Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Adm Knew Millions Would Lose Health Ins!  
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Posted (12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Galling, since conservatives have been warning everyone about this for years.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_n...t-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

Fair-use excerpt:

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent.


I'm just stunned that the media is finally getting around to allowing this story to see the light of day.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4671 times:

It really is ignorance when people pick and choose publishing and elevating nonsense such as this to further their own political agenda. ACA was never going to be easy, and conservatives lambaste it every step of the way. For shame.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 1):
It really is ignorance when people pick and choose publishing and elevating nonsense such as this to further their own political agenda

Why is this NBC News investigative piece nonsense? Please be specific; the article has been.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12740 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4654 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
I'm just stunned that the media is finally getting around to allowing this story to see the light of day.

Ahh that same old sad narrative, 'the media' has it out for the 'poor' conservatives and only 'allows' coverage that's slanted, sigh...

Perhaps if the GOP wasn't so busy trying to tank the economy, issues like this would get more coverage...

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 1):
conservatives lambaste it every step of the way

Indeed so. Their focus all along the way has been 'how can we get rid of this' instead of 'how can we make this better'?

The reason why is politics: it's been a Democratic goal for a very long time to improve health care. Most GOPers privately admit there is a huge problem needing to be solved. Unfortunately their ideology seems to prevent them from being involved in the solution, nor even proposing alternatives.

Ironically enough the approach being used is patterned after Massachusetts's RomneyCare, yet the GOP hates it...

Like Romneycare, once Obamacare is up and running most of this stuff will be a non-issue.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4649 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Obamacare is up and running most of this stuff will be a non-issue.

Misleading (at best) or outright lying (at worst) to the American people is a non-issue? Please explain that to me, as I'm unfamiliar with how this concept works.

From the aforementioned NBC News piece:

President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

It's not only turning out to not be the case, but also that the Administration knew this was untrue:

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.


Again, help me to understand how this isn't newsworthy and is, in your words, a "non-issue."



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):

I'm sure it's all Bush's fault.
Or the media is just being racist now.
We can't expect Obama to actually take any responsibility in this...



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4558 times:

This program is anything but affordable. My insurance premium went from $200 a month for just myself to well over $500 a month. I WILL opt out. I will take my chances with their "fine". It will be challenged, it will get knocked down. No once can force someone to buy something.

User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Surprise...surrpise. Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi that said something to the effect "We just have to pass this now...we'll have time to read the details later." ? regards....jack


all best; jack
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6):
No once can force someone to buy something.

If you pay taxes you are already being forced to buy something.

Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to.

That's the way it should be.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

So, when private industry does something, it is Obama's fault? Private insurance could, very easily, make policies that work under ACA law. What they are doing is taking the easy way out and blaming Obama.

It is getting really tiring to see the right keep whining about how they lost and have no new ideas. They don't do anything except blame Obama for non-existent problems. They are doing this and complaining about the web site (because their own party's governors were too lazy or mean to set up their own state exchanges) instead of working on a budget or coming up with their own health care plan or coming up with immigration reform.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6):
I WILL opt out. I will take my chances with their "fine". It will be challenged, it will get knocked down. No once can force someone to buy something.

I'd say they're doing a pretty good job. You'll buy it the way you're supposed to, or your fine will subsidise it anyway. Either way, you're buying it.

The fine will be $95 or 1% of gross for 2014, whichever is greater. If $6000 is greater than 1% of your gross, yes, yes you should opt out.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):

Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to.

I agree, but when that was brought up as an option, the caterwalling from the usual suspects was just screechy enough to be heard, and that played in nicely with the ins lobby, so here we are. It could easily have been so much better by now, but a small group had to nix that for everyone.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 9):
So, when private industry does something, it is Obama's fault?

Correct. I heard he also eats a baby with every breakfast...



I honestly don't understand why the insurance companies would want to use this opportunity to profiteer like that. They should be aware that there is enough frustration with ACA that it will likely be overhauled to something more socially acceptable and universal within a decade or two anyway. Raising rates now will only hasten that, and with it, their demise. Go figure.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

http://www.providencejournal.com/bre...up-on-r.i.s-obamacare-exchange.ece


Rhode Island has a working site. Of course we took the money and did it right it seems. Of course the know it all states did not. Imagine our figures are going up also. Too bad people in the Red States can not use our site. I'll bet plenty of them would if given the chance. Read the thread about the five worst state for women, it seems to fit here also. I maybe wrong of course.

[Edited 2013-10-29 08:29:20]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineagill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

[url}http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html[/url]
Seems like american patients are charged a lot for their medical treatment.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4471 times:

Wow, the reaction from the left is mind boggling. It's not "how are we gonna fix it" it's blaming the GOP for being stubborn and not working on their bill that's turning out pretty poorly! While I agree that the GOP shouldn't have been trolls the past few years and tried to improve this bill, come on Democrats, own up to your problems!

Blame private industry all you want, the end result is still pretty crappy. Not impressed at all



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
It's not "how are we gonna fix it" it's blaming the GOP for being stubborn and not working on their bill that's turning out pretty poorly!

They can't work on something whey they are being attacked at the same time. They can, but they are going to be chastised for that, too! No matter what Democrats do, they lose, in the eyes of the right. If Democrats scrap the whole thing, the right will say "why did you give up? We need to have hearings!" If they change it, the right will say "why did you change the plan you love? We need to have hearings!" If they do nothing, the right will say "why are you not doing anything? We need to have hearings!" Meanwhile, the right does not do anything but hold hearings. Why doesn't the right do something instead of trying to create a "gotcha" moment?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
They can't work on something whey they are being attacked at the same time. They can, but they are going to be chastised for that, too! No matter what Democrats do, they lose, in the eyes of the right. If Democrats scrap the whole thing, the right will say "why did you give up? We need to have hearings!" If they change it, the right will say "why did you change the plan you love? We need to have hearings!" If they do nothing, the right will say "why are you not doing anything? We need to have hearings!" Meanwhile, the right does not do anything but hold hearings. Why doesn't the right do something instead of trying to create a "gotcha" moment?

Again, wah wah Republicans did X and didn't do Y. This is still a Democrat bill, OWN IT. And you're saying that if the Democrats try and fix it they'll just be "chastised by the right?" Who cares!? Do your job Democrats, don't get your feelings hurt if the right is mean to you.

I'm not saying scrap the ACA and I'm not saying I'm happy with how the GOP has been acting, but when I clicked this thread I thought I'd see comments along the lines of "wow, yeah, this bill I supported has major flaws. What can we do to fix it?" Instead it's a complete partisan blame game.

Some of the excuses are pretty weak... 'the insurance policies don't meet the criteria' and 'well this is just the private sector's fault!' This still all goes against the promises made, would not have happened if it wasn't for the ACA, should have been predicted, and if it's a genuine surprise (which it doesn't look like it is) a fix should be started immediately. To be fair, I'm only seeing what supporters and talking heads are saying, maybe the Democrat politicians are working to fix the issue. The individual mandate has been postponed, that is owning your mistake (the mistake being the website being all messed up)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21693 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 9):
So, when private industry does something, it is Obama's fault? Private insurance could, very easily, make policies that work under ACA law. What they are doing is taking the easy way out and blaming Obama.

They could, but let's face facts: the minimum standard requirements are going to have an impact on what they can and will offer. It could be argued that if your insurance company ends your insurance but you can get a better value-for-money but more expensive plan on the exchanges you're still coming out ahead, and I would say that the tradeoff is worth it, but it's still people not being able to keep their insurance, and it's still people having to spend more (though they'd be getting much more for it). And people don't like that, particularly when the "if you like your insurance you'll be able to keep it" line got trotted out quite a bit, and I don't blame them.

I don't think that the state of things is nearly as bad as the GOP would have us all believe, and I do think that in the long run we'll come out ahead after some tweaks to the law are made, but I'm not going to begrudge people for being irritated by the effects of the complexity of the new system.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to.

That would be the most sensible solution, provided the basic coverage is really just basic. But for some reason government-run healthcare makes a lot of people angry, despite the fact that those on Medicare seem to like it a lot and don't want the government to get involved in it. Go figure.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 329 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Recent history always comes in handy:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...-helped-Republicans-save-BushCare#

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/24/2828261/hearing-post/

Yes, that's the same Joe Barton who is currently pissing all over the ACA expressing thoughts about bipartisanship and patience.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to.

   We might actually have a functioning society if Republicans stopped trying to convince everyone that the government is nothing but pure evil, ruining everything it touches.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
Again, wah wah Republicans did X and didn't do Y.

Delta, I respect your general middle of the road position on most things, and you are good about providing sane, rational arguments to defend your position, but I think you tend to get lulled into the false equivalency that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in many ways. Be careful about that.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
I'm just stunned that the media is finally getting around to allowing this story to see the light of day

It's only because they already know more is going to come out so they might as well tell it before the Obama Administration says it that way they won't appear as conspiratorial.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Again, help me to understand how this isn't newsworthy and is, in your words, a "non-issue."

Just more noise to try to deflect attention from the issue at hand.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Democrats, own up to your problems!
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
This is still a Democrat bill, OWN IT

What? Surely you jest!  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
Do your job Democrats, don't get your feelings hurt if the right is mean to you.

  

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17):
We might actually have a functioning society if Republicans stopped trying to convince everyone that the government is nothing but pure evil, ruining everything it touches.

I can hear the "society" and their komrads in lock-step now.  
Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17):
Be careful about that.

What? Is that supposed to be a threat?




"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Like Romneycare, once Obamacare is up and running most of this stuff will be a non-issue.

Keep telling yourself that.

The justification for radically overhauling health insurance was the so-called crisis of 30 million Americans without insurance. The "solution" could cause up to 10 million Americans to lose the coverage they had when roughly 80% of people were satisfied with their insurance before Obamacare. A pissed-off demographic the size of Georgia is not a non-issue.

[Edited 2013-10-29 10:44:24]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

This following quote is not the words of the OP. It is a quote from the article linked in the first post, and also quoted by the OP

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
....But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance.....

.....who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law.....

I wonder about using the word 'insurance' to describe the existing plans.

The standards mandated under the new law include things like:

1) The maximum payable benefits must be in excess of 60% of the total annual premiums.
2) The plan must have a wellness benefit - i.e. annual physicals
3) The plan must have an emergency room benefit
4) The plan cannot require out-of-pocket expenses above approx. $6,350 for individuals or $12,700 for families.

Many, if not most, of the healthcare plans from traditional insurers being cancelled are 'high deductible' plans. (Such as the 119,000 Blue Shield and 160,000 Kaiser Permanente policy holders notified recently that there policies do not meet minimum essential coverage cannot be renewed after Jan 1 in California).

These 'high deductible' policies really only cover major hospitalizations - and then only after the covered person has paid a lot of money - in some cases as much as $25,000. These plans are not 'insurance' in the traditional sense.

Yes, the cost to many rich yuppies will be higher. And some poorer folks will be caught in the requirement for a real value insurance policy.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17):
Delta, I respect your general middle of the road position on most things, and you are good about providing sane, rational arguments to defend your position, but I think you tend to get lulled into the false equivalency that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in many ways. Be careful about that.

I'm actually not trying to say which side is better or worse. What I'm hearing (from some people) is that the bill is turning out the way it is because the GOP wasn't there to help fix it. Again, I'm very unimpressed with the GOP, but I just see all this as deflecting blame. There is a problem here and it wouldn't have been here if the ACA wasn't here. Maybe the insurance companies aren't acting like it was predicted... instead of blaming them, we need to face that reality and find a solution. Maybe the ACA's requirements are too high and too quick. I don't know.

When I see the ACA getting attacked unfairly, I argue and defend it, standing next to the other supporters of it. But when we see the problems it's accidentally causing and I turn around to criticize it, everyone else (seems, IMO) to be acting as apologists for it. Shout out to Mir in reply 16 though, pretty much agree with him there and his tone seems more clam then mine

As Jon Stewart said recently (severely paraphrasing it) "I like the ACA but the administration is making it so hard to defend sometimes." Again, I need to see the official reaction, I realize no one here on the board has any authority on this issue



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12740 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Misleading (at best) or outright lying (at worst) to the American people is a non-issue?

You haven't provided evidence of that. All you've provided is:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate

Given a common definition of "lie" is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood" you haven't met that standard. Given the climate where a large group of Congressmen were willing to wreck the economy just to score political points, I'm going to need more than that.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to.

That's the way it should be.

  

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 10):
I agree, but when that was brought up as an option, the caterwalling from the usual suspects was just screechy enough to be heard, and that played in nicely with the ins lobby, so here we are. It could easily have been so much better by now, but a small group had to nix that for everyone.

Indeed ACA falls far short of what many liberals would have liked to see.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
when I clicked this thread I thought I'd see comments along the lines of "wow, yeah, this bill I supported has major flaws. What can we do to fix it?" Instead it's a complete partisan blame game.

I'm surprised you'd have that expectation after the events of the last few months...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Well, I would agree that some, any, transparency would (should) help the Government's cause----unless, of course, there is something to hide  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ogizes-for-healthcaregov-failures/

From the AP so hopefully they are not just telling us "lies" like the usual Fox stories.  

In any event the numbers only tell part of the initial failures.
While plenty of people who stand to gain from Obamacare are trying to sign-up-------------all the young generation that is intended to finance the Obamacare plan are NOT.
Not a good start.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

Oh, and as for misinformation, leave it to Rangel to try to muddy the waters--------- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ed-for-social-security-sidetracks/


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
These 'high deductible' policies really only cover major hospitalizations - and then only after the covered person has paid a lot of money - in some cases as much as $25,000. These plans are not 'insurance' in the traditional sense

You know what, that is exactly what medical insurance was some time ago...major medical. You didn't use it for a cold, you used it for appendicitis or a heart attack or a car accident.

Bottom line is that the president said:

"If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xA3WiL2Xo

But, that isn't true, is it? In the case of these folks, upwards of 14 million people will not be able to keep the insurance they have.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
The standards mandated under the new law include things like:

So, the all-knowing, all-benevolent government knows what's best for these folks? I understand...we are all stupid and our politicians in Washington know what is best for us., I now await one of them to come and wipe my nose and ass...hopefully, in that order.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 9):
So, when private industry does something, it is Obama's fault? Private insurance could, very easily, make policies that work under ACA law. What they are doing is taking the easy way out and blaming Obama.

Actually, they are. They are sending out cancellation notices for their current policies and telling these folks that the policies do not meet the mandates in the Democrat Party passed ACA. I suspect that most of these folks will have no problem getting insurance that meets the mandates, but they will pay more because the ACA mandates a higher level of benefits.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...amacare-makes-stunning-admission/#



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7382 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
They can't work on something whey they are being attacked at the same time. They can, but they are going to be chastised for that, too!

So the Democrats actually listen to the noise that the GOP put out and refuse to govern,hhhhmmm, that is as bad a receipe for grid lock as the Tea Party.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
No matter what Democrats do, they lose, in the eyes of the right. If Democrats scrap the whole thing, the right will say "why did you give up?

There is a problem, address it, we are told that the majority of the nation supports health care and that in the last election they went to the polls to confirm it, that was the basis of the Democrats sticking to their guns in the debt and government shutdown debacle. Now you are saying that they are listning to the Tea Party and will do nothing?

One cannot refuse to govern because of critics, especially the vocal minority, if nothing is done because the Dems are waiting for the Tea Party to get onboard those disenfranchised by the inaction will become support fodder for the Tea Party and anyone who opposes the new laws. Just because one aspect has a problem does not mean that all is bad, Americans are usually a forgiving bunch as long as you are honest with them and they see that you are working on the problem. Blaming the GOP cannot be seen as action if the shutdown and debt ceiling had no bearing on the problem.
Should we expect to see stories that the web site is not working properly because staff were off during the shutdown?


User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4281 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 26):
Should we expect to see stories that the web site is not working properly because staff were off during the shutdown?

I think, (I will try to find them) there were stories out there that blamed some of the glitches on the shutdown, or rather the lack of resolved problems.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
Too bad people in the Red States can not use our site. I'll bet plenty of them would if given the chance.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...me-states-obamacare-plans/2986795/

State exchanges turn out to cost more for insurance due to lack of available options, and options are even more limited in rural areas of some states. So while the Federal exchange has problems so do the states. The state's problems seem to be more related to the bill itself.

This whole thing should not really be a surprise to anyone the ACA had a minimum mandate of coverage and many existing plans did not cover those minimums. Then in 6 months to a year there will be public outrage that ACA does not actually address the cost of healthcare and really is only an expensive insurance mandate. Obama lied and Democrats willingly passed an imperfect bill, and there is problems. Simply unpredictable!

     


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21693 posts, RR: 55
Reply 28, posted (12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
The "solution" could cause up to 10 million Americans to lose the coverage they had when roughly 80% of people were satisfied with their insurance before Obamacare.

They'll still be able to get other coverage, and in the long term I think they'll be happy with it. That's not to say that their frustration isn't valid, but it's not like they're going to become uninsured like some people are insinuating. Unless they want to be, of course.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
What I'm hearing (from some people) is that the bill is turning out the way it is because the GOP wasn't there to help fix it.

That's a stretch, but it is true that the GOP was in a good position to do some fixing of the bill and tried to can it entirely instead, and did so without putting out an alternate plan in writing that could be compared with the ACA. It is the Democrats' bill, and they're going to take most of the responsibility for the problems, but the GOP hasn't put a lot of effort into making itself part of the solution.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
There is a problem here and it wouldn't have been here if the ACA wasn't here.

But there would be other problems, and the problems we had with the healthcare system beforehand were significant.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6729 posts, RR: 12
Reply 29, posted (12 months 1 day ago) and read 4235 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
Galling, since conservatives have been warning everyone about this for years.

Is that so ? I was hearing things about death panels and scrapping the law and repealing it and unseat Obama and defunding it.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 25):
"If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xA3WiL2Xo

But, that isn't true, is it? In the case of these folks, upwards of 14 million people will not be able to keep the insurance they have.

Does Obama/government have the power to force private companies to cover these people ? Can't such companies cancel the contract pretty much anytime and do it routinely as soon as you start costing them money ?

Maybe the promise was foolish, but those not liking the ACA usually are in favor of "free market, less regulations", etc.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 30, posted (12 months 1 day ago) and read 4236 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 25):
You know what, that is exactly what medical insurance was some time ago...major medical.

I remember those days.

Which were before a simple physical exam cost more than two weeks pay. Before taking two kids in for shots cost more than dinner at the fanciest restaurant in town.

When the removal of a kid's tonsil's could be paid to the doctor and hospital in weekly payments - and the total bill was less than a week's salary.

If you can find a place with health care at those rates today, I'd agree that only Major Medical is a plausible insurance policy for ordinary people.

And I'd like to move there.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (12 months 23 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
That's a stretch, but it is true that the GOP was in a good position to do some fixing of the bill and tried to can it entirely instead, and did so without putting out an alternate plan in writing that could be compared with the ACA. It is the Democrats' bill, and they're going to take most of the responsibility for the problems, but the GOP hasn't put a lot of effort into making itself part of the solution.

Yeah, I mean the GOP dragging their feet added to the overall problem. I'm just saying this is a major problem in the ACA and I'd rather see some solutions rather than GOP blaming. It could have been as simple as "your new insurance will be better and cheaper" (and then provide proof that it would be) but the promise was that you could keep your old insurance. We can rationalize and tiptoe around that as much as we want, but it's turning out to not be true. But like I said, you touched on all that already, I think we agree on about 95% of this

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
But there would be other problems, and the problems we had with the healthcare system beforehand were significant.

Yes there would, not denying that. I know you're not saying this, but many do: basically covering one problem with a slightly less bad problem. It's good that we're fixing a broken system but if the fix is flawed, we still need to address it rather than settling with it because the outcome is supposedly better



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (12 months 23 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep you insurance plan. Period."

Love this guy  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E

Nice little montage of his repeated promise. P.S ignore the dumb, idiotic comments.

[Edited 2013-10-29 17:35:55]


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4076 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (12 months 23 hours ago) and read 4184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
Too bad people in the Red States can not use our site.

You've indirectly hit the nail on the head as far as the GOP's continued opposition to the ACA. The party has boxed itself into a corner where the ACA must fail at all costs. Let's assume for a moment the very real current issues are fixed in reasonable time. If the ACA then starts delivering as expected and most uninsured/underinsured find adequate coverage at prices below current levels, politicians in red states might face a backlash from their constituents angry they're denied some of the benefits of the ACA.

Opposition against the ACA isn't solely an ideological fight, it is a battle for political survival as well.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
this bill I supported has major flaws.

The implementation has major flaws, but the bill itself isn't bad at all. I don't consider it a flaw that it sets minimum standards for insurance, but in fact a necessity, especially requiring hospital coverage, since it is usually the most expensive element of healthcare anyway. It would be like having a car insurance that doesn't cover accidents...

Obviously it would have been far better if Obama had qualified his statements about keeping existing coverage to plans that fell within the bounds of the law, but at the same time, if figures I have read are correct, he was spot on for 90% of existing coverage.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
What I'm hearing (from some people) is that the bill is turning out the way it is because the GOP wasn't there to help fix it.

It isn't an entirely false argument. Often in the process of negotiating over a bill to win (some) converts from the other side, flaws are found and fixed. The GOP refused to participate so far less people than usual read the bill thoroughly and had the opportunity to fix issues before it became law. Personally though I prefer to blame the authors of the bill, that is what proof-reading is for, although I suppose that they expected some back-and-forth as well and, like the first round of any negotiation, probably included some provisions they didn't expect to see the light of day without major revision...



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (12 months 22 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 33):
It isn't an entirely false argument.

Perhaps it's not, but I would hate for it to be an excuse to settle for something. Don't really think how much blame the GOP should take really makes much of a difference when it comes with moving forward and achieving results.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (12 months 22 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 33):
Opposition against the ACA isn't solely an ideological fight, it is a battle for political survival as well.

I agree, it is most certainly a political issue. Does anyone think the Democrats do not know the repercussions if this does not work? I think they are pretty confident in the end game, after all they are trying to stay in power also. I have to laugh about the website hoopla. It is desperation, fear that the law will work. The numbers are growing here, so I have to think that as was said, if it does work, watch out in the Red States as far as political repercussions go.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17):
but I think you tend to get lulled into the false equivalency that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in many ways. Be careful about that.

It's a convenient cop out we see a lot. It's unfortunate, but some people don't quite get that one side really can just be straight up wrong sometimes, and that in a lot of cases, the facts really aren't "somewhere in the middle" or wherever we want them to be at the moment.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 32):

"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep you insurance plan. Period."

Why would you like a plan that doesn't meet the standard? They can't cost more than a small percentage of your income and have to cover more than they did before.

You can only call that statement a lie if you're being blatantly partisan. . .



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Misleading (at best) or outright lying (at worst) to the American people is a non-issue?

Are you talking about the Democrats or the Republicans who "forgot" the challenges of Bush's Rx introduction.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

A 40 to 67 percent in insurance turn over by definition addresses people who leave a policy on their won, or who have been kicked off because of traditional reasons - like non payment of premiums.

That doesn't even address those sham policies that takes lawyers to get performance on paying bills.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4):

Again, help me to understand how this isn't newsworthy and is, in your words, a "non-issue."

Changes in minimum standards have been know for a long time. Why is it all of a sudden an "issue"?

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6):
My insurance premium went from $200 a month for just myself to well over $500 a month.

What kind of policy did you have? And what are you getting? Deductible and, more importantly, co-pays?

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6):
No once can force someone to buy something.

Nope, you're right there. You can't be physically forced, but you can be fined. You can also get some serious bills with even a minor problem, and you can be tossed to debt collectors if you don't pay.

And you also can cost us more in insurance because of cost shifting.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Instead of messing around with silly insurance stuff United States should just raise taxes and offer basic healthcare coverage to everyone, of course then those rich enough are free to use private services if they want to

That makes too much sense, especially for the business community,

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 10):
If $6000 is greater than 1% of your gross, yes, yes you should opt out.

You're forgetting co-pays. Not smart.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
It's not "how are we gonna fix it" it's blaming the GOP for being stubborn and not working on their bill that's turning out pretty poorly

People with pre-existing conditions in their family believe it's working out pretty well. College grads with challenges finding a job are pretty appreciative of that coverage until they are 26.

The outsourced work to private companies are the parts that are turning out pretty poorly.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
come on Democrats, own up to your problems!

Not that difficult - or no more than the problems of the start of the Rx Program.

Maybe working on them like we did with W's Drug problems would help.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Blame private industry all you want, the end result is still pretty crappy

And the crap was developed under outsourcing - the GOP preference over government employees.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
No matter what Democrats do, they lose, in the eyes of the right.

The right is still having problems why they lost the 2012 Election. And the GOP is playing the same games that cost them that election.

Maybe they can bring in Sarah Palin for some help.         

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
This is still a Democrat bill, OWN IT.

Just like Bush owned the problems with his Rx program?

Give it some time - like W was given - and it will work out. If the private sector delivers on their contracts.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
Some of the excuses are pretty weak... 'the insurance policies don't meet the criteria'

Say you insurance company is XYZ Insurance. Google "lawsuits against XYZ Insurance"

Now tell me how weak setting standards is.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
well this is just the private sector's fault!'

'
The private sector can do good work - just look at Apple.  -O )

At the same time companies who got contracts on the ACA could have pulled out the profits from those contracts instead of pushing for improved performance on the work they were doing.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17):
Yes, that's the same Joe Barton who is currently pissing all over the ACA expressing thoughts about bipartisanship and patience.

Election 2014 is going to be interesting. First the short down of the government (at least once by then) and the willingness to have the government default.

Now we have some really choice quotes from Banana Republicans - great found bites that can be run with their comments fro Bush's Prescription FUBARS. What a great comparison for political ads around the country.

Especially for nut jobs like Barton.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
These 'high deductible' policies really only cover major hospitalizations - and then only after the covered person has paid a lot of money - in some cases as much as $25,000. These plans are not 'insurance' in the traditional sense.

And, to be honest, that deductible is only one part - even when it is ultra high. Co-Pays can easily be a bigger killer than deductibles.

Get a medical problem like my wife and the deductible pales in comparison to the $100,000+ in co-pays.

But the deductible game is a neat one to play on younger people who believe they are free of those types of risks.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
Indeed ACA falls far short of what many liberals would have liked to see.

The ACA actually falls short of what moderates would like to see. Employers are still stuck with that dead weight of nanny care impacting both their budgeting and the profitability. Move on that problem and the ACA is improved dramatically.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 25):
You know what, that is exactly what medical insurance was some time ago...major medical. You didn't use it for a cold, you used it for appendicitis or a heart attack or a car accident.

Some time ago there was only one chemo drug for al types of confer. There was no CT Scanners. MRIs', laparoscopes, Di Vinci robots, etc.

Now we find problems faster and few people die - or at least dies as fast. People can be treated for a far lower cost. (My wife drove me into the hospital parking lot at 11 AM, went into the OR at noon to get rid of the gall bladder and we drove out of the parking to at 3 pm. Four hours instead of 3 or 4 days. And all because I didn't wait to go to the doctor.

BTW, many medical problems are allowed to get far worse because patients don't go to the doctor fast enough. A friend has a son who waited a pretty long time when he had a swollen testicle. When it started generating pain he finally went - with Stage IV cancer. Could have been a lot cheaper if he had gone faster.

Looks like there are benefits for insurance companies when their policy holders go to doctors early instead of letting the problem get worse.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 36):
Why would you like a plan that doesn't meet the standard? They can't cost more than a small percentage of your income and have to cover more than they did before.

You can only call that statement a lie if you're being blatantly partisan. . .

Why are you skirting the issue? That is what he said. Now that is turing out not to be the case.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21693 posts, RR: 55
Reply 39, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
I'm just saying this is a major problem in the ACA and I'd rather see some solutions rather than GOP blaming.

So would I. But if the GOP is going to sit on the sidelines and do nothing but hurl insults at the law and at the Democrats, I'm going to call them out on their tactics of not doing anything meaningful about it. If they want to offer some suggestions for fixing it (i.e. not getting rid of it or postponing it), I'm all ears. But I haven't heard anything.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
So would I. But if the GOP is going to sit on the sidelines and do nothing but hurl insults at the law and at the Democrats, I'm going to call them out on their tactics of not doing anything meaningful about it. If they want to offer some suggestions for fixing it (i.e. not getting rid of it or postponing it), I'm all ears. But I haven't heard anything.

Oh I totally agree. I just saw some people suggesting we sit on our hands and grumble about the GOP not doing anything. Screw it, progress without them. I do wish they'd help out though...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (12 months 18 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
This is still a Democrat bill, OWN IT

And we are. And we are told we are jerks for supporting a flawed web site that, we are starting to learn, was set up by a company who supported right wingers!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/...amacare-website-donated-heavily-to

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
And you're saying that if the Democrats try and fix it they'll just be "chastised by the right?" Who cares!? Do your job Democrats, don't get your feelings hurt if the right is mean to you.

They are doing their job. And being chastised for it! They are getting the web site fixed. The web site that crashed because right-wing legislatures in right-wing states refused to set up state run exchanges like we have in California or Kentucky.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
the bill is turning out the way it is because the GOP wasn't there to help fix it.

Because their only goal is to say "NO!" to everything that Obama and Democrats do. That is their only motive. That is all they do. That is all they have.

Quoting par13del (Reply 26):
There is a problem, address it, we are told that the majority of the nation supports health care and that in the last election they went to the polls to confirm it, that was the basis of the Democrats sticking to their guns in the debt and government shutdown debacle. Now you are saying that they are listning to the Tea Party and will do nothing?

Re-read what I said. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. The media hates Democrats. The far right hates Democrats. The far right owns the media.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
I just saw some people suggesting we sit on our hands and grumble about the GOP not doing anything. Screw it, progress without them. I do wish they'd help out though...

Democrats are trying, and have been trying to progress without Republicans. Problem is: when ANY Republican suggests being bipartisan, tea leaders scream bloody murder and accuse the RINOs of hating America and the worst Americans ever and so forth. The only thing the tea people know is to say "NO!" to absolutely ANYTHING anyone but them comes up with.

Here is a solution: Get rid of these jerks and put in REAL politicians. Politicians we had in the 1970s and earlier. Those who understood that we are all in this together. Those who understood that there are a million shades of grey and not just "my way or the highway." 2014 can not come soon enough for us true patriots!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7382 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 33):
although I suppose that they expected some back-and-forth as well and, like the first round of any negotiation, probably included some provisions they didn't expect to see the light of day without major revision...

Something like what was done with the sequester, see how well that one worked. The GFC did create or introduce the minimum hour rule for bills in the house to be read by members, guess one expects too much of them to actually read the bills that they are voting on, wonder what the aides and other staff member do, is it something like the sitcom Yes Minister where they are the ones actually running the government and putting their thoughts and ideas into the bills?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
And we are. And we are told we are jerks for supporting a flawed web site that, we are starting to learn, was set up by a company who supported right wingers!

So sabotage.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Re-read what I said. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. The media hates Democrats. The far right hates Democrats. The far right owns the media.

I always thought that other than Fox News the Dems were the darling of the media.
However, they still have to govern in spite of who the critics are, so..........


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

Buried in the OP's somewhat-hysterical post is this little gem:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law

So the plans that are being cancelled are illegal ... which is why they are being cancelled.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 9):
So, when private industry does something, it is Obama's fault? Private insurance could, very easily, make policies that work under ACA law

Precisely.

While the "you can stay on your policy" quote is a nice soundbite for the right, I think it is fair to say that Obama believed that the insurance companies would make the necessary tweaks to keep their policies from being illegal. Instead they just cancel them. That is, at best, laziness if not intellectual masturbation on the part of the insurance companies.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 44, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 42):
I always thought that other than Fox News the Dems were the darling of the media.
However, they still have to govern in spite of who the critics are,

It is really hard to govern when the opposition controls one chamber of Congress. Look what happened when one faction of one party decided they controlled the entire country. They shut down the government and nearly defaulted on the debt and cost us $24 billion. How can the party in control of the White House govern effectively when one faction of one party believes they are the be all and end all and they are the only ones to be appeased?

As far as "media darlings" you really should do research into who controls the media in this country. LA Times was just bought by right-wingers as was the Chicago paper, IIRC. The only "media" Democrats are darlings of is the internet because we can very easily fact check from the comfort of our computer screens.

Quoting par13del (Reply 42):
So sabotage.

I wouldn't go that far, but....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 45, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):
Galling, since conservatives have been warning everyone about this for years.

I hate to say I told you so.....but it pretty damn well warrants it.


My mom worked for an insurance agency when that thing passed....she said that there was zero chance people would be able to keep their insurance based on the method of implementation and costs involved.


And to make this worse, Obama lied to us about this. "You can keep your current insurance" my ass.

I'm gonna have to make sure I don't have another run-in again  



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 46, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
And we are told we are jerks for supporting a flawed web site that, we are starting to learn, was set up by a company who supported right wingers!
Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
They are doing their job. And being chastised for it!
Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Because their only goal is to say "NO!" to everything that Obama and Democrats do. That is their only motive. That is all they do. That is all they have.

So? The Democrats should be able to push forward just fine despite all this.

I do think I am listening to supporters too much and not the actual people in charge. We'll have to see how they react. I'm just surprised from some of the reactions I'm seeing

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
The web site that crashed because right-wing legislatures in right-wing states refused to set up state run exchanges like we have in California or Kentucky.

Are you saying that it was a surprise that so many states didn't set up their own exchanges and the feds couldn't do anything about it?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Problem is: when ANY Republican suggests being bipartisan, tea leaders scream bloody murder and accuse the RINOs of hating America and the worst Americans ever and so forth.

That is a huge problem. Anytime anyone tries to reach across the aisle they get chastised and coined with that annoying term "RINO." Ugh



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (12 months 7 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 45):
Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):Galling, since conservatives have been warning everyone about this for years.
I hate to say I told you so.....but it pretty damn well warrants it.


My mom worked for an insurance agency when that thing passed....she said that there was zero chance people would be able to keep their insurance based on the method of implementation and costs involved.


And to make this worse, Obama lied to us about this. "You can keep your current insurance" my ass.

I'm gonna have to make sure I don't have another run-in again

Lies and distortions are the policy of healthcare so far from the Republicans. Hysteria is their method of delivery. What a joke, time will tell, and 2014 is coming. We will then see what the people think of the ACA. Of course we thought that was answered by the 2012 election. We need term limits for all the fools, liars and distorters we have in DC.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (12 months 4 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
And we are told we are jerks for supporting a flawed web site that, we are starting to learn, was set up by a company who supported right wingers!

That's actually pretty funny. Just like all the quotes from Obama Hating Politicians on the ACA Disaster and just the opposite comments when it was W who had a similar disaster with the Rx program.

Right now the Banana Republicans need to increase hate levels as much as possible because the systems will be improved reasonably fast. This is a type of program that will have bump at the start by those who couldn't get insurance before and then things will slow down until the deadline for signing up hits. RomneyCare showed that pretty clearly, thee showed a major jump before the fines hit. Looking at RomneyCare we can project a need for a major increase in computing power to be in place and tested by January.


User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (12 months 1 hour ago) and read 3810 times:

The government passes a law and says that all those that supply oranges can only supply them if they are over 2.5 inches in diameter. People are kind of weary of law, so government says "You will still be keep buying the oranges you have been." Media reports that people will no longer be able to buy the oranges that government stated. Some people outraged that this is true and want repeal/change of law to include previous oranges. Others blame the companies that sell the oranges. Riveting story isn't it?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 48):
possible because the systems will be improved reasonably fast.

We'll see, they thought they were prepared for roll out on October 1. While they have been focusing on the logging in and enrolling portion, I'm not sure they have even begun to address that the insurance companies are getting data with massive holes and errors in it yet. Although, that is just speculation on my part, but that is one of the less publicized problems, but much more complex to solve because the government contractors need to work with the different IT and database structures of each individual company as opposed to a one size fits all fix.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 48):
his is a type of program that will have bump at the start by those who couldn't get insurance before and then things will slow down until the deadline for signing up hits.

Exactly right, it is hard to extrapolate any conclusions on anything at this point.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):
Lies and distortions are the policy of healthcare so far from the Republicans. Hysteria is their method of delivery. What a joke, time will tell, and 2014 is coming.

Republicans aren't the only ones that lie or create hysteria. All media and parties do it in some way or another to push their agenda. If we are honest, do you really believe that you can make viable conclusions about the ACA with a reasonable amount of data by next year? I don't, any hysteria made during campaign season about it from both sides will just be lies and rhetoric. This is because we will have to wait several years to understand many of the positive and negative affects that this bill has now that it is here.

We do know about some problems now, and it just seems to be politics as usual on both sides.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 50, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
Republicans aren't the only ones that lie or create hysteria. All media and parties do it in some way or another to push their agenda. If we are honest, do you really believe that you can make viable conclusions about the ACA with a reasonable amount of data by next year? I don't, any hysteria made during campaign season about it from both sides will just be lies and rhetoric. This is because we will have to wait several years to understand many of the positive and negative affects that this bill has now that it is here.

We do know about some problems now, and it just seems to be politics as usual on both sides.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):
We need term limits for all the fools, liars and distorters we have in DC.

No question, they are all liars and fools. I defend the ACA because it is a start. It can be retooled, improved. Nothing is perfect. What I find troubling is the kill it attitude, and the endless attempt from the Republicans, no quarter, kill it without any plan from them. That shows me and many others that they are certainly not out to help the little guy.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
Riveting story isn't it?

Not really.

Might have been better if it was directed at Department of Health requirements for cleanliness in a restaurant. Those up to standards will be around for customers to stay with. Those found to be a health hazard are not going to be available to customers.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
We'll see, they thought they were prepared for roll out on October 1.

Just like W thought his Rx program was ready to roll out.

The ACA would have had an abnormally high initial hit as there are so many people out there who don't have insurance - many times because of a pre-existing condition or low incomes that put the old types of insurance out of reach.

We have also seen similar problems with companies like ATT trying to handle massive overloads on initial releases from Apple. Best thinking and double capacity and it still bogs down.

The big challenge will be just before the fines kick in - based on RomneyCare experiences.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
the government contractors need to work with the different IT and database structures of each individual company as opposed to a one size fits all fix.

I'm not that worried about that issue. There will be a "Last Name" field that might be different lengths, but utilities can bring them together.

Medicine is also ahead of the game as there are standard codes and formats because of Medicare.

One size does fit all for Medicare.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
Exactly right, it is hard to extrapolate any conclusions on anything at this point.

Just the same as W's Rx program in some ways.

What I want to see is just how far cutting out cost shifting can be leveraged to lower prices. I consider cost shifting to be one of the main problems with previous systems.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 49):
If we are honest, do you really believe that you can make viable conclusions about the ACA with a reasonable amount of data by next year?

In a year we will have a reasonable indication of issues that need to be addressed, like more pressure on providers who have resisted adjusting prices as cost shifting impacts their fee collections.

In a year we will also have some solid issues with pre-existing conditions. That is going to be more important than some politicians realize, as will be the reality that many Americans will loose health insurance if the Republicans win in 2014 or 2016.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
In a year we will also have some solid issues with pre-existing conditions. That is going to be more important than some politicians realize, as will be the reality that many Americans will loose health insurance if the Republicans win in 2014 or 2016.

Very True, and I think the GOP really needs to think about their strategy if they really care about 2016. Winning against the ACA is not a good thing, when you have nothing in your pocket to solve the outstanding issues that the ACA attempts to solve.

The website is a mess, and people are losing insurance due to issues with INCOMPETANT administration from the insurance carriers. The Insurance companies decided it was CHEAPER to cancel everyone , instead of doing the appropriate modifications to the current health plans. The website is a major undertaking, and issues will crop up. I do troubleshooting for a living, so I know that even the most benign update or change can cause catastrophic results when certain "Entanglements" are not understood.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3714 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 52):
The website is a mess, and people are losing insurance due to issues with INCOMPETANT administration from the insurance carriers. The Insurance companies decided it was CHEAPER to cancel everyone , instead of doing the appropriate modifications to the current health plans. The website is a major undertaking, and issues will crop up. I do troubleshooting for a living, so I know that even the most benign update or change can cause catastrophic results when certain "Entanglements" are not understood.
http://hosted2.ap.org/RIPRJ/APUSnews...d-2c8ef3e71aa64ad5b901045ffd436cdd



I agree with the man, it will all be worked out. Every new program has problems.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

I guess this is the first year in the history of health insurance that policies have been cancelled and/or changed.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

Seems like (after reading this thread) ACA will be just fine, and hopefully improve.   Slow implementation is a given...it is government after all, what would one expect?


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
Buried in the OP's somewhat-hysterical post is this little gem:

Quoting EA CO AS (Thread starter):because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law
So the plans that are being cancelled are illegal ... which is why they are being cancelled.

  

They're being cancelled because most of these policies were ones where consumers knowingly chose inexpensive plans that covered catastrophic illness or injury only. The ACA requires more comprehensive coverage that is far more expensive.

Put another way, if you're just a little hungry you might swing into a fast-food joint and get a small burger, paying only for it since that's all you wanted. Under an ACA-style system, you'd now be forced to buy the combo meal with a burger, fries, a drink, and a dessert and pay much, much more than you planned to get items you didn't want but are now mandated for you to buy under the law.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
While the "you can stay on your policy" quote is a nice soundbite for the right,

You mean the one the President trotted out 29 times to convince the electorate that his policy wouldn't negatively impact the millions of Americans that are being negatively impacted by it as we speak?

C'mon, maaaaaan....,

  



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 57, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
You mean the one the President trotted out 29 times to convince the electorate that his policy wouldn't negatively impact the millions of Americans that are being negatively impacted by it as we speak?

C'mon, maaaaaan....,

      

More and more young and employed people I speak with are going to opt to pay the "blackmail" rather than change their existing insurance policies because it is just plain cheaper to pay the "blackmail".
I wonder how many millions are going to end up doing this?
I bet they remember it when it comes time to vote. People are not as angry with the GOP as the opposition would have us to believe!  



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 58, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):
Lies and distortions are the policy of healthcare so far from the Republicans. Hysteria is their method of delivery. What a joke,

I had to remove my glasses, clean them, put them back on, take them off, wash out my eyes, put in eye drops, then turn off my MacBook and turn it back on again to read your comment...and it still made zero sense....you sound like one of those leftists who want a single-party state.

You must be kidding me here. The whole thing was in shambles to begin with, are you blind? I knew this from the get-go that people were going to lose their coverage and Obama was going to make them buy into his so-called "Marketplace."

chyeah. nice one, O.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3619 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
Put another way, if you're just a little hungry you might swing into a fast-food joint and get a small burger, paying only for it since that's all you wanted. Under an ACA-style system, you'd now be forced to buy the combo meal with a burger, fries, a drink, and a dessert and pay much, much more than you planned to get items you didn't want but are now mandated for you to buy under the law.

That's one of the best summaries I've heard about it. That's exactly the problem with this mandate. I would not have such a problem with it if were for essential coverage only (accidents, hospitalizations and major illness), and leave all the extras for the free market to deal with, but they had to throw in the whole kitchen sink.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):Put another way, if you're just a little hungry you might swing into a fast-food joint and get a small burger, paying only for it since that's all you wanted. Under an ACA-style system, you'd now be forced to buy the combo meal with a burger, fries, a drink, and a dessert and pay much, much more than you planned to get items you didn't want but are now mandated for you to buy under the law.
That's one of the best summaries I've heard about it. That's exactly the problem with this mandate. I would not have such a problem with it if were for essential coverage only (accidents, hospitalizations and major illness), and leave all the extras for the free market to deal with, but they had to throw in the whole kitchen

it is not even applicable.

With food, you need a certain amount to survive, and whether you get it at the Supermarket, .farm. woods, Garden, or Restaurant, you will get what you need to live at some point. You can afford to skimp on the combo meal as it may be too much for you.


In Healthcare, the minimum checkups and other items associated with the care are done to keep you healthy, and keep long range items that will cost a lot more in check. It also give folks a basic level of care, so they don't override the ER's with non life threatening issues.

To say it is like getting a Combo meal is not applicable, since you immediate decision to buy food does not apply to the long range healthcare issues.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
you'd now be forced to buy the combo meal with a burger, fries, a drink, and a dessert and pay much, much more than you planned to get items you didn't want but are now mandated for you to buy under the law.

This could be interpreted as a price bundling mandate to the insurance companies. Price bundling is a form of price discrimination and is illegal in the Sherman Act. I wonder if anyone will think to sue insurance companies on Anti-Trust grounds.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
There will be a "Last Name" field that might be different lengths, but utilities can bring them together.

We don't know if it is just a last name issue, because most media outlets are not reporting on it. If it is something more than that then it is very concerning, but i guess we will have to wait and see.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
What I want to see is just how far cutting out cost shifting can be leveraged to lower prices. I consider cost shifting to be one of the main problems with previous systems.

Cost shifting was a huge problem, but I think it still is. I don't see this bill doing anything to affect the cost of operations or actual care, rather just the cost of insurance.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 62, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
They're being cancelled because most of these policies were ones where consumers knowingly chose inexpensive plans that covered catastrophic illness or injury only. The ACA requires more comprehensive coverage that is far more expensive.

Those BS policies that people purchased cover only a sliver of emergency services. Not cancer screenings or anything major. So, if a person on one of those BS policies ends up with cancer, the insurance company will NOT continue to insure them under the BS policy and will either not offer them alternative coverage or will charge unthinkable rates for minimal coverage because they have a preexisting condition.

Look at the new darling of the right, Diane Barette. She pays $54 a month. She is a woman over 50 years old. Her insurance company will pay $50 if she goes to the ER with complications from pregnancy, pays $50 for doctor visits and $15 for prescriptions. She covers ALL OTHER COSTS. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-...-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/

These BS policies are the ones ACA is trying to get rid of so people will take care of themselves. The right loves to spout off about how this is a Christian nation. ACA is doing what Jesus taught: heal the sick. Not just the sick with private, Cadillac insurance, but EVERYONE.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 63, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):They're being cancelled because most of these policies were ones where consumers knowingly chose inexpensive plans that covered catastrophic illness or injury only. The ACA requires more comprehensive coverage that is far more expensive.
Those BS policies that people purchased cover only a sliver of emergency services.

And yet, people knowingly, intentionally chose those plans - even though other, more comprehensive ones were available - based on affordability, their decision to only have a handful of services covered, etc. And President Obama sold his bill of goods to these folks by telling them loudly and repeatedly that they'd be able to keep what they had if they wanted it.

And now we're not only finding out that this was not only untrue, but that the administration KNEW this was untrue! it's pathetic that the President lied to the electorate to get his pet project passed.

Repurposing a phrase the left used to love, "OBAMA LIED, FREEDOM DIED."



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 64, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

I guess we get to find out how much we are going to get screwed over in next years insurance package from work next week.ncoverage we don't want, and don't need.

It's too bad that a lot of people didn't realize that Obummer was lying through his teeth about keeping your current plans before the last election.

This should be a lesson for those who didn't vote and now are being raped by Obummercare....elections have consequences.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 65, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
The whole thing was in shambles to begin with

Yes and even many prominent Dems were saying so.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):
And now we're not only finding out that this was not only untrue, but that the administration KNEW this was untrue! it's pathetic that the President lied to the electorate to get his pet project passed.

The "Pinocchio" Administration has been mired in lies for a long time. They are just having a harder time trying to "spin" this one and make it go away. No one else to blame!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 64):
t's too bad that a lot of people didn't realize that Obummer was lying through his teeth about keeping your current plans before the last election.

Yup. In lock-step. And they are still marching to that same old tune.  Wink

Here is a link to what Rove had to say about the debacle in today's Wall Street Journal:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...obama-broken-health-care-promises/

[Edited 2013-10-31 15:09:59]


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
They're being cancelled because most of these policies were ones where consumers knowingly chose inexpensive plans that covered catastrophic illness or injury only. The ACA requires more comprehensive coverage that is far more expensive.

The problem with a lot of policies that are disappearing is that they failed to deliver acceptable coverage. Some were simply shams that took attorneys to make them perform, or were written in a way that would leave the patient holding far more debt than they could have believed. I don't feel sorry for those insurance companies.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
Put another way,

Not that good a way. Try to find something closer to the reality of the ACA.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):
You mean the one the President trotted out 29 times to convince the electorate that his policy wouldn't negatively impact the millions of Americans that are being negatively impacted by it as we speak?

As long as you policy is not a sham, or so inadequate that it doesn't address problems like cost shifting then you probably will be able to keep your plan.

There will probably be some plans that are dropped because the insurance companies find that other plans are more profitable. No surprise there, nor would it be the first time insurance companies have changed plans.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 57):
More and more young and employed people I speak with are going to opt to pay the "blackmail" rather than change their existing insurance policies because it is just plain cheaper to pay the "blackmail".

If they have an existing plan that meets the standards then there is no "blackmail". Their plans to continue paying is a pretty good indication that they meet minimum standards. Otherwise the plans would be terminated under law.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
I knew this from the get-go that people were going to lose their coverage and Obama was going to make them buy into his so-called "Marketplace."

More bull. Sub-standard plans are going to disappear - no surprise there. There is no reason for a anyone to loose their plans when the plans meet standards. Unless, of course, employers continue to make decisions (as they have in past years) to change plans, or cut their contribution to nanny care programs than have supported.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
I would not have such a problem with it if were for essential coverage only (accidents, hospitalizations and major illness), and leave all the extras for the free market to deal with, but they had to throw in the whole kitchen sink.

You've just listed the recipe for significant increases in cost shifting and medical bankruptcies. That cost shifting will not only increase health costs, but will also push more employers into dropping their nanny care, or at least shifting their cost increases to employees.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 61):
If it is something more than that then it is very concerning, but i guess we will have to wait and see.

I believe that we have had a long enough history with universal health data to make life easier for everyone involved in the IT side of ACA. Medicare is a strong foundation when it comes to treatment codes, payment codes, relationships with insurance companies (via MEdiGap) and integration with providers.

That established history is one reason why I like the idea of Medicare for all, with private insurance available for MediGap, or for treatment by providers who do not accept Medicare.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 61):
Cost shifting was a huge problem, but I think it still is. I don't see this bill doing anything to affect the cost of operations or actual care, rather just the cost of insurance.

I believe that there is going to be a lot of pressure on providers (especially hospitals) who have used cost shifting as the "excuse" for some of their very expensive costs. Now, with the excuse significantly reduced it is reasonable for those providers to adjust costs downward. If they don't then both private insurance companies and the government will be applying some significant pressure.

BTW, I've had both neck surgery (a discectomy) and surgery for kidney cancer as a Medicare patient. Both were done in private hospitals owned by physician partnerships and the doctors were two of the most reputable in the city. Neither had a problem taking me on as a patient and both said they preferred to do the surgery at the private hospital they are involved with. These providers are quite happy working with Medicare, even if it means less money than some insurance policies. These types of providers are going to work closely with RomneyCare type programs.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 67, posted (11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
The problem with a lot of policies that are disappearing is that they failed to deliver acceptable coverage.

These policies existed for a long, long time and were clearly acceptable to those who purchased them, as they wouldn't have bought them if they didn't want those basic, minimum levels of coverage or opted to buy a more comprehensive plan if they wanted that instead.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):Put another way,
Not that good a way.

Hogwash. That was a perfect analogy; you shouldn't be forced to buy more than what you want or need just because some government bureaucrat decided you can't have only what you want, but rather what THEY want you to have.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 56):You mean the one the President trotted out 29 times to convince the electorate that his policy wouldn't negatively impact the millions of Americans that are being negatively impacted by it as we speak?
As long as you policy is not a sham, or so inadequate that it doesn't address problems like cost shifting then you probably will be able to keep your plan.

So a 27 year old with 20/20 vision, in perfect health and generally pays for dental cleanings out of pocket shouldn't have the option of buying a barebones plan that covers catastrophic illness or injury, but should instead be FORCED to buy a much more expensive plan that covers vision and dental?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

Here is the real question: is there a big problem in the country today with young, healthy people getting screwed over because they have only catastrophic coverage? I've heard the arguments for and against, but I want to know what actual reality is showing.

If there is a problem, what is wrong with the government trying to rectify it? If there really isn't a problem, why try to fix something that isn't broken?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
I had to remove my glasses, clean them, put them back on, take them off, wash out my eyes, put in eye drops, then turn off my MacBook and turn it back on again to read your comment...and it still made zero sense....you sound like one of those leftists who want a single-party state.

You must be kidding me here. The whole thing was in shambles to begin with, are you blind? I knew this from the get-go that people were going to lose their coverage and Obama was going to make them buy into his so-called "Marketplace."

chyeah. nice one, O.

Show me the Republican Plan. Explain it, and if it is a good plan designed to help people, not corporations, I will embrace it. If not, my accusations stands. You need not go into too much detail, just give me the pertinent points.

[Edited 2013-10-31 18:10:30]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 70, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):
President Obama sold his bill of goods to these folks by telling them loudly and repeatedly that they'd be able to keep what they had if they wanted it.

And, now, private corporations are doing what they have done for decades: Cancel plans after a year.

This is just more faux outrage because the right hates Obama. They don't actually want to do anything. Just be outraged and hate Obama. Nothing more. Case in point: What is the right-wing plan for keeping health care down?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):
the administration KNEW this was untrue! it's pathetic that the President lied to the electorate to get his pet project passed.

The same was said for the Iraq war. You know what we were told when we spoke out against those lies? We were told we are unpatriotic Americans and as bad as al-Qaida and we just need to shut up. That is the kindest way we were told.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 71, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 69):
Show me the Republican Plan.

Believe it or not, I think they are coming out with a plan. I'm not sure, I only hear a minute or so of it on the way to the post office. I'm not holding my breath and I could have easily misheard, but it has something to do with purchasing over state lines and some other things I am forgetting (though I've heard some of those ideas years ago, maybe they're actually rolling them all into a comprehensive plan?)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 72, posted (11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):
And yet, people knowingly, intentionally chose those plans

OK, let's start with those people buying a minimum policy because it was all they could afford. That ends up with huge medical bills when they get sick. Bills they can't pay - read medical bankruptcy AND cost shifting.

Now let's add on the efforts of the insurance companies to avoid paying big bills when they come in. Google "lawsuits against . . . " and toss in your insurance company.

So bankruptcies, cost shifting and a need for trial lawyers to actually protect you against insurance companies that work hard to avoid payment.

Two out of three of those relates to increases in health care costs and your nanny care. And you don't want those issues taken care of? With simple minimum standards? You gotta have a big wallet.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 64):
coverage we don't want, and don't need.

As most people discover when they head to the ER, there are a lot of situations where you really do need that insurance you thought you "didn't need". I guess your preference is to let the taxpayers pick up those costs when you go to the ER with that stripped down policy. If you even have a stripped down policy.

So you might not like RomneyCare but I really don't want my tax dollars picking up your uninsured medical bills.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):
These policies existed for a long, long time and were clearly acceptable to those who purchased them, as they wouldn't have bought them if they didn't want those basic, minimum levels of coverage or opted to buy a more comprehensive plan if they wanted that instead.

And insurance companies that have been offering sub-par policies have been around for a long time, with slick salespeople looking for an easy commission.

You may have been taken care of with nanny care, but millions couldn't afford any insurance, or had some stripped down policy that needed a trial lawyer to get performance from.

There have been so many games played in the past that a huge percentage of bankruptcies were medical bankruptcies.

You happy with that? Willing to pay for all that cost shifting in the name of "freedom"?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):
you shouldn't be forced to buy more than what you want or need

People may not "want" to spend money on insurance but most of the time people don't know what they "need". Few people understand just how had the impact of "co-insurance" can be, or how expensive various medical problems can be. ALL, the acute leukemia kids generally can easily blow past $500K in this country. High deductible and then 20% co-insurance on that type of bill? Not a problem: file for bankruptcy and let others pay that bill.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):
Hogwash. That was a perfect analogy; you shouldn't be forced to buy more than what you want or need just because some government bureaucrat decided you can't have only what you want, but rather what THEY want you to have.

It's a pathetic comparison because people know when they will get hungry, but few have any idea when they will need a trip to the ER because of some very expensive medical situation. It's not getting hit with a $3,000 ER bill that is the problem, it is getting hit with a $100K bill - or higher. You cannot anticipate that like you can getting hungry for a Big Mac. You may not WANT a very big medical bill but you are at risk of having it.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):
So a 27 year old with 20/20 vision, in perfect health and generally pays for dental cleanings out of pocket shouldn't have the option of buying a barebones plan that covers catastrophic illness or injury, but should instead be FORCED to buy a much more expensive plan that covers vision and dental?

BTW, healthy young guys are at the top of the risk list for testicular cancer. Two friends have had sons with that Dx, one was discovered during his first year at Tulane. The other was one of those smart young guys without insurance and with stage IV by the time it was diagnosed.

As far as dental and eye care goes, talk to an oncologist about all the problems that you get from chemo.

Your 27 year old is assuming that they won't get a Dx that patients get every day all around this country. Assumptions that you have been paying for for years. Guess you like paying other's unexpected medical bills.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68):
is there a big problem in the country today with young, healthy people getting screwed over because they have only catastrophic coverage? I've heard the arguments for and against, but I want to know what actual reality is showing.

The biggest problem is that when you need it you are still facing a huge deductible as well as a 20% co-pay on some major bills.

"Catastrophic coverage" is nothing but a marketing term when major bills hit, especially when you are not able to work during extended treatment periods.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 69):
Show me the Republican Plan.

              


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 71):
Believe it or not, I think they are coming out with a plan. I'm not sure, I only hear a minute or so of it on the way to the post office. I'm not holding my breath and I could have easily misheard, but it has something to do with purchasing over state lines and some other things I am forgetting (though I've heard some of those ideas years ago, maybe they're actually rolling them all into a comprehensive plan?)

I, and millions more await with bated breath. If they finally do, it at least is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done for people.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 71):
it has something to do with purchasing over state lines and some other things I am forgetting (though I've heard some of those ideas years ago, maybe they're actually rolling them all into a comprehensive plan?)

What was it the right said would slash the cost of health care? Lawyer fees for malpractice? There was a name for it. Texas did it and premiums were lowered by some piddling amount for a select few. That was all they came up with while holding on to the outrageous (and still running a deficit) Medicare D. Drug costs were cheaper before Republicans came up with Part D.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
"Catastrophic coverage" is nothing but a marketing term when major bills hit, especially when you are not able to work during extended treatment periods.

Don't forget that, once a catastrophe happens, that same insurance company will either refuse to insure you or will offer you insurance at prices no working, middle class person can afford. And "catastrophic coverage" does not cover everything. Like the woman in Florida I pointed out earlier. She would have been paid $50 if she had to go to the emergency room for a pregnancy crisis. How helpful is that?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 75, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):And yet, people knowingly, intentionally chose those plans
OK, let's start with those people buying a minimum policy because it was all they could afford.

No, let's talk about those people who buy a minimum policy because it's all they want; you're seriously okay with rescinding their right to not buy extra insurance?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
insurance companies that have been offering sub-par policies have been around for a long time

Those same insurance companies would gladly sell a much more comprehensive, expensive policy to someone who is young and healthy. And they've always offered them. The difference is that many young, healthy people simply choose to not buy those policies.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):So a 27 year old with 20/20 vision, in perfect health and generally pays for dental cleanings out of pocket shouldn't have the option of buying a barebones plan that covers catastrophic illness or injury, but should instead be FORCED to buy a much more expensive plan that covers vision and dental?

BTW, healthy young guys are at the top of the risk list for testicular cancer. Two friends have had sons with that Dx, one was discovered during his first year at Tulane. The other was one of those smart young guys without insurance and with stage IV by the time it was diagnosed.

C'mon Ken, you know perfectly well that having full coverage doesn't mean someone will go see a doctor regularly, ESPECIALLY young men. While your friends' situations are tragic, having had full cradle-to-grave health coverage would not have necessarily meant an early diagnosis because young men are all ten feet tall and bulletproof in their own minds.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 63):
And yet, people knowingly, intentionally chose those plans - even though other, more comprehensive ones were available - based on affordability, their decision to only have a handful of services covered, etc.

That woman in Fla. clearly didn't have the faintest idea what her plan did or didn't cover.

Health insurance has always operated as a confusopoly (to steal a word from Scott Adams). The marketing from these plans is designed to obfuscate the expected amount of money the patient will be responsible for and thus reduce the ability of the patient to figure out which is best. Forgetting the ACA for a second, that is one thing I think should be mandated even without the ACA- there should be a standard form which all insurance companies word identically which tables out exactly what costs the consumer is expected to pay.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 67):
So a 27 year old with 20/20 vision, in perfect health and generally pays for dental cleanings out of pocket shouldn't have the option of buying a barebones plan that covers catastrophic illness or injury, but should instead be FORCED to buy a much more expensive plan that covers vision and dental?

I agree with you on that- I don't think I should be forced to get vision and dental as I view them as non-essential. Having said that though, vision and dental are peanuts really. People talk about wanting the option of "bare bones" coverage to include catastrophic illness, hospitalization etc as though this would be a tiny fraction of the cost of their comprehensive plans. But those items are over half the total cost of healthcare in the United States. Don't expect $50 a month coverage unless you want the same payout as that woman in Fla.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
What was it the right said would slash the cost of health care? Lawyer fees for malpractice? There was a name for it.

Tort reform. It doesn't work, as you say.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1969 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

In the private world, if someone lies to you, you distrust them, fire them, etc. If you fail to perform your responsibility, like building a website, you probably lose your job and certainly your reputation. But if you're the government, you not only keep your position, but you get millions of people to defend your lying and millions of dollars to fix what should have never happened. And people wonder why this country has problems?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 72):
but I really don't want my tax dollars picking up your uninsured medical bills.

And now your tax dollars will be picking up insured medical bills. In fact those bills will probably be higher since the people in need will more often use their coverage. And whenever you subsidize a market, you run the risk of increasing prices further. Double whammy.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/dail...-paid-106-million-feel-better.html

Interesting piece.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 76):
Tort reform. It doesn't work, as you say.

And does it? Do working people who are forced to work two and three low wage jobs able to afford quality health care? Numbers don't lie. They do have a liberal bias but they don't lie.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 79, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Six. Wow.

http://news.yahoo.com/day-1-of-obama...elded-six-enrollees-233817649.html



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 80, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

This is total absurdity and my problem with ACA in the first place. Obama went for weak sauce and his healthcare team did not even consider the possibility of assembling a two or three-payer system that is already successful elsewhere.

As we're seeing now, Big Insurance won out regardless of the legislative outcome here. Sure is a great time to be a Blue Shield executive. They must be salivating at the prospects for this year's Christmas bonus packages.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 81, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 80):
did not even consider the possibility of assembling a two or three-payer system that is already successful elsewhere.

Democrats wanted single payer. But, the right blocked it. Democrats compromised. The right got what they wanted. Because Democrats thought the right (not Republicans) would give back.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 82, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 81):
Democrats wanted single payer.

And the majority of the nation didn't.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 81):
the right blocked it.

The right didn't have to; many Dems backed off single-payer because they knew they'd get hell from their constituents and lose in a landslide in 2010 (which many did anyway, after the Dems rammed this bill through against the will of the people anyway).



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 83, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 75):
would not have necessarily meant an early diagnosis because young men are all ten feet tall and bulletproof in their own minds.

Yup. I have many of 'em come in the back door of my office on a cot because they wouldn't get medical attention.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 77):
But if you're the government, you not only keep your position, but you get millions of people to defend your lying and millions of dollars to fix what should have never happened. And people wonder why this country has problems?

  

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 80):
Big Insurance won out regardless of the legislative outcome here.

Oh yeah! Capitalism is the glue that hold the US together. Without it we are all doomed. In the mean time we just have to face the facts that death,taxes-----and insurance are going to cost us!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Now they say Weather forecasters have the best job but I beg to differ...Jay Carney gets big bucks to be wrong ALL the time or to say nothing at all. Bet he sleeps well too, just like his boss...         

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 85, posted (11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The media is turning on the administration now...

• The Baltimore Sun: “Lost Jobs, Higher Costs; Obamacare Hits Home.”
• The Indianapolis Star: “Health-Care Tax Plan Threatens Hoosier Jobs.”
• The Arizona Republic: “Obama Agenda Crushing Employment.”
• The Boston Herald: “Experts: Obamacare Could Hit Paycheck.”
• The Wall Street Journal Abstracts: “Obamacare vs. Small Businesses.”
• The Star Tribune: “Obamacare Now Begins To Reveal Itself; Expect Some Businesses To Stop Hiring And Others To Drop Health Coverage.”
• The Australian Financial Review: “Exporters Reluctant To Hire Full-Timers As Obamacare Obligations Loom.”
• The Chicago Tribune: “The Part-Timing Of America/ Obamacare Will Push Workers - Not Just Employers – To Cut Hours.”
• The Orange County Register: “Health Law May Chill Hiring.”



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 86, posted (11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 91):
The media is turning on the administration now...

Maybe they aren't "turning" because they don't have a 100% liberal bias. Not saying many of them don't lean left a bit but it shouldn't come as a surprise when they speak against a Democrat

Is there an easy way to offload health insurance from jobs? That seems to be what these articles are touching on. Many say there isn't much of a problem with the ACA and jobs but I still beg to differ and it looks like many more people are starting to agree



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 87, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 69):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 69):
Show me the Republican Plan. Explain it, and if it is a good plan designed to help people, not corporations, I will embrace it. If not, my accusations stands. You need not go into too much detail, just give me the pertinent points.

Pretty simple really:

1) tort reform
2) reimburse doctors and hospitals based on outcomes, not number of visits
3) remove as many mandates as possible - requiring mental health coverage or contraceptives only drives up costs
4) allow plans to be sold across state lines, thereby increasing competition
5) expand health insurance tax credits to those who don't receive health insurance through their employer, are self employed or unemployed
6) increase price "discovery" of health care by encouraging LESS comprehensive, rather than more comprehensive care. Insurance, by definition should be covering catastrophic issues, not common colds. Less comprehensive coverage requires more shopping around, which reduces price.
7) direct cash subsidies to high risk pools so that people with pre-existing conditions can pay comparable rates to everyone else

These ideas were all proposed (and completely ignored) in the run up to Obamacare in 2009.

And now, "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" is going to be playing in TV ads from here to eternity and the red state Democrats who voted for this bill (Landrieu, Pryor, and very possibly Begich and Hagan) are going to get slaughtered in 2014. I'd put odds of the Senate flipping to Republican control at greater than 50% at this point.

[Edited 2013-11-01 17:28:51]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 88, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
3) remove as many mandates as possible - requiring mental health coverage or contraceptives only drives up costs

A few women might object to that one alone. I know I do. One might think that is more government interference in women's lives. Healthcare certainly includes pregnancy, children. So birth control is part of the package for women.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 89, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
1) tort reform

Does ZERO to reduce the cost of health care. NOTHING. NADA. Look at Texas.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
6) increase price "discovery" of health care by encouraging LESS comprehensive, rather than more comprehensive care. Insurance, by definition should be covering catastrophic issues, not common colds. Less comprehensive coverage requires more shopping around, which reduces price

There were plans like that. As soon as catastrophe strikes, they will drop you and either charge you through the roof prices or not insure you at all. How does that help?

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
5) expand health insurance tax credits to those who don't receive health insurance through their employer, are self employed or unemployed

ACA does that.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
2) reimburse doctors and hospitals based on outcomes, not number of visits
3) remove as many mandates as possible - requiring mental health coverage or contraceptives only drives up costs

2 gives more incentive to doctors and hospitals to charge more, driving up costs. 3 will put more burden on we the people. Rush was complaining about how he does not want to pay for breast pumps but why should women have to pay for his prostate exams or his oxytocin addiction?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

Here is an interesting piece saying people are paying about the same but getting more. Oh, the humanity!
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...her-horror-story-another-debunking



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 91, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 94):
A few women might object to that one alone. I know I do. One might think that is more government interference in women's lives. Healthcare certainly includes pregnancy, children. So birth control is part of the package for women.

Why would birth control have to be covered by insurance? Does your auto insurance cover oil changes? That makes no sense. By mandating regular items be covered under "insurance", you drive up cost unnecessarily.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 97):
Why would birth control have to be covered by insurance? Does your auto insurance cover oil changes? That makes no sense. By mandating regular items be covered under "insurance", you drive up cost unnecessarily.

Healthcare. A woman is not well, and pregnancy has serious implications for her health, she cannot afford birth control. The ACA. A woman cannot afford to get pregnant, she will lose her income, maybe a promotion. The ACA. A woman simply wants to limit her pregnancies, because low wages, more babies will put her on welfare., and deprive the children and affect their heath, and healthcare. ACA.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 93, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
.Does ZERO to reduce the cost of health care. NOTHING. NADA. Look at Texas.

Every apolitical study on tort reform has shown it reduces cost relative to the baseline. If you don't believe it, just ask any doctor. Uncapped malpractice settlements drive up their malpractice insurance which gets passed on to you.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
There were plans like that. As soon as catastrophe strikes, they will drop you and either charge you through the roof prices or not insure you at all. How does that help?

Then they would join the higher risk pool, which would be subsidized.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
ACA does that.

No, it actually doesn't do that.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
2 gives more incentive to doctors and hospitals to charge more, driving up costs. 3 will put more burden on we the people. Rush was complaining about how he does not want to pay for breast pumps but why should women have to pay for his prostate exams or his oxytocin addiction?

No, number 2 gives them incentive to heal the patient, rather than oversubscribe medications. Clearly you are just engaging in reactionary defensiveness, because number 2 is the one that has the most bipartisan support. President Obama has said the same exact thing.

No one should have to pay for prostate exams, boner pills, or birth control. Mandates drive up cost for unnecessary insurance. We should eliminate almost all or all mandates, but Obamacare vastly increased them.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 94, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 98):
Healthcare. A woman is not well, and pregnancy has serious implications for her health, she cannot afford birth control. The ACA. A woman cannot afford to get pregnant, she will lose her income, maybe a promotion. The ACA. A woman simply wants to limit her pregnancies, because low wages, more babies will put her on welfare., and deprive the children and affect their heath, and healthcare. ACA.

And yet incredibly woman have managed to purchase birth control for decades since it has existed. The great thing about the health care reforms I suggested is that they would bring down the price of health care and insurance, thus leaving even more disposable income for....yep, birth control.

[Edited 2013-11-01 18:52:27]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 95, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 93):
These ideas were all proposed (and completely ignored) in the run up to Obamacare in 2009.

Ignored? That's either the GOP's fault for not marketing their idea well enough (or being too little, too late) or because the public heard it and it sucked. Both of those are the GOP's fault IMO. It's not like the conservatives don't have plenty of media outlets to get their points across

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 97):
Why would birth control have to be covered by insurance?

I used to agree with you but now I'm starting to see all the welfare babies being popped out. Hurr durr I love my soul mate, we don't have contraceptives, oops baby, break up, baby lives a terrible life, parents are on welfare because they don't make much money and now have to raise a kid, kid probably grows up the same.

I'd rather pay a bit to cut down on these irresponsible yet totally preventable pregnancies. Saves a lot of money in the long run I would think. I've said it before but I'm all for free voluntary vasectomies/tube tying. Stop the irresponsible people from popping out kids you and me eventually have to pay for.

And I know I'm seriously stereotyping, just a disclaimer: I know that young and poorer people can still be good people, and accident kids aren't destined to be screwed over. But it's hard to argue that there are too many unplanned kids coming into the world that aren't taken care of properly



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 96, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 96):

Here is an interesting piece saying people are paying about the same but getting more. Oh, the humanity!
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...nking

Putting aside the fact that your link appears to be broken, I've seen several iterations of it being parroted by left wing blogs and it just isn't accurate. There are literally millions of individual insurance holders who will now be paying more for less service, because their plans are being mandated to pay for things they don't want.

Not to mention that it's a really horrible argument for the left to be making when President Obama repeatedly promised point blank, "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.", and that he said while cameras were recording.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 100):
And yet incredibly woman have managed to purchase birth control for decades since it has existed. The great thing about the health care reforms I suggested is that they would bring down the price of health care and insurance, thus leaving even more disposable income for....yep, birth control.





As is mentioned below, different days now, many more unwanted children, just accidents. More poverty, welfare, state attended children. A loved child, is a lovely sight. An abandoned child, is a sad, sad sight. An abused child is a horrible sight.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 101):
But it's hard to argue that there are too many unplanned kids coming into the world that aren't taken care of properly



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 98, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 101):
Ignored? That's either the GOP's fault for not marketing their idea well enough (or being too little, too late) or because the public heard it and it sucked. Both of those are the GOP's fault IMO. It's not like the conservatives don't have plenty of media outlets to get their points across

  Huh? it's the Republican's fault that they proposed these ideas, but were ignored by the majority on a straight party line vote? The public heard these ideas and largely agreed with them, which is why the ACA isn't popular, now or ever

Quoting DeltaMD90,reply=101I used to agree with you but now I'm starting to see all the welfare babies being popped out. Hurr durr I love my soul mate, we don't have contraceptives, oops baby, break up, baby lives a terrible life, parents are on welfare because they don't make much money and now have to raise a kid, kid probably grows up the same.

I'd rather pay a bit to cut down on these irresponsible yet totally preventable pregnancies. Saves a lot of money in the long run I would think. I've said it before but I'm all for free voluntary vasectomies/tube tying. Stop the irresponsible people from popping out kids you and me eventually have to pay for.

And I know I'm seriously stereotyping, just a disclaimer: I know that young and poorer people can still be good people, and accident kids aren't destined to be screwed over. But it's hard to argue that there are too many unplanned kids coming into the world that aren't taken care of properly
:

You seem to be advocating for a soft form of eugenics by social class. No thanks, but I'll pass on that.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 99, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 97):
Why would birth control have to be covered by insurance?

And then you (in the general sense) complain about all the "freeloaders" collecting "entitlements" from the government.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 99):
number 2 gives them incentive to heal the patient, rather than oversubscribe medications

What? You went from the hospital to the pharmacy. You changed the subject.

If a doctor only has to see a patient twice a year, s/he will charge three or four times as much to get the same income.

I agree that preventive care will help costs, but if someone does not know they are high risk for stroke or heart attack, how does it help their financial situation when they show up at an ER suffering a stroke or heart attack with one of these BS plans?

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 99):
No one should have to pay for prostate exams, boner pills, or birth control.

I am all for paying into a pool so women can have their exams and men can have their exams and women can get the pill so they don't pop out babies they can't afford to have. If people want to be healthy and responsible, I am all for it and I will help. If they are just going to the Dominican Republic with a bag of little blue pills, they can pay for that on their own.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 99):
Every apolitical study on tort reform has shown it reduces cost relative to the baseline.

That is why Texas did it. And that is why insurance rates in Texas didn't go down by any significant amount.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 100, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 103):
As is mentioned below, different days now, many more unwanted children, just accidents. More poverty, welfare, state attended children. A loved child, is a lovely sight. An abandoned child, is a sad, sad sight. An abused child is a horrible sight.

Actually the number of unplanned pregnancies has been falling in the last few decades, so your information is once again inaccurate.

[Edited 2013-11-01 19:12:41]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 101, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3143 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 104):
  Huh? it's the Republican's fault that they proposed these ideas, but were ignored by the majority on a straight party line vote? The public heard these ideas and largely agreed with them, which is why the ACA isn't popular, now or ever

Well I was younger so I might not remember it as well. I do wonder why they waited until the Democrats were actually moving forward with a healthcare reform plan before the GOP started touting their ideas around. They could have very easily passed it under certain times of GWB's term

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 104):
You seem to be advocating for a soft form of eugenics by social class.

Call it what you want. It's completely voluntary. People are free to do it nowadays, it will just be subsidized, it will surely cut down on unplanned pregnancies and in turn, abortions and many kids that would be born into a vicious cycle of poverty



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 102, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
And then you (in the general sense) complain about all the "freeloaders" collecting "entitlements" from the government.

1) I'm not following your argument, and 2) where did I say that?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
What? You went from the hospital to the pharmacy. You changed the subject.

If a doctor only has to see a patient twice a year, s/he will charge three or four times as much to get the same income.

Huh? Doctors don't prescribe medicine??

And if fly United less times next year than I did this year, they automatically get to charge me more (to make up the difference in lost revenue) because of that???  
Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
That is why Texas did it. And that is why insurance rates in Texas didn't go down by any significant amount.

So you went from tort reform having no impact whatsoever (even used capital letters twice!) to lamenting it didn't have a "significant" impact in the span of a couple posts. Imagine that.

Anyways that's ok because I never said tort reform would have a significant impact - good thing it was only 1 of the 7 suggestions I brought up originally!

[Edited 2013-11-01 19:25:54]

User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 103, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 87):
1) tort reform

That just prices plaintiffs out of the courtroom in genuine malpractice cases. Not really a great idea especially when Texas and many other states have shown tort reform had a negligible effect on healthcare costs. Worth remembering that this is not an occasional problem- 98,000 people a year die from preventable medical errors. A Harvard study found that 97% of medical malpractice cases are meritorious.

Tort reform just protects bad doctors and further enriches the insurance companies. Not a very tempting proposition.

Quote:
2) reimburse doctors and hospitals based on outcomes, not number of visits

Who defined the outcomes? How do you protect against doctors refusing to treat unhealthier patients?

Quote:
3) remove as many mandates as possible - requiring mental health coverage or contraceptives only drives up costs

Contraceptives effectively cost AT MOST zero, so they're irrelevant. Any tiny savings is negated by the medical costs of unwanted pregnancies. It costs about $21 a year for your health plan to provide contraception. Having a baby costs tens of thousands. You do the math.

As for mental health- why do you specifically pick on that? Is mental health somehow worth less than physical health? Lack of mental healthcare is one of the most striking deficiencies in America's healthcare system IMO.

Quote:
4) allow plans to be sold across state lines, thereby increasing competition

I agree with this providing insurance companies are sold in such a way as to force them to compete and not just form a cartel of confusion- i.e. they must have a standardized method of displaying coverage information which is federally mandated and worded identically between all insurance companies. Without this I don't think much would be achieved- after all there's already plenty of options within each state, so if the industry was actually competitive we'd expect to see healthcare costs at more reasonable levels.

I'm no fan of Obamacare but these suggestions are mostly useless unfortunately. If this is the GOP's plan it would explain why they've done such a pathetic marketing job on it.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 98):
which is why the ACA isn't popular, now or ever

A minority of people support repealing the ACA though, and amazingly- and despite the horrendous problems with the rollout- that number seems to be going down.

It's going to be interesting to see how everything looks once the dust settles. I think most of these issues are coming too early in the election cycle to make any difference in and of themselves, unless they continue for a year or more. Midterms could be interesting though. Think given the GOP's approval rating right now your theory that they will take the Senate might be a touch hopeful. I think it's more likely the Dems will take a hit for the Obamacare screwups and the GOP will take a hit for the government shutdown screwups, and the status quo will be maintained.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 104, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 102):
1) I'm not following your argument

You said it would lower health care costs. That is the point of ACA. How can health care costs be lowered when women are having children they never wanted in the first place either because of rape or because they know they can not afford a child? I would rather help a woman pay $30 a month for birth control so she does not have a child she can not afford.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 102):
2) where did I say that?

Which is why I qualified my statement.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 102):
Huh? Doctors don't prescribe medicine??

And if fly United less times next year than I did this year, they automatically get to charge me more (to make up the difference in lost revenue) because of that???

Airlines are VERY different than doctors!

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 102):
So you went from tort reform having no impact whatsoever (even used capital letters twice!) to lamenting it didn't have a "significant" impact in the span of a couple posts. Imagine that.


When a state enacts tort reform because they that is what will reduce the cost of health care and it does NOTHING to reduce the cost of health care, that is significant, isn't it?

Keep in mind that KY, CA, WA, OR have REDUCED the cost of health care for their citizens. State run web sites are going well. Oregon crashed a few times, but they are doing better than in the South.

Anyways that's ok because I never said tort reform would have a significant impact - good thing it was only 1 of the 7 suggestions I brought up originally.

And it was the first thing you said would reduce the cost of health care. Even though one of the largest states have proven it has ZERO impact on the cost of health care. Little impact on the cost of health care. Think about that before you post again.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 105, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 104):
And it was the first thing you said would reduce the cost of health care. Even though one of the largest states have proven it has ZERO impact on the cost of health care. Little impact on the cost of health care. Think about that before you post again.

Wait, now we're back once again to tort reform having no impact whatsoever? And the capital letters have returned again too!

Look, now that Obamacare is no longer theoretical and is actually being implemented, the critics of the law are running up the scoreboard in terms of being right about the facts, while the proponents are left with the administration's lies such as:

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"
"This will bend the healt care cost curve down"
"Health insurance premiums will fall by an average of 2500 dollars"

None of these promises have come true, and I have some news - they never were true nor were they going to become true. The administration lied to the public repeatedly, and we have the video tape to prove it. So take the unpopularity of the law as it stands nationally, then factor in that Senators like Pryor, Begich and Landrieu defending some seats in ruby red states' where the law is extremely unpopular (as in 2-1 unpopular) and you can see where this gets ugly for them. Throw in other ruby red states like South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana where Democrats are not even fielding top level candidates for retiring Democrat Senators, and you can see where control of the Senate is gone. Note I haven't even mentioned swing states like North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Iowa where Democrats are also defending seats. The Republicans could lose ALL of those swing seats, and still win the Senate next year.

Not really difficult to see a scenario where the Senate flips to 50-50 or 51-49 next year due to this law being sold on completely false pretenses. And for what? To enrich insurance companies while providing incredibly high deductible insurance to the uninsured?

[Edited 2013-11-01 21:51:29]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 106, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 87):
4) allow plans to be sold across state lines, thereby increasing competition
Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 87):
5) expand health insurance tax credits to those who don't receive health insurance through their employer, are self employed or unemployed
Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 87):
7) direct cash subsidies to high risk pools so that people with pre-existing conditions can pay comparable rates to everyone else

All of these is truly how to make healthcare affordable. Economists that I've talked to-both in America and in Japan- agree.

Japan's "national plan" is very similar to numbers 6 and 7.

By removing the mandate, and allowing those who are self-employed or unemployed to get healthcare for a tax credit, that's how you also make it more affordable- they'll have more money in their hands.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 88):
A few women might object to that one alone. I know I do. One might think that is more government interference in women's lives. Healthcare certainly includes pregnancy, children. So birth control is part of the package for women.

Here's my problem with the contraceptive argument:

It's a medication, if it's not a condom. No one is ENTITLED to receive free meds unless they absolutely need it.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 107, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 105):
now we're back once again to tort reform having no impact whatsoever?

The right keeps saying tort reform is the biggest driver of health care costs. Texas proved that is not so.

Keep in mind that both the right and left gave up things to get ACA passed, even though the right still refused to vote yes on it. The right held fast in their "my way or the highway" line of thinking. That will come back to haunt them in 2014.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 105):
None of these promises have come true, and I have some news - they never were true nor were they going to become true.

People are finding out their health care costs are going down. The right does not want to focus on that. The right only focuses on business as usual for health care companies, such as policies being terminated and companies deciding to terminate policies that do not comply with ACA. Companies could very easily gotten those BS policies to comply with ACA. They chose, instead, to cancel them and people are finding they can pay about the same for a policy which includes much more coverage.

That is like saying it was the government's fault TWA quit flying 880s. The right is forgetting a few steps in between. I know it is all about hatred for Obama and nothing more.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 106):
No one is ENTITLED to receive free meds unless they absolutely need it.

So women who need birth control pills to keep ovarian issued under control should just not get the pill? Women who are being responsible and not getting pregnant should just not get the pill? I would rather help spread the cost of the pill rather than shoulder the burden of unwanted children.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 108, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 107):
I would rather help spread the cost of the pill rather than shoulder the burden of unwanted children.

I would rather not have to cover either.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 107):
So women who need birth control pills to keep ovarian issued under control should just not get the pill?

Then it would be prescribed by a Doctor as Medication and not given out free so she can get tagged by whomever she want's and not get pregnant . Understand the difference?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 107):
People are finding out their health care costs are going down

What alternate universe are you living in?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 107):
Keep in mind that both the right and left gave up things to get ACA passed

The right gave up everything and the left only gave up the single payer they wanted becasue they know that a majority of Americans would not go for it. So they had to blow a smoke screen out there and call it the Affordable care act. Which has neither made to be affordable nor to give everyone healthcare



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 109, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
I would rather not have to cover either.

I am at the lowest possible risk for prostate cancer. Why should I have to cover your prostate exam or you mother's breast cancer screenings? For that matter, why should I cover you if you decide to stick your hand in a lawn mower and get treatment at an emergency room?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
Then it would be prescribed by a Doctor as Medication and not given out free so she can get tagged by whomever she want's and not get pregnant . Understand the difference?

Back to the Rush Limbaugh line of thinking that ALL women are sluts and ALL women just want birth control so they can all bang anyone they want.

Never mind there are actual reasons other than sex for women to take birth control. But the Rush Limbaugh reality is the only way?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
Which has neither made to be affordable nor to give everyone healthcare

Except it has. States that have set up their own exchanges have residents who are finding the new health care coverage gives them more and they are paying less than before. The problem is: the media is honed in on states that did not set up their own exchanges where health care costs will be going down for average citizens also.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 110, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3018 times:

I would actually like to correct a previous statement of mine: the right did have a health care plan. They wanted to give everyone $500 voucher to purchase private insurance. What a deal! $500 to pay for a $1500+ plan and we still would get to pay high deductibles and high co-pays! That's really looking out for the middle class, tea people!


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 111, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 100):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 103):As is mentioned below, different days now, many more unwanted children, just accidents. More poverty, welfare, state attended children. A loved child, is a lovely sight. An abandoned child, is a sad, sad sight. An abused child is a horrible sight.
Actually the number of unplanned pregnancies has been falling in the last few decades, so your information is once again inaccurate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...intended-pregnancy-_n_3906668.html




I suggest you try reading this. You used the term unplanned pregnancies, read all about it, and the dollar costs These figures are more than adequate proof that the ACA should provide birth control for women. The figures of 5 times for the women, at, or near the poverty line tell me something. What does it tell you?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 112, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 106):
It's a medication, if it's not a condom. No one is ENTITLED to receive free meds unless they absolutely need it.

NO they are not entitled, they will be covered by the ACA, a duly passed law. It is not the Constitution, or the Bill of rights.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 113, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Not trying to stir the pot, but my sister isn't being given more than 30 hours a week, and my aunt-in-law had her hours cut below 30 and is losing benefits. Blame the companies if you guys want but that's what's happening... this seems like a serious problem that is happening all over the place. Hopefully everyone realizes I'm not being a hater but am really concerned with the recent events


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 114, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
but my sister isn't being given more than 30 hours a week, and my aunt-in-law had her hours cut below 30 and is losing benefits.

Why were their hours cut? Was there a cut in orders? Was there a cut in production? Were some jobs shipped overseas or no longer needed? There needs to be more fact gathering and less "blame Obama" going on.

EDIT: My hours were just increased. A few of us had our hours increased. The knee-jerk reaction is: "It's Obama's fault!" But, why were my hours increased? Because of demand. Not to help people get more welfare or so women can get more, free birth control so they can bang everyone. We have an increase in demand.

[Edited 2013-11-02 17:53:04]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 115, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
Why were their hours cut? Was there a cut in orders? Was there a cut in production? Were some jobs shipped overseas or no longer needed? There needs to be more fact gathering and less "blame Obama" going on.

No it was due to the ACA. You know I'm not a blatant hater on the ACA and my sister is very liberal (not sure about my aunt.) There is no denying it, employers are cutting hours to avoid the ACA. I'm not calling for the President's head or jumping on the repeal bandwagon but it's silly just to acknowledge that businesses aren't doing this. It's simple math... cut a few hours and avoid paying for healthcare = $$$$ saved



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
There needs to be more fact gathering and less "blame Obama" going on.

Totally surprised you have not hit on the corporate mandate which Obama by presidential mandate is giving corporations a free ride until 2015.
Would that have to do with campaign contributions and elections. Worth Tens of Billions for corporations in trade for a few million in contributions.   

Okie


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 116):
Would that have to do with campaign contributions and elections. Worth Tens of Billions for corporations in trade for a few million in contributions.

So he is apparently pro big business. You should have probably voted for him. However he gave a break for companies with more than 50 employees from having to buy insurance or pay huge penalties. I agree with this, as it helps the employers line up their coverage going forward.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 117):
So he is apparently pro big business. You should have probably voted for him. However he gave a break for companies with more than 50 employees from having to buy insurance or pay huge penalties. I agree with this, as it helps the employers line up their coverage going forward

There is no legal means in the Obamacare legislation to give Corporations a pass. I suspect the left will take it to court.

So the idea is to have the individuals pay exorbitant rates and give corporations a massive break.
I could see the corporate mandate getting an additional year extension to get past the 2014 elections.
Looking like Obama is using the poor and middle class as pawns.


Okie


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 118):
So the idea is to have the individuals pay exorbitant rates and give corporations a massive break.
I could see the corporate mandate getting an additional year extension to get past the 2014 elections.
Looking like Obama is using the poor and middle class as pawns.

Sure, but if you are so sure you are right, why do all the insurance companies say that their would be a skyrocket in premiums if the ACA is delayed ?

I know the far right has nothing but Obama on the brain, and it is why they will lose the next 2 elections, but the right needs to start thinking about why the individual mandate makes sense. It made sense in Massachusetts and works well. It will also work well nationally. All that has been done by Obama is allow businesses a little more time to get their insurance coverages squared up with the law before they get hit by heavy fines. The individual already has a graduated fine. Why not the businesses?

Or are you anti business?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 119):
Or are you anti business?

Are you a Tea Party member?

Okie


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 121, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 116):
Would that have to do with campaign contributions and elections. Worth Tens of Billions for corporations in trade for a few million in contributions

A president who can not be elected again is doing something to get election contributions?

What about the tea people shutting down the government?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
No it was due to the ACA.

Proof? People here in California have had their hours either held steady or increased.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 122, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 121):
A president who can not be elected again is doing something to get election contributions?

Sitting presidents routinely campaign on behalf of members of their party.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 123, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 107):
So women who need birth control pills to keep ovarian issued under control should just not get the pill? Women who are being responsible and not getting pregnant should just not get the pill? I would rather help spread the cost of the pill rather than shoulder the burden of unwanted children.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
Never mind there are actual reasons other than sex for women to take birth control

This is something that has been completely missed. A significant number of women who take the pill do it for non-contraceptive purposes. It has a vast array of health benefits which clearly most posters here aren't aware off. Hell, my sister was placed on the pill to treat depression.

Removing the pill from health care harms more people than it helps IMHO. And that's before we talk about contraception.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 103):
I think it's more likely the Dems will take a hit for the Obamacare screwups and the GOP will take a hit for the government shutdown screwups, and the status quo will be maintained.

I'm 95% certain that it will be Dems -1, status quo maintained. But we'll find out in 52 weeks...



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 901 posts, RR: 12
Reply 124, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2857 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):

I would actually like to correct a previous statement of mine: the right did have a health care plan. They wanted to give everyone $500 voucher to purchase private insurance. What a deal! $500 to pay for a $1500+ plan and we still would get to pay high deductibles and high co-pays! That's really looking out for the middle class, tea people!


You keep claiming that there were no alternatives proposed but I listed at least seven examples of just that. And yet you continue to assert it, despite being corrected.

Guess there is no point debating the issue with you as you have clearly made up your own mind...and facts.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 125, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Since the roll out of Obamacare, 3 of my friends that were hardcore Obama supporters have recently stop supporting him. Better late than never I guess. Too bad it's after he's won a 2nd term. They'll be paying close attention to which candidates in 2014 and 2016 that support this. Those 3 wont be supporting Hillary if she is still supporting this junk legislation come 2016. She'll find her way to dance around it as she is a shrewd politician.


I have a serious question that was recently inspired by a spoof skit on Saturday Night Live.
If someone claims they slipped an fell on their toy firetruck and it got stuck up their butt, would Obamacare cover this?
Can someone claim this as a pre-existing condition if they have a fetish for shoving objects in their butts? Will this have to be reported to the IRS?

Starts at 3:47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKZk4YxfPw



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 126, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2785 times:


And why again should it provide free pills to 50-year old men?

Wait, this gets better. Remember that thing about "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Well, guess again.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 111):
These figures are more than adequate proof that the ACA should provide birth control for women.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 111):
The figures of 5 times for the women, at, or near the poverty line tell me something. What does it tell you?

That the economic incentives to have children you cannot afford are much higher at or near the poverty level. You know, where welfare kicks in...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
EDIT: My hours were just increased. A few of us had our hours increased.

How many employees are there in your business?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 125):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKZk4YxfPw

Jesse Pinkman FTW!

BTW, that person I linked to above is in the same situation as Walter White - she has / can get health insurance, it just doesn't cover the doctor she wants to see. Maybe she can buy a decrepit RV and go to the desert, cook crystal meth and become a drug kingpin.


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 127, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
Except it has. States that have set up their own exchanges have residents who are finding the new health care coverage gives them more and they are paying less than before. The problem is: the media is honed in on states that did not set up their own exchanges where health care costs will be going down for average citizens also.

Then explain this guy, who lives in California, suffers from cancer and cannot find an affordable replacement to his existing insurer.

--http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

Quote:
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

...

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Now the New York Times is saying that Obama "clearly misspoke" when he said that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" - what was it, hundreds, maybe thousands of times on the campaign trail?

You misspeak when you say something wrong once. Saying it god-knows-how-many times over several years is not misspeaking - it's lying. Shameless propaganda on the part of the NYT.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 128):
Now the New York Times is saying that Obama "clearly misspoke" when he said that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" - what was it, hundreds, maybe thousands of times on the campaign trail?

You misspeak when you say something wrong once. Saying it god-knows-how-many times over several years is not misspeaking - it's lying. Shameless propaganda on the part of the NYT.

I love how the GOP beats up the part about wanting to keep bad insurance plans that do nothing to fix the true issues in the health system. The GOP has no solutions , just a pack of dogs barking about other people trying to make the world better.

If we are basing a lie on the fact that the insurance being offered was less than adequate, then fine he lied. But he did so with the point being that people believe in the basic tenants of what is being offered, they just don't understand the underlying and long term costs.

The funny party about this is that the GOP will turn around and complain about the long term unfunded medicare debts, and once again , not offer any solutions that work towards hospitals and patients coexistence.

Because now that Romneycare is the ACA, the GOP won't accept credit, and can't find anything better.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 130, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
Then explain this guy, who lives in California, suffers from cancer and cannot find an affordable replacement to his existing insurer.

Is he one of those "Hannity people" who just go along with the lie? Is his doctor retiring? What is the back story? How much will his insurance go up? $50 a month?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 126):
How many employees are there in your business?

About 500.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 131, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 129):
I love how the GOP beats up the part about wanting to keep bad insurance plans that do nothing to fix the true issues in the health system. The GOP has no solutions , just a pack of dogs barking about other people trying to make the world better.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 130):
Is he one of those "Hannity people" who just go along with the lie? Is his doctor retiring? What is the back story? How much will his insurance go up? $50 a month?

You know, it is quite possible that the ACA is screwing a lot of people.

Cas, I am not a fan of the GOP either and although I hope they help work on a solution, I think the ball is clearly in the Democrats' court. There seem to be a lot of pissed off people and I'm not buying the whole "all these cancelled plans are bad" mantra. I'm sure some are rip offs but literally millions seem to be doing just fine with these plans and now they're forced to get something completely different. Maybe the ACA just goes too far?

And Seb--come on, is EVERY negative story about the ACA some elaborate conspiracy theory to make it look bad? I find it very hard to believe that every single one is made up. Do you think that the ACA is a perfect bill? Yes or no, simple question?

If you answered "no" then you realize that there are undoubtedly are going to be negative consequences. Instead of being an apologists and adding nothing to the table except excuses and a million questions people can't answer (like before when you asked me for proof, what, do you want me to hunt down my aunt in law's employer and get a sworn statement from him and upload it to the internet?) how about you fight to make the bill that you support better?

If the Democrats don't start fixing these problems (and to be fair, I'm sure they're working on it right now) then I think we could start seeing a lot of people jumping on the "repeal the ACA" bandwagon and the 2014 elections are coming up soon...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
then I think we could start seeing a lot of people jumping on the "repeal the ACA" bandwagon and the 2014 elections are coming up soon...

Possibly, but a lot of it is driven by the "Cost" argument and the website failures.

For the cost issue,,,, It will cost more to get coverage when folks can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions ,and the basic coverage's included in the law, that has indirectly always affected those with insurance.

For the website issues. A lot of that could have been handled had states opted to create their own sites instead of letting the feds do it all. However the web site is fixable, and will be done.


If the repeal argument were to really gather strength, a whole lot of expensive problems would crop up for the health care industry and folks that buy insurance.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 132):
For the cost issue,,,, It will cost more to get coverage when folks can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions ,and the basic coverage's included in the law, that has indirectly always affected those with insurance.

I realize that... prices will probably go up a bit but ER costs for the uninsured will go down. The figures I've seen say the uninsured cost the US tax payers anywhere from $40-45bil/year. (can provide sources if anyone wants them)

I'm talking about businesses cutting hours to under 30 hours to avoid healthcare (which some unnamed posters refuse to believe can happen despite it being basic math that it's cheaper to have a couple more ssing issues



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133):
I'm talking about businesses cutting hours to under 30 hours to avoid healthcare (which some unnamed posters refuse to believe can happen despite it being basic math that it's cheaper to have a couple more ssing issues

The problem is that if you are cutting hours, you produce less benefits, which means you have workers that are not benefitting from employment with you. In fast food, and other such endeavors, this may work. However the company will have to employ more people to remain competitive, and the cycle of workers claiming benefits due to hours worked and poverty level may push up the employer penalty. You may also find that scheduling issues will become more rampant as folks work two to 3 jobs, and management issues will go up.

There is also the competitive issue. if you wind up with a workforce of revolving low hour workers, there will not be much differentiation in your product or loyalty to your company, and many companies may find themselves broadsided.

There are issues for sure, but at the end of the day, many businesses will find the penalties and the workforce challenges to be a double whammy.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 135, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 134):
There are issues for sure, but at the end of the day, many businesses will find the penalties and the workforce challenges to be a double whammy.

I don't really buy it plus, why should businesses and citizens suffer this for however long instead of working to find a fix for the ACA? I'd rather not fall off the mountain only to climb up to someplace higher... avoid the fall all together.

I could argue against the 3 jobs thing or the revolving door of low skill (which I agree to a tiny extent but think the bottom line of not paying healthcare outweighs that) until we are blue in the face, but my point is it doesn't matter. Again, I go back to my first paragraph, I'd like a fix instead of speculating on how it might be better after the pain millions will have to go through to get there



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9051 posts, RR: 10
Reply 136, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 126):
That the economic incentives to have children you cannot afford are much higher at or near the poverty level. You know, where welfare kicks in...

I think that is all the more reason to provide birth control so the poverty level women will not have unwanted children, which then calls for more welfare. Simple to me.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 137, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

To most people, they took the President's statement on being to keep your insurance on face value and now see it as a lie. That opinion is not going to change. We are all aware of the massive negative affects the ACA is causing for 50% of Americans from higher net premium and medical costs (including huge deductibles), mandate penalties, the involvement of too many other agencies, an Exchange website that is a failure. Unless some politicians on both sides of the aisle fix the terrible flaws with the ACA including that is hurting a majority of Americans in some way there is going to be a huge swing to the Republicans in 2014.

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 138, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 137):
an Exchange website that is a failure.

If the tea freaks would have funded it like Seblelius wanted, there wouldn't be this problem. She went to the tea led House a number of times asking for money to get the web site working. They all said no.

Just like Benghazi. They asked for more money and the tea freaks said no and then blamed Obama for the Americans killed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
it is quite possible that the ACA is screwing a lot of people.

Just like there were tons of WMDs? There is a huge difference between trying to get a bill passed and starting a war based on lies. When you are as outraged over the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the lie there were WMDs and Iraq was a clear and present danger as you are over a web site not working because the tea freaks refused to fund it, I will be satisfied.

Never mind the fact that many more Americans can not get preventive care than before and can get treated for things like cancer and COPD and lupus at a much cheaper rate. This whole "outrage" started because the web site crashed for those tea held states who decided to not set up their own exchanges. Why? They hate Obama. Their hatred of Obama is so intense, they would rather their own citizens suffer.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
is EVERY negative story about the ACA some elaborate conspiracy theory to make it look bad

And all come from the right who also refused to fund building of the site.

Let's also not forget ACA is based on Romneycare from Massachusetts. The tea people thought it was great when Romney did it. Why is it so awful now?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133):
I'm talking about businesses cutting hours to under 30 hours to avoid healthcare

And those employees can get quality, affordable health care. Oh, the outrage!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 139, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
If the tea freaks would have funded it like Seblelius wanted, there wouldn't be this problem. She went to the tea led House a number of times asking for money to get the web site working. They all said no.

Actually I've been reading that the website went way over budget. The website had lots of issues, I don't know why you're making excuses for it, even the President himself has apologized for the mess

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
it is quite possible that the ACA is screwing a lot of people.

Just like there were tons of WMDs?

WTF are you talking about!??!?!??!?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
is EVERY negative story about the ACA some elaborate conspiracy theory to make it look bad

And all come from the right who also refused to fund building of the site

No Seb. NO. Not all are coming from the right. I can't believe how blindly partisan you're being. Every single thing that is going wrong you are brushing off as if nothing is wrong. Even the administration isn't making as many excuses, that should tell you something. It's hard to debate someone when I try my hardest to stay open minded through this whole process (you've seen me defend the ACA before) but every time I bring up an actual problem that even the President himself acknowledges, you brush it aside like it's nothing or a conspiracy from the right

The administration is not perfect and the ACA isn't perfect, I think 100% of the population can agree on that. Don't be the anti-Tea Party



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 140, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 139):
The administration is not perfect and the ACA isn't perfect, I think 100% of the population can agree on that. Don't be the anti-Tea Party

So, I can't be anti-tea freak but they can be anti-Obama?

Don't give me the "both sides do it" schpeel, either. This is about one side lying. This is about the tea people telling people half-truths. Half-truths are whole lies. Don't change the subject. The web site crashed because of under funding. True, there was not enough money, but why was there not enough money? The tea freaks REFUSED to give HHS more money. Yet, they found plenty of money for drone strikes and military and shutting down the government.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 139):
I've been reading that the website went way over budget.

Because the tea people REFUSED to fund it! Why are you making that a non-issue?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 139):
WTF are you talking about!??!?!??!?

Because some lies are worse than others. The right does not ever get that. They think lies about WMD, lies that kill hundreds of thousands of people are better lies than "keeping your insurance".



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 141, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
So, I can't be anti-tea freak but they can be anti-Obama?

No I'm saying don't engage in the TP's tactics* of blind ideology but from the other side (I see where you can be confused from my wording)

*talking about the extreme members of the modern TP, not the original TP ideals/supporters

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
Because the tea people REFUSED to fund it! Why are you making that a non-issue?

I need to read into this more but I'm very sure you're getting your facts confused. I'll let this one go for now

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
Because some lies are worse than others. The right does not ever get that. They think lies about WMD, lies that kill hundreds of thousands of people are better lies than "keeping your insurance".

Seb, what difference does it make? What does this have to do with what GWB did? Who cares? Why is your justification a random unrelated fallacy?

Ok, this lie won't kill hundreds of thousands. What's your point? Address the issue, don't stereotypically blame Bush. If your best response to the lie/misleading statement is "Bush lying about Iraq" then... wow... you really must have nothing

PS: What if I said to stop whining about Iraq because it didn't kill as many people as WWII so your argument is invalid. What sense does that make?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11721 posts, RR: 15
Reply 142, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 141):
No I'm saying don't engage in the TP's tactics* of blind ideology but from the other side (I see where you can be confused from my wording)

*talking about the extreme members of the modern TP, not the original TP ideals/supporters

If we are going with the "well, they do it too" line of thinking, I am playing on their turf. I am doing what they do. Because "both sides do it".

Also, there are three steps to the tea people: The original Tea Party, the corporate tea people and the tea freaks now in Congress. I agree with some of what the original Tea Party talked about. It somehow morphed into gibberish.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 141):
what difference does it make? What does this have to do with what GWB did? Who cares? Why is your justification a random unrelated fallacy?

A lie that kills over 200,000 is not relevant but a talking point that saves thousands is evil? Why care? Every life is sacred, according to these tea freaks. Unless that life exits the woman's body. That is what gets me: They love the fetus but hate the baby.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 141):
this lie won't kill hundreds of thousands. What's your point?

No. It will just heal hundreds of thousands of Americans. That is what they don't want.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 143, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 125):
3 of my friends that were hardcore Obama supporters have recently stop supporting him. Better late than never I guess. Too bad it's after he's won a 2nd term.

A lot of my Dem. friends are also coming to the realization that they have been "had". Better late then never!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 126):
Wait, this gets better. Remember that thing about "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Well, guess again.

It is incredible how Obama lies and lies and lies. Clinton seemed to keep that down to a "BJ"----"I did not-----"

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 128):
the New York Times is saying that Obama "clearly misspoke
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 128):
it's lying. Shameless propaganda on the part of the NYT.

They do this sort of thing all the time. The NYT has the credibility of the Huffington Post  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131):
t is quite possible that the ACA is screwing a lot of people.

Hooray! By George-----I think he's got it!   
I think the possibility exists for over 50 million to get screwed. It's really bad, man. And every day more and more gets "discovered" that has been kept from the public.
The "transparency" we were promised over and over again---isn't!

In response to the NYT article here's a link to an opinion:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/280598262...=HPBucket&playlist_id=940325740001

[Edited 2013-11-05 04:34:02]

And here is some discussion on actual costs!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/280694842...=HPBucket&playlist_id=928378949001


[Edited 2013-11-05 04:36:56]


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 144, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Anyone else see that article about that cancer patient who got kicked off his plan because of Obamacare screwing up United Healthcare ?

Don't blame UHC on this one- they have no control over this anymore...and now this guy will most likely die because of lack of care.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 145, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 142):

I'm not even going to bother with you. You cannot engage in a rational conversation with me, instead are throwing out wild and nonsensical excuses. You have no accountability at all. I hate when people use this phrase because they usually are using it in vain, but you really are drinking the koolaid

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 143):
Hooray! By George-----I think he's got it!   
I think the possibility exists for over 50 million to get screwed. It's really bad, man. And every day more and more gets "discovered" that has been kept from the public.

I never was a huge supporter of the ACA. I had problems with it before all these massive problems surfaced. I just had a major problem with, what I think, is the absolutely absurd way the GOP has been handling the situation. Instead of coming up with a solid, better alternative they've been acting like children and even managed to shut down the government (I put blame solely on them and I usually don't put blame solely on anyone.)

Even despite this mess, I still don't think the GOP has been right in all this. Their tactics are shameful. So all the times I've defended the ACA doesn't make me an ACA cheerleader, it just was because the GOP turned me off WAY more than the ACA did

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 144):
Anyone else see that article about that cancer patient who got kicked off his plan because of Obamacare screwing up United Healthcare ?

Didn't Doc address this on FB and say how misleading the article was? Wonder if he can chime in



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)