACA and if we somehow eliminated the ACA it still would be knee deep. The debate is not whether government should be involved, but how best to manage that involvement.

Click to expand...

Because everything in existence before the enaction of the ACA is a static state incapable of being stepped back? Why is our only option to attempt to move forward in a reactionary matter as opposed to moving back and possibly removing the shrapnel *before* applying the bandage?Schlzm

Click to expand...

Because the public loves it. They love Medicare. They love Medicare plan B. They love the no-pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare. They love this stuff; it's here to stay.

Click to expand...

Really? Bold statements there about all this love being thrown around. Found this and thought it might represent a better top down view about how the public views these new regulations.http://www.gallup.com/poll/165776/uninsured-americans-ignoring-health-exchange-sites.aspx?ref=more

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Schlzm

Click to expand...

Isn't this the part where the Government comes in and punishes people for their selfishness with the mandate tax?

Click to expand...

Jim11 said:

More good news for the Obamacare debacle. Looks like most of the uninsured plan to stay that way.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165776/uninsured-americans-ignoring-health-exchange-sites.aspx

In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website.

The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

Over 50% of the current uninsured population can either currently afford (and qualify for) coverage today, or can already obtain Medicare/Medicaid or CHIP. If they were to do that, insurance rates would drop as the rates wouldn't be inflated so much to offset the uninsured. Lower rates would allow even more people to afford coverage.....if they desired to. This is one reason why honestly, the individual mandate isn't the worst idea in the world.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

And it also contributes to my premise that the ACA actually won't result in more people being covered (unless changed drastically). When the vast majority of currently uninsured don't sign up, and then a good chuck of currently insured who have had their policies canceled and replaced with more expensive coverage don't comply, we'll be right back in the same place we are today.

Click to expand...

Sand said:

matttyl said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

And it also contributes to my premise that the ACA actually won't result in more people being covered (unless changed drastically). When the vast majority of currently uninsured don't sign up, and then a good chuck of currently insured who have had their policies canceled and replaced with more expensive coverage don't comply, we'll be right back in the same place we are today.

Click to expand...

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sand said:

matttyl said:

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...

And it also contributes to my premise that the ACA actually won't result in more people being covered (unless changed drastically). When the vast majority of currently uninsured don't sign up, and then a good chuck of currently insured who have had their policies canceled and replaced with more expensive coverage don't comply, we'll be right back in the same place we are today.

Click to expand...

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

This is true - the only way the insurers can afford the forced coverage of people who are already sick is if they sign up tons of healthy people, ie the youngest.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The individual mandate tax - this will work how?

People are going to {surprise*!*} get a tax bill in the mail? And if they don't pay it, what a nice lawsuit from their own government?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The individual mandate tax - this will work how?

People are going to {surprise*!*} get a tax bill in the mail? And if they don't pay it, what a nice lawsuit from their own government?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it will work, but if it encourages people who can already medically qualify for coverage (or if that won't matter next year) and can financially afford coverage actually buy it...then it's a good thing. It may be better than dealing with the headache.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sand said:

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

This is true - the only way the insurers can afford the forced coverage of people who are already sick is if they sign up tons of healthy people, ie the youngest.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The individual mandate tax - this will work how?

People are going to {surprise*!*} get a tax bill in the mail? And if they don't pay it, what a nice lawsuit from their own government?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it will work, but if it encourages people who can already medically qualify for coverage (or if that won't matter next year) and can financially afford coverage actually buy it...then it's a good thing. It may be better than dealing with the headache.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing though, if the government doesn't have the means or the will to enforce it then people won't be encouraged (or rather discouraged (from not buying insurance)) at all.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sand said:

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

This is true - the only way the insurers can afford the forced coverage of people who are already sick is if they sign up tons of healthy people, ie the youngest.

Click to expand...

There was an article I posted earlier this week about the average age of people signing up via the exchanges. The carriers were hoping for an average age of 41. So far the average age has been 51. Of course, with only 6 people signing up it will only take a pair of 25 year olds to get it right back in line.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The individual mandate tax - this will work how?

People are going to {surprise*!*} get a tax bill in the mail? And if they don't pay it, what a nice lawsuit from their own government?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it will work, but if it encourages people who can already medically qualify for coverage (or if that won't matter next year) and can financially afford coverage actually buy it...then it's a good thing. It may be better than dealing with the headache.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing though, if the government doesn't have the means or the will to enforce it then people won't be encouraged (or rather discouraged (from not buying insurance)) at all.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to wait and see how far the Government will go to attempt to obtain the penalty.

I'm also interested to know when the projections are made and they say they will collect $x in "mandate penalties" each year, are they assuming a certain % of compliance with that tax/fee? Are they dumb enough to assume 100% compliance with it? And if they are only assuming 50% compliance with it, are they saying that they are actually assuming so many people just won't pay?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sand said:

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

This is true - the only way the insurers can afford the forced coverage of people who are already sick is if they sign up tons of healthy people, ie the youngest.

Click to expand...

There was an article I posted earlier this week about the average age of people signing up via the exchanges. The carriers were hoping for an average age of 41. So far the average age has been 51. Of course, with only 6 people signing up it will only take a pair of 25 year olds to get it right back in line.

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

So you're still just talking about the first day?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Slapdash said:

So you're still just talking about the first day?

Click to expand...

It was a joke. Actually a few thousand people in that state had already signed up, so it will take a few thousand younger people to do so to get the average back to 41. Maybe those damn kids just haven't gotten out of bed yet to sign up.

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

matttyl said:

Slapdash said:

So you're still just talking about the first day?

Click to expand...

It was a joke. Actually a few thousand people in that state had already signed up, so it will take a few thousand younger people to do so to get the average back to 41. Maybe those damn kids just haven't gotten out of bed yet to sign up.

Click to expand...

Website isn't iPhone/iPad compatible?Schlzm

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Schlzm said:

matttyl said:

Slapdash said:

So you're still just talking about the first day?

Click to expand...

It was a joke. Actually a few thousand people in that state had already signed up, so it will take a few thousand younger people to do so to get the average back to 41. Maybe those damn kids just haven't gotten out of bed yet to sign up.

Click to expand...

Website isn't iPhone/iPad compatible?Schlzm

Click to expand...

There's an app for that?

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sand said:

It will be very intersting to see these numbers down the line.

Sadly I wish this survey would have honed in on the young uninsured as they are the ones that the govt. is really, really hoping will sign up; if they don't we will enter a financial death spiral with the cost of the coverages.

Click to expand...

This is true - the only way the insurers can afford the forced coverage of people who are already sick is if they sign up tons of healthy people, ie the youngest.

Click to expand...

There was an article I posted earlier this week about the average age of people signing up via the exchanges. The carriers were hoping for an average age of 41. So far the average age has been 51. Of course, with only 6 people signing up it will only take a pair of 25 year olds to get it right back in line.

Click to expand...

So you're still just talking about the first day?

Click to expand...

Sand said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The individual mandate tax - this will work how?

People are going to {surprise*!*} get a tax bill in the mail? And if they don't pay it, what a nice lawsuit from their own government?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it will work, but if it encourages people who can already medically qualify for coverage (or if that won't matter next year) and can financially afford coverage actually buy it...then it's a good thing. It may be better than dealing with the headache.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing though, if the government doesn't have the means or the will to enforce it then people won't be encouraged (or rather discouraged (from not buying insurance)) at all.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to wait and see how far the Government will go to attempt to obtain the penalty.

I'm also interested to know when the projections are made and they say they will collect $x in "mandate penalties" each year, are they assuming a certain % of compliance with that tax/fee? Are they dumb enough to assume 100% compliance with it? And if they are only assuming 50% compliance with it, are they saying that they are actually assuming so many people just won't pay?

Click to expand...

They had better assume a % as they removed just about every penalty for not paying.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

tommyboy said:

obama still lying about his lies:

This is BS, and Obama must know it. So far, many of the canceled policies that have hit the news have, in fact, related to the individual market. The fact that individual policies are being canceled left and right can’t possibly come as a surprise to Obama; in June 2010, his administration predicted (as we pointed out here) that once Obamacare was implemented, “more than” a range of 40 percent to 67 percent of all individual policies would be illegal, and therefore would be canceled.

We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.

Click to expand...

But individual policies are only the tip of the iceberg. At the same time, the Obama administration predicted that up to 69% of all employer-sponsored plans would also be canceled in the first year of Obamacare (i.e., 2014). The tens of millions who will lose their employer-sponsored plans will dwarf the number who lose individual policies. Much as the Obama administration would rather talk about web site travails than canceled insurance, it prefers to talk about individual policies rather than the employer-sponsored policies where most Americans get their health insurance, and which are also doomed under Obamacare. But unless the Democrats intend to repeal or postpone the implementation of Obamacare indefinitely, they are only delaying the inevitable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In fairness, this is 69% of group plans - not 69% of people who are on a group plan. Employers with over 50 employees won't have to make any changes. Employers with less than 50 employees will. Apparently 69% of groups are under 50 people, though.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Payment for what? You do know what "FFS" means - correct? As someone in the industry what triggers a bill to the patient for a deductible in a "global capitated" environment?

Click to expand...

Yes, fee for service. Typically the patient is just billed their deductible, and the provider gets the balance directly from the carrier.

Click to expand...

Andy Dufresne said:

Schlzm said:

Most Uninsured Americans Ignoring Health Exchange Sites

Three in 10 are familiar with the exchanges

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the midst of widespread news coverage of problems with the federal health exchange website, relatively few uninsured Americans (18%) -- the primary target population for the exchanges -- have so far attempted to visit an exchange website. The percentage is slightly higher, 22%, among uninsured Americans who say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which contributes to proving the idea that the vast majority of those that were uninsured before the ACA were so because they wanted to be uninsured. Not because of some grand conspiracy to keep people down and certainly not some "national disgrace" that it was painted to be.

Click to expand...