Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

Because BCBS has ~80% of the individual market and those 2 others that you listed maybe combined have ~10% of it. Is think the BCBS number is far more relevant to he market, wouldn't you?

Sounds like those other two should be braced for a ton of new business, right? Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 24.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • matttyl

    3889

  • timschochet

    2111

  • Bottomfeeder Sports

    1654

  • The Commish

    1611

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You're misrepresenting the Republican plan. "Repeal and replace" would indeed be an empty bit of rhetoric lacking specifics. But the actual plan is not so overly simplistic as that. The actual plan, i

It's crazy that you have 31K posts and can't read or comprehend simple English.

From the signing of ACA into law, until today, is 1360 days. From the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the date of Japan's surrender was 1347 days. FDR built dozens of aircraft carriers, fighter planes, tur

It's not your problem because those people are staying at their jobs.

Not anymore - they can now quit their job, and obtain subsidized coverage via the exchanges. As a taxpayer, that is my problem.
The horror.

I asked you twice last week to explain your comments (I assume concerning COBRA). I feel I explained my side fully and had a great back and forth conversation with Blind Tiger about it. This is the response we get from you and you wonder why no one takes you seriously here?
You are the only person I've ever met who didn't understand the problems with COBRA.

And no, simply saying that people should have the money to pay for COBRA saved up and that If not it's there problem isn't an answer or a solution.

Dude - COBRA is cheaper that what an individual pays on the open market.

COBRA is not cheaper than what the average person on an exchange pays.

COSTCO is not cheaper than what the average person on food stamps pays.

James Madison University is not cheaper than what the average person at the US Naval Academy pays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

Doesn't matter - when these rate increase requests are drastically reduced, the same folks will be in here suggesting I'm an idiot, and that there is another ACA disaster just around the corner that is going to be devastating.

Rinse and repeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because BCBS has ~80% of the individual market and those 2 others that you listed maybe combined have ~10% of it. Is think the BCBS number is far more relevant to he market, wouldn't you?

Sounds like those other two should be braced for a ton of new business, right? Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?

Kind of, but I get the feeling that capitalism to you, is regardless of your work ethic we all make basically the same.

Am I wrong? If so I apologize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because BCBS has ~80% of the individual market and those 2 others that you listed maybe combined have ~10% of it. Is think the BCBS number is far more relevant to he market, wouldn't you?

Sounds like those other two should be braced for a ton of new business, right? Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?

They likely aren't big enough for the influx of older/sicker policy holders that even a far larger BCBS couldn't handle without requesting a 30% increase in premiums in back to back years. They take on all that business and they will be the next Assurant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

Doesn't matter - when these rate increase requests are drastically reduced, the same folks will be in here suggesting I'm an idiot, and that there is another ACA disaster just around the corner that is going to be devastating.

Rinse and repeat.

That same carrier did in fact get approval for 9.8% (HMO) and 16.2% (PPO) increases last year. They are asking for similar increases again this year because they weren't granted last time. If they were again reduced to (roughly) 10% and 16%, would that mean that the ACA is working? Wasn't the ACA suppose to lower costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not your problem because those people are staying at their jobs.

Not anymore - they can now quit their job, and obtain subsidized coverage via the exchanges. As a taxpayer, that is my problem.
The horror.

I asked you twice last week to explain your comments (I assume concerning COBRA). I feel I explained my side fully and had a great back and forth conversation with Blind Tiger about it. This is the response we get from you and you wonder why no one takes you seriously here?
You are the only person I've ever met who didn't understand the problems with COBRA.

And no, simply saying that people should have the money to pay for COBRA saved up and that If not it's there problem isn't an answer or a solution.

You do realize that COBRA still exists, right?

Yes. Which part of my post suggests otherwise?

The bolded part.

By phrasing it that way you either mean that I didn't understand COBRA, but you now believe I do (and I don't believe you'd grant me that much credit) - or that you feel the problems with COBRA are now gone. Otherwise you would have said "you're the only person I've ever met who doesn't understand the problems with COBRA." So which is it?

Bear in mind that you still haven't stated what you feel the problems with COBRA are. I've now asked 4 times and haven't gotten an answer from you.

Edited by matttyl
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not your problem because those people are staying at their jobs.

Not anymore - they can now quit their job, and obtain subsidized coverage via the exchanges. As a taxpayer, that is my problem.
The horror.

I asked you twice last week to explain your comments (I assume concerning COBRA). I feel I explained my side fully and had a great back and forth conversation with Blind Tiger about it. This is the response we get from you and you wonder why no one takes you seriously here?
You are the only person I've ever met who didn't understand the problems with COBRA.

And no, simply saying that people should have the money to pay for COBRA saved up and that If not it's there problem isn't an answer or a solution.

You do realize that COBRA still exists, right?

Yes. Which part of my post suggests otherwise?

The bolded part.

By phrasing it that way you either mean that I didn't understand COBRA, but you now believe I do (and I don't believe you'd grant me that much credit) - or that you feel the problems with COBRA are now gone. Otherwise you would have said "you're the only person I've ever met who doesn't understand the problems with COBRA." So which is it?

Bear in mind that you still haven't stated what you feel the problems with COBRA are. I've now asked 4 times and haven't gotten an answer from you.

Why do you continue asking? :wall:

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

Doesn't matter - when these rate increase requests are drastically reduced, the same folks will be in here suggesting I'm an idiot, and that there is another ACA disaster just around the corner that is going to be devastating.

Rinse and repeat.

This is my favorite part. Tim gives Tommy a good stroking and then Tommy ignores the bulk of his post and dismisses the other part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

The request rates "may" not be the final outcome?

Would you care to make a wager? I'll put $1000 on the rates being lower than requested, and offer you 2-1 odds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

The request rates "may" not be the final outcome?

Would you care to make a wager? I'll put $1000 on the rates being lower than requested, and offer you 2-1 odds.

Want to wager $1000 that the typical family doesn't see a $2500 reduction in premiums? I'll give you 2-1 odds.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.

Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..

and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..

Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??

Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do... :lol:

Edited by snogger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

However, I continue to have serious long term concerns about ACA. The other day I had a long conversation with a doctor for whom I am leasing a new medical clinic. The numbers he gave me, if true, were pretty stark: it takes 12 years of university, med school, and residency to be an M.D. Most people that get through this accrue nearly $300,000 of student loan debt. They can find a job at Kaiser at $120,000 per year, and those jobs are shrinking and the salaries are being reduced- and even if they do get that job, that $300k is going to take forever to pay off. In order to avoid all this, the number of nurse-practitioners are expanding rapidly- to the point where in a few years 90% of all visits to a "doctor" are actually going to be visits to a nurse-practitioner. They're paid far less and they don't need to go through the schooling.

So what does this all mean? According to my doctor client, it means that the amount of doctors are going to continue to decline rapidly. It's simply too much work to become a doctor and not enough reward. The MDs that remain are going to cater to the rich and the upper middle class- already in California, there are a wide number of doctors who are rejecting all Covered California (ACA) and Medical plans. The ACA is accelerating, not alleviating, this process.

Something we agree on. That's exactly what will happen. And because it's tax driven, guess who gets to shoulder that extra burden.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to wager $1000 that the typical family doesn't see a $2500 reduction in premiums? I'll give you 2-1 odds.

[TGunz]

"That was just campaign rhetoric you fool. I can't believe you fell for that lolololol"

[/TGunz]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?

And the backtracking begins.

And LOL at "they had to ask for a big increase because they didn't get what they asked for last year".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's link regarding the $2500

Not sure if youtube is a TGunz approved media source

Was the health care plan that Obama campaigned on implemented?

And the backtracking continues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: All matttyl's posts had the word "projections" clearly in the link. Me thinks Tommy doesn't understand what the word "backtrack" means.

Are you that guy in Fort Mill getting bailed out of your own stupidity by liberals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.

Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..

and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..

Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??

Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do... :lol:

Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.

Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..

and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..

Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??

Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do... :lol:

Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"

Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..

Just off the top of my head....

Democrats and Republicans are working together( :eek: ) to get rid of the Medical Device tax and the "Cadillac Tax" with no plans to replace that expected revenue to pay for the ACA.

The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..

Edited by snogger
Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.

Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..

and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..

Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??

Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do... :lol:

Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"

Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..

Just off the top of my head....

Democrats and Republicans are working together( :eek: ) to get rid of the Medical Device tax and the "Cadillac Tax" with no plans to replace that expected revenue to pay for the ACA.

The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..

Why are you blaming the ACA for Democrats and Republicans trying to change it? Seems your ire should be directed at those who are attempting to undermine the tax, not those who were responsible and enacted that provision in order to pay for the ACA in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they are reduced, keeping premium rates artificially low to appease public outcry is bad for the market long term and will lead to an ultimately higher premium rate in years to come.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they are reduced, keeping premium rates artificially low to appease public outcry is bad for the market long term and will lead to an ultimately higher premium rate in years to come.

But by then a Republican might be president and we can blame them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

tommyGunZ, I agree with you. I think the rate increases being warned about are way overstated. And if they do end up happening, we can expect more subsidies to alleviate them.

While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.

And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.

Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.

Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..

and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..

Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??

Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do... :lol:

Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"

Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..

Just off the top of my head....

Democrats and Republicans are working together( :eek: ) to get rid of the Medical Device tax and the "Cadillac Tax" with no plans to replace that expected revenue to pay for the ACA.

The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..

Why are you blaming the ACA for Democrats and Republicans trying to change it? Seems your ire should be directed at those who are attempting to undermine the tax, not those who were responsible and enacted that provision in order to pay for the ACA in the first place.

:lmao:

Because the Bill was was passed knowing dam well that most of the expected "Revenue" would never stay..

They needed to pass it and sell it as "It is Paid for!!!" so that their minions could have a talking point..

No one that thought about this logically could have believed that the "Cadillac" tax was something companies were just going to pay..

Same goes with believing that the tax added to insurance companies would just get paid without the Insurance companies finding a way to get it back..

and BTW.. If you look at those that are trying to get rid of some this revenue.. some of the those on the Left are ones that voted for it.. Just from Minnesota alone Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are doing their best to remove the Medical device tax as well as the "Cadillac" tax..

Edited by snogger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?

And the backtracking begins.

And LOL at "they had to ask for a big increase because they didn't get what they asked for last year".

What backtracking? I said in the original post that they were "rate proposals". The first 4 words of the post, which is where I embedded the link said "Maryland's 2016 rate proposals", read much?

And why are you LOL'ing at me when it's exactly what was said in the article? Again from my first post about the topic - "CareFirst said it needs its request to be approved in full because it did not get the increases it sought the previous two years, Redmer said."

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: All matttyl's posts had the word "projections" clearly in the link. Me thinks Tommy doesn't understand what the word "backtrack" means.

Are you that guy in Fort Mill getting bailed out of your own stupidity by liberals?

Yup, liberals are happy to bail anyone out of their own stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the Bill was was passed knowing dam well that most of the expected "Revenue" would never stay..

They needed to pass it and sell it as "It is Paid for!!!" so that their minions could have a talking point..

No one that thought about this logically could have believed that the "Cadillac" tax was something companies were just going to pay..

Same goes with believing that the tax added to insurance companies would just get paid without the Insurance companies finding a way to get it back..

and BTW.. If you look at those that are trying to get rid of some this revenue.. some of the those on the Left are ones that voted for it.. Just from Minnesota alone Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are doing their best to remove the Medical device tax as well as the "Cadillac" tax..

At this point, I'm getting more concerned with the cost side of it rather than the revenue side of it. Revenues can be adjusted by future taxes and such, but costs (when it comes to entitlements) are rarely if ever removed. Illinois, for instance, estimated and budgeted for 199,000 medicaid enrollees. They have more than 634,000 enrollees at this point, more than 3x the initial estimate. I understand that money for these Medicaid enrollees is being provided by the feds for now (federal taxpayers) and will slowly shift to 90-10 with the states fitting some of the bill. Where is the money needed to provide all these benefits (3x what was initially projected) coming from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?

And the backtracking begins.

And LOL at "they had to ask for a big increase because they didn't get what they asked for last year".

What backtracking? I said in the original post that they were "rate proposals". The first 4 words of the post, which is where I embedded the link said "Maryland's 2016 rate proposals", read much?

And why are you LOL'ing at me when it's exactly what was said in the article? Again from my first post about the topic - "CareFirst said it needs its request to be approved in full because it did not get the increases it sought the previous two years, Redmer said."

Why even post the article and highlight the scary numbers if you weren't insinuating that they were real?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Obama meant to say that the "average American family of 4 will save $2,500 a year," I think what he meant was that the "average American family will end up paying $25,000 a year in total health costs."

Yeah, it's Forbes, so not "Gunzapproved"

You guys are more than welcome to continue reading, linking, and whining about horror stories that will inevitably prove to be untrue. Myself, I lose patience with a source when they mislead me in a systemic way. It's clear that you and a few others are fine with misleading sources as long as they are spouting your talking bout points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?

And the backtracking begins.

And LOL at "they had to ask for a big increase because they didn't get what they asked for last year".

What backtracking? I said in the original post that they were "rate proposals". The first 4 words of the post, which is where I embedded the link said "Maryland's 2016 rate proposals", read much?

And why are you LOL'ing at me when it's exactly what was said in the article? Again from my first post about the topic - "CareFirst said it needs its request to be approved in full because it did not get the increases it sought the previous two years, Redmer said."

Why even post the article and highlight the scary numbers if you weren't insinuating that they were real?

They are real. They are real rate proposals. I said that in the first 4 words. Did you not see that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Obama meant to say that the "average American family of 4 will save $2,500 a year," I think what he meant was that the "average American family will end up paying $25,000 a year in total health costs."

Yeah, it's Forbes, so not "Gunzapproved"

You guys are more than welcome to continue reading, linking, and whining about horror stories that will inevitably prove to be untrue. Myself, I lose patience with a source when they mislead me in a systemic way. It's clear that you and a few others are fine with misleading sources as long as they are spouting your talking bout points.

Wait, the Milliam Medical Index has mislead you in a systemic way? When did you first hear of them?

Edited by matttyl
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Obama meant to say that the "average American family of 4 will save $2,500 a year," I think what he meant was that the "average American family will end up paying $25,000 a year in total health costs."

Yeah, it's Forbes, so not "Gunzapproved"

You guys are more than welcome to continue reading, linking, and whining about horror stories that will inevitably prove to be untrue. Myself, I lose patience with a source when they mislead me in a systemic way. It's clear that you and a few others are fine with misleading sources as long as they are spouting your talking bout points.

Oh my gosh. This is rich.

Is this really coming from the same guy that constantly spouts WH Talking Points all day long as if they were handed down by Jesus himself?

Edited by MaxThreshold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad part is I really don't think the ACA was passed to get more people on health insurance. Initially yes. Long term, I don't believe that is the end game.

Government controls your health care, they control a lot of your life.

IRS going after the tea party is chump change compared to what they can do, or not do for you & your family. I'm mainly speaking medically & health wise here.

Hopefully not as bad as I surmise, but I'm very jaded when the Feds say they know better than me, what is good for me. It's usually the opposite.

Call me unusually suspicious when the president has to tell numerous, huge, bald face lies to get a law passed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where the Huffington post lies in the realm of "approved sources" but they have an article today in regards to the Raising deductibles and how it is adding to the underinsured..

But perhaps the most important survey finding is about the consequences for people who fit into the underinsured category.

Some took financial hits: 47 percent of respondents said they exhausted their savings to pay medical bills, 23 percent were dealing with collection agencies and 7 percent had to declare bankruptcy.

Others who were underinsured opted not to get recommended care: 26 percent didn’t fill a prescription because of expense, while 24 percent didn’t get prescribed follow-up treatment or tests for the same reason.

and a story on Yahoo finance page ( Again, not sure if that is a trusted source or not :oldunsure: ) talks about the report and added this gem:

Before long, we may need another Affordable Care Act—one that actually makes healthcare affordable.

:mellow:

Edited by snogger
Link to post
Share on other sites
Myself, I lose patience with a source when they mislead me in a systemic way. It's clear that you and a few others are fine with misleading sources as long as they are spouting your talking bout points.

Yeah, I feel the same about the guy who kept telling me and my clients that if they liked their health care they could keep it, and that their premiums would go down, and that these new policies would be even better than the "junk plans" they would replace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rate proposals for South Dakota are in - 42.9% increase.

Here's a good read about how the pieces are coming together, or aren't.

You guys will need to fight amongst yourselves for a while. However, once again someone is talking about "teaser rates"...

Is there an inherent problem in doing this? I'd understand pointing this out if he were not clearly saying they are proposed numbers, but he's not so I'm not sure why it's an issue :oldunsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rate proposals for South Dakota are in - 42.9% increase.

Here's a good read about how the pieces are coming together, or aren't.

You guys will need to fight amongst yourselves for a while. However, once again someone is talking about "teaser rates"...

So the rates the first two years (which unsubsidized were drastically higher than the pre ACA rates) were still artificially low to what they should have been? You don't say....

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.


×
×
  • Create New...