"Obamacare"

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Our health plan was basically another member of the family.  So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same.  "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted.  "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.

Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?

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. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic.  I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans.  He also said some people would be paying more.  I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided.  In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year.  That's how long they typically last.  Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year.  Other times, there aren't.  "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.

It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases.  The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before.  I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source.  I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies.  That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year.  This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.

If liberals really cared about this, gasoline wouldn't be $3.75 right now, Obama wouldn't have pulled all of the leases on federal land and we would have 5-7% GDP growth with <5% unemployment. This should have been the focus for the last 5 years, not effing up the health care system.

[gatoveintisiete]

Our health plan was basically another member of the family.  So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same.  "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted.  "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.

Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?

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. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic.  I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans.  He also said some people would be paying more.  I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided.  In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year.  That's how long they typically last.  Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year.  Other times, there aren't.  "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.

It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases.  The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before.  I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source.  I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies.  That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year.  This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.

I think the "notion" that healthy poors will come out of their own pocket $100 for an insurance policy is a gross misscalculation.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Ok, one piece at a time...

I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic.  I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans.

No, it's Obamacare that is causing the "problematic" "additional costs." Obama just lied about it.

He also said some people would be paying more.

Did he? I'm honestly not aware that he ever said this in the lead up to passing the law. I'm only aware of the numerous times he promised that people pay less, and "if you like your plan, you can keep it." He lied, plain and simple.

I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided.  In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year.  That's how long they typically last.  Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year.  Other times, there aren't.  "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.

You're still missing the point. In this case, millions of policies are being discontinued because of Obamacare. The new coverage will be more expensive for many. The government is forcing people who were already playing by the rules, paying for insurance, to pay more for additional coverage they probably don't need. Responsible consumers should be able to decide whether they want maternity coverage, or mental health coverage, or any other kind of coverage.

It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases.

Even if it is only "three percent" - that represents millions of people. Not that it's particularly relevant, but at this point there is a very real possibility that the people getting mumped over by Obamacare will outnumber the people signing up for reduced price insurance. If you have some basis for your claim that "a very large majority" won't see rate increases, please cite that. I would hazard a guess that a sizable chunk of those who were self-insuring also made a decent enough income that they won't be eligible for much of a subsidy, if any.

What we should be able to agree on is that Obamacare is absolute disaster that needs to be repealed ASAP. If you can agree with that, we can stop quibbling over the details.

[Emo EMAW]

Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all.  Hence the reason the new plans cost more.

Which is the bigger problem?  People underinsured, or people without any insurance at all?  Honest question.

[chum1]

Our health plan was basically another member of the family.  So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same.  "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted.  "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.

Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?

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. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic.  I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans.  He also said some people would be paying more.  I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided.  In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year.  That's how long they typically last.  Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year.  Other times, there aren't.  "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.

It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases.  The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before.  I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source.  I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies.  That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year.  This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.

I think the "notion" that healthy poors will come out of their own pocket $100 for an insurance policy is a gross misscalculation.

It was!  It should be more like $20 per month.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

[Dr Rick Daris]

Responsible consumers should be able to decide whether they want maternity coverage, or mental health coverage, or any other kind of coverage.

 

[gatoveintisiete]

Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all.  Hence the reason the new plans cost more.

Which is the bigger problem?  People underinsured, or people without any insurance at all?  Honest question.

Here are some calculations

Rich- health insurance is good to have, it also protects your assets.\
middle class- still good to have, fewer assets to protect
low income workers/not covered at work- not worth 1/3 or 1/2 your income, just go to er, no assets to protect

as long as poor americans can go to er for essentially free we will have this problem, this won't change.  the old system was better because even though we were subsidizing the er visits in the policies that we pay for, the care was more in line with what the non-insured paid for.  In the end our system is so technologically advanced that right now poors can't afford it, in ten years the middle class might not be able to afford it.  A similar thing will happen with college education, the government gives loans to anyone with a pulse, universities raise prices on the third party financier, a bachelors degree becomes the new high school diploma, a generation or two of young americans go deep into debt in hopes of better paying careers that may or may not materialize, and college becomes so expensive that the rich that funded all this mess end up struggling to pay for their own kids education with cash.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The government hasn't let doctors know how much their compensation will be for treating the newly insured.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/

[Stupid Fitz]

The government hasn't let doctors know how much their compensation will be for treating the newly insured.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/

I bet I can take a guess at another person that doesn't know this..............or at least will say he never knew about it. 

[sys]

stop using the term "poors".

[Cire]

Doctors are super duper butthurt about obamacare

[ednksu]

Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.

Lol, that its on brownback.  Good grief what a libtard.

Thanks for confirming you have no idea what the eff you are talking about.

Well, you certainly haven't convinced anyone either.

There is nothing to "convince" you of.   You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not.  You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not.   There is nothing partisan about this issue.  You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.

  This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues.   You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is nothing to "convince" you of.   You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not.  You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not.   There is nothing partisan about this issue.  You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.

This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues.   You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.

You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Obama has issued a belated correction. He did not lie when he said "if you like you insurance plan, you can keep it." He just "misspoke." What he meant to say was, "If I like you insurance plan, you can keep it." Clears that up.

[Rams]

representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There is nothing to "convince" you of.   You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not.  You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not.   There is nothing partisan about this issue.  You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.

This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues.   You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.

You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point.

This is all I'm asking.

If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.

[ednksu]

There is nothing to "convince" you of.   You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not.  You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not.   There is nothing partisan about this issue.  You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.

This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues.   You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.

You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point.

This is all I'm asking.

If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it. 

[p1k3]

is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?

[slobber]

There is nothing to "convince" you of.   You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not.  You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not.   There is nothing partisan about this issue.  You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.

This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues.   You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.

You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point.

This is all I'm asking.

If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

[ednksu]

is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?

call me when his lies get 100k+ people killed.

[star seed 7]

is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?

we both know he's not.

[gatoveintisiete]

is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?

we both know he's not.

Top two?

[steve dave]

representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. 

well, he's a liar

[Emo EMAW]

representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. 

well, he's a liar

It's not lying if it's dementia.