OBAMACARE...JUST A SMOKESCREEN

I think you don't understand - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan it...period. No one is going to take that away.

Invalid Link Removed

C'mon now fellas - didn't he promise to have the most transparent adminsitration of all time. Why just think, if President Soetoro knew in 2010 that you could not keep your health care and doctor, well that would'nt be very transparent, would it?

Yeah...and he was going to end the wars, he was going to put an end to the patriot act and stop warrentless wiretapping, he was going to talk to and sit with the world dictators, he was going to have complete transparency, he promised he would never lie to us, he promised he wouldnt have any lobbyists in his administration, he was going to close guantanamo bay and open relations with Cuba, and so much more.

So yeah, you want to keep your health insurance, go ahead. Tell your doctor when you get the bill, lol.
 
and stop warrentless wiretapping

Maybe Barry and his funky bunch was just trying to talk to Angela Merkel about that, and there was a big mistake and they tapped her phone calls instead.

Honest mistake.

Maybe he was trying to tell her she could keep her doctor or trying to find out is she knew anything about Benghazi.
 
i kept waiting for the insider books about the clinton presidency, but they never happened.....i wonder if any insiders will write books about what was really going on inside the obama whitehouse?
 
Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, NBC News

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

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

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.

Yet 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.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs.

“One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.

“Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014,” she said.

The Affordable Care Act will not affect most traditional employer-based plans, but many of those who purchased insurance policies on their own will see higher premiums. This is in part due to the 10 essential health benefits insurance providers are now required to include. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.

Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”

Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.

A spokesman for America's Health Plans says there are no precise numbers on how many will receive cancellations letters or get notices that their current policies don’t meet ACA standards. In both cases, consumers will not be able to keep their current coverage.

Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.

"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."

"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."

Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.

"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."

Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."

Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.

The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.

Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.

He said he never believed President Obama’s promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.

"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."

For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.

“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."
 
Were most of the canceled policies of the "rip off" variety? Since they don't meet minimum standards, so just wondering why people were so satisfied with them.
 
Were most of the canceled policies of the "rip off" variety? Since they don't meet minimum standards, so just wondering why people were so satisfied with them.

Because those “rip off policies” covered any catastrophic stuff with a moderately high co pay ( a few thousand dollars) but were very low cost, sure they had to pay a deducible for seeing the doc but that happened once a year if needed. It was like having basic insurance on your car. Now these same healthy people who only wanted/ needed basic coverage are now paying more for the same thing except now they can visit the doc for free and get low cost prescription meds both of which were rare occurrences. Would you spend 900 bucks a month for coverage on a 1998 Toyota Corolla just so that if a shopping cart chipped the paint you could get a free paint job and when and when the oil needed changing you got a free visit to the mechanic? No way.
 
Because those “rip off policies” covered any catastrophic stuff with a moderately high co pay ( a few thousand dollars) but were very low cost, sure they had to pay a deducible for seeing the doc but that happened once a year if needed.

It was like having basic insurance on your car. Now these same healthy people who only wanted/ needed basic coverage are now paying more for the same thing except now they can visit the doc for free and get low cost prescription meds both of which were rare occurrences.

Would you spend 900 bucks a month for coverage on a 1998 Toyota Corolla just so that if a shopping cart chipped the paint you could get a free paint job and when and when the oil needed changing you got a free visit to the mechanic? No way.

lol I do not know crew the shopping carts are a hazardous to nice car here in US paint chipping to random nice autos seem to be the standard protocol from what I have had the experience.
 
Were most of the canceled policies of the "rip off" variety? Since they don't meet minimum standards, so just wondering why people were so satisfied with them.

They did meet the minimum standard; the minimum standards required by the individual. That was before the Government imposed certain insurance standards. If all someone wants is a hell or high water insurance policy, there is nothing about that type of policy that is a rip off.

Now then, having someone directly and intentionally lie to you about something (say, promising that you could maintain your existing insurance - when they knew that was not the truth), well - that is a rip off. In most instances, this (intent to deceive) is referred to as fraud.
 
Because those “rip off policies” covered any catastrophic stuff with a moderately high co pay ( a few thousand dollars) but were very low cost, sure they had to pay a deducible for seeing the doc but that happened once a year if needed. It was like having basic insurance on your car. Now these same healthy people who only wanted/ needed basic coverage are now paying more for the same thing except now they can visit the doc for free and get low cost prescription meds both of which were rare occurrences. Would you spend 900 bucks a month for coverage on a 1998 Toyota Corolla just so that if a shopping cart chipped the paint you could get a free paint job and when and when the oil needed changing you got a free visit to the mechanic? No way.

I'm not sure that I would feel much better paying 100 bucks a month for a policy on the same car that only covers total loss.
 
They did meet the minimum standard; the minimum standards required by the individual. That was before the Government imposed certain insurance standards. If all someone wants is a hell or high water insurance policy, there is nothing about that type of policy that is a rip off.

Now then, having someone directly and intentionally lie to you about something (say, promising that you could maintain your existing insurance - when they knew that was not the truth), well - that is a rip off. In most instances, this (intent to deceive) is referred to as fraud.

Caveat emptor rules!
 
I'm not sure that I would feel much better paying 100 bucks a month for a policy on the same car that only covers total loss.

But others might feel better, based on their budget, needs, station in life, etc.; right?

Its no different than any other decisions consumer makes.

If one drives a $500 beater they might choose a different coverage than they had a 1957 Chevy or a G35. But it should be up to the buyer to determine his/her needs, rather than have a nanny state dictate them (after having lied to sway the public in favor of something they approved -- based on those lies).
 
But other might, though; right?

If you drive a beater you might choose a different coverage than if you had a 1957 Chevy or a G35. But it should be up to the buyer to dtermine his/her needs, and not have them dictated.

Agreed. I'm not sure that I would agree, though, that consumer protection rules and regulations should be absolved...not saying you're promoting that idea, just stating context.
 
But others might feel better, based on their budget, needs, station in life, etc.; right?

Its no different than any other decisions consumer makes.

If one drives a $500 beater they might choose a different coverage than they had a 1957 Chevy or a G35. But it should be up to the buyer to determine his/her needs, rather than have a nanny state dictate them (after having lied to sway the public in favor of something they approved -- based on those lies).


But there are minimum standards of coverage in auto insurance. You don't have a choice there. It seems you want to ignore that.

People in this thread are more concerned with beating their chest over ideology than actually examining the facts.
 
"They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."



Thats a lie. I am keeping mine. Article is full of lies and half truths. Typical though over this issue.
 
"They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."



Thats a lie. I am keeping mine. Article is full of lies and half truths. Typical though over this issue.

But Im not keeping mine, so I take it as a fact.

But there are minimum standards of coverage in auto insurance. You don't have a choice there. It seems you want to ignore that.

People in this thread are more concerned with beating their chest over ideology than actually examining the facts.

You do have a choice with auto insurance not to buy insurance and not to drive if you dont like the policy. With Obamacare we must buy the insurance product, so the choice is in fact taken away from people.
 
But Im not keeping mine, so I take it as a fact.

"They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."

And I am keeping mine, so that statement is a lie.

You do have a choice with auto insurance not to buy insurance and not to drive if you dont like the policy. With Obamacare we must buy the insurance product, so the choice is in fact taken away from people.

His analogy was about car ownership, not the choice to buy.
 
"They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."

And I am keeping mine, so that statement is a lie.

Well...if the word used was none, I see your point. It should be corrected....such as "They wrote the regulations so strictly Obama's campaign promises cant be met for millions."

His analogy was about car ownership, not the choice to buy.

Oh...didnt go that far back, read that older post last night and got lost this morning, lol.
 
Well...if the word used was none, I see your point. It should be corrected....such as "They wrote the regulations so strictly Obama's campaign promises cant be met for millions."

Which all campaigns do...I don't really care since I never believe them anyway. I just know whats actually going on and there are simply half truths and lies from them and the news.


The law isn't that strict. Even that harshest penalty in 3 years is less than the tax increase most people saw in 2010/2012.
 
His analogy was about car ownership, not the choice to buy.

I just wanna add...when it comes to auto insurance, having a good amount minimums should be mandatory since when you get behind the wheel your always at risk of hurting others, or damaging other people's properties.

When it comes to health insurance....each and all has their own individual body as well as personal responsibility, and there should be no minimum forced on what type of policy we choose to purchase, should we even choose to purchase. Its our own responsibility what we choose spend with the fruits of our labor.

The only regulation in health insurance is that the goverment mandates the company honor's the contract to the consumer.

The law isn't that strict. Even that harshest penalty in 3 years is less than the tax increase most people saw in 2010/2012.

Thats all they need...more taxes, lol.
 
Which all campaigns do...I don't really care since I never believe them anyway. I just know whats actually going on and there are simply half truths and lies from them and the news.


The law isn't that strict. Even that harshest penalty in 3 years is less than the tax increase most people saw in 2010/2012.

The really sad thing is, if we stops financing all these endless wars, and bought our troops home (can we please bring back our WWII troops home already, lol), stop financing this endless growing NSA police state grid, ended the war on drugs, and I can go on and on (you can get the point) we can take care of everybody and just open up clinics across the country.

Just think how many lives we could have helped in our country and treated them with medical care with the 200 million dollars (and they will need a billion more) we spent on that awesome Obamacare website alone?

Please dont think Im not for helping people if Im against Obamacare.
 
from what i understand $39,000 per individual is the cut off point for eligibility of subsidies...i may be wrong, but lets use that as a base...i can't understand why people earning under the base point weren't simply covered by medicare/medicaid? those making above the base would be free to carry on as before....

but then we get back to my original theory that obamacare was just a plot to get business out of healthcare and was doomed to fail from the beginning.
 
from what i understand $39,000 per individual is the cut off point for eligibility of subsidies...i may be wrong, but lets use that as a base...i can't understand why people earning under the base point weren't simply covered by medicare/medicaid? those making above the base would be free to carry on as before....

but then we get back to my original theory that obamacare was just a plot to get business out of healthcare and was doomed to fail from the beginning.

Because its designed as a tax increase on the poor and lower/middle class.

Question is, what will happen when the insurance companies biggest customer which happens to be the Federal Goverment now go broke? Well, they are already broke so none of this makes sense.
 
In an article that provides a “timeline of ObamaCare deception,” Tuesday’s Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) editorial posed the question as to whether Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is “a liar or just inept?”

No wonder HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is reluctant to testify about the ObamaCare disaster. She has to decide whether to admit that she willfully misled Congress for months or was completely out of touch.

Citing the May 9 report by USA Today, IBD noted that HHS officials – who “spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal meetings” -- said the department had "met its deadlines (and) tested its system." What's more, they said exchanges "can support expected large volumes of traffic."

According to IBD, “it was all completely bogus.”

In fact, the Government Accountability Office reported in June that HHS had missed several deadlines in building the exchanges, and that it was in danger of not making its Oct. 1 start date.

During an April 30 press conference, Obama said all that’s “left to implement” regarding Obamacare was setting up the exchanges.

That’s it. I mean, that’s what’s left to implement, because the other stuff has been implemented and it’s working fine.
However, as Examiner reported Aug. 19, a June 5 memorandum from the Congressional Research Service noted that the White House had actually “missed half” of the 82 deadlines “legally required” by Obamacare and that “some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.”

Also on Tuesday, Real Clear Politics reported of the interview between Sebelius and CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta.

After noting that “the president did say that he was angry about” the Obamacare exchange website “glitches” – which have remained unresolved since the Oct. 1 launch-date -- Gupta asked Sebelius if she knew “when he first knew that there was a problem?”

SEBELIUS: Well, I think it became clear fairly early on, the first couple of days.

GUPTA: So not before that though?

SEBELIUS: No.

However, as Real Clear Politics reported Oct. 9, CNN correspondent Brian Todd told Wolf Blitzer – senior anchor of “The Situation Room” -- that “the administration was warned about these potential problems months in advance.”

“We spoke to Robert Lushevsky (ph) [spelled, “Laszewski”], he is a health care consultant who [has] clients who are insurers,” Todd explained.
He says his insurers who dealt with the administration in the months ahead of time, he says the insurers he dealt with had contentious meetings with people form HHS and other health care officials who were in charge of this. Contentious meetings in the months before this rollout, warning them, this isn’t working. It’s not going to be smooth. Don’t do it right then. He says those warnings were ignored, they went full speed ahead, and said we’ll work these problems out. Now, there has been a bit of pushback from the White House, we hope to get more later from then.

IBD further noted that “news reports also make it clear that HHS did not fully test the exchange until just days before it launched. And those tests showed that the site would crash even if just a handful tried to sign in.”

Now the White House is flying in an army of tech experts from the government and the private sector to fix the $394 million federal exchange that Sebelius and Gary Cohen, who was in charge of setting up the exchanges, had repeatedly and emphatically claimed was on track and would be ready to go.

Moreover, other comments made by Obama at the April 30 press conference appear to confirm that he was, in fact, made aware of the problems with the exchange website “months in advance” and even anticipated that the problems would not be solved by the Oct. 1 launch date.

“The challenge,” he said, “is that setting up a market-based system, basically an online marketplace where you can go on and sign up and figure out what kind of insurance you can afford and figuring out how to get the subsidies -- that’s still a big, complicated piece of business.”

And the last point I’ll make -- even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps, and there will be stories that can be written that say, oh, look, this thing is not working the way it’s supposed to, and this happened and that happened. And that’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.

Through a Tuesday blog post on HHS.gov Sebelius said she was “very pleased to announce” that the Obama administration is bringing Jeff Zients, a “management expert and former CEO and Chairman of two publicly traded companies on board to work in close cooperation with our HHS team to provide management advice and counsel to the project.”

“Zients,” as Reuters reported Sept. 13, is “a familiar figure at the White House.”

Prior to being tapped by Obama to replace Gene Sperling as his top economic adviser, Zients “served two stints as acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, but was passed over for the top job.”

As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, “this will be a temporary assignment for Mr. Zients, who is slated to become the next director of the National Economic Council on Jan. 1. He left the White House earlier this year and was announced as the NEC pick last month

“Nobody says the site is working the way we want it to,” Sebelius admitted to Gupta. “Certainly, the president acknowledged yesterday no one could be more frustrated than I am and this isn't smooth.”

But she also said that “people are signing up every day” and that “people have available coverage and no one, I think it's important to say, Sanjay, is losing coverage now.”

Not so.

As Kaiser Health News reported Monday, “health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.”

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

“And again,” Sebelius reiterated to Gupta, “people can sign up.”

The call center is open for business. We've had 1,100,000 calls. We've had 19 million people visit the website. Five-hundred thousand accounts created and people shopping every day. So, people are signing up and there's help in neighborhoods around the country that people can have a one-on-one visit with a trained navigator and figure out how to sign up. So people are able to sign up.

However, “1,100,00 calls,” 19 million people visiting the website and “five-hundred thousand accounts” being created does not indicate how many people have actually enrolled.

In fact, when asked directly by Jon Stewart during an Oct. 8 interview on “The Daily Show,” Sebelius admitted that she had no idea how many people had “fully enrolled.”

SEBELIUS: I can't tell you because I don't know. We are taking applications on the web, on the phone. We'll be giving monthly reports. But I can tell you we've had not only lots of web hits, hundreds of thousands of accounts created. We have lots…

STEWART: So it’s been hundreds of thousands of people have signed up?

SEBELIUS: Of accounts created which means that then they’re going to go shopping.

As Forbes reported Oct. 14, “industry analyst Bob Laszewski” – the same “health care consultant who [has] clients who are insurers” quoted by Todd during the aforementioned segment with Wolf Blitzer on CNN -- said that “not more than about 5,000 individuals and families signed up for health insurance” through healthcare.gov as of Oct. 7.

On Oct. 18, Market Watch reported that “insurers say the federal health-care marketplace is generating flawed data that is straining their ability to handle even the trickle of enrollees who have gotten through so far, in a sign that technological problems extend further than the website traffic and software issues already identified.”

“But the problems with Obamacare go much deeper than a few million lines of faulty code and a sign-up system that swallows enrollee applications in a single electronic gulp,” The Chicago Tribune reported in Tuesday’s editorial.

The bugs aren't just in the software. They're in the law itself.
 
Because its designed as a tax increase on the poor and lower/middle class.

Question is, what will happen when the insurance companies biggest customer which happens to be the Federal Goverment now go broke? Well, they are already broke so none of this makes sense.

here is how i see it playing out...the government defaults on subsidies payments, insurance companies drop everyone covered by subsidies...everyone else who used to have company backed healthcare are now at the mercy of insurance companies...since i think there won't be employer backed healthcare much longer, instead of group plans the insurance companies will be selling individual policies at much higher cost.

insurance companies must be licking their lips at the feast they see coming!!!!

thebigt tip of the day....BUY insurance company stock, the value is gonna go thru the roof in the next few years...

any way i look at it... i see the insurance companies as well as business as a whole being the big winners in this game.
 
Thats right BigT....the cost is going to go up....just like other taxes. They tricked you at first with a 1% measly tiny tax at first, and it only goes up. The rest is history.

Hey...at the Gym a couple of hours ago, CNN was frozen on the live coverage of house committe questioning of Obamacare.

A couple hours later I just checked here at home, and CNN is still frozen. I checked elsewhere and MSNBC and Fox are ALSO frozen.

What the hell is going on? Why are all the news networks doing the live coverage completely frozen?
 
Thats right BigT....the cost is going to go up....just like other taxes. They tricked you at first with a 1% measly tiny tax at first, and it only goes up. The rest is history.

Hey...at the Gym a couple of hours ago, CNN was frozen on the live coverage of house committe questioning of Obamacare.

A couple hours later I just checked here at home, and CNN is still frozen. I checked elsewhere and MSNBC and Fox are ALSO frozen.

What the hell is going on? Why are all the news networks doing the live coverage completely frozen?

Nevermind...must be a local issue, 1/3 of my other channels are down. Never seen this happen before like this.
 
Yeah...take out my other channels to confuse people, lol

collateral damage....they have to take out more than the news channels to make it look legit.....
 
collateral damage....they have to take out more than the news channels to make it look legit.....

At least Ill have Obamacare to help me pay for the meds I need to me help deal with this new-found stress.
 
At this point I am just glad there are no photos of a naked Kathleen Sebelius anywhere.

A man can only stand so much disappointment (or revulsion).
 
At this point I am just glad there are no photos of a naked Kathleen Sebelius anywhere.

A man can only stand so much disappointment (or revulsion).

how about...naked hillary!!!!
 
That may be one of the reasons he used Monica as his personal cigar humidor.

gennifer flowers says that bill told her that hillary 'had eaten more pu$$y than he had'....
 
from what i understand $39,000 per individual is the cut off point for eligibility of subsidies...i may be wrong, but lets use that as a base...i can't understand why people earning under the base point weren't simply covered by medicare/medicaid? those making above the base would be free to carry on as before....

but then we get back to my original theory that obamacare was just a plot to get business out of healthcare and was doomed to fail from the beginning.

Medicaid is anything under 12,000 per year for an individual (varies roughly state to state)
 
collateral damage....they have to take out more than the news channels to make it look legit.....

Thats true, since the news agencies report half the story and flat out lie about it, since I see it firsthand.
 
here is how i see it playing out...the government defaults on subsidies payments, insurance companies drop everyone covered by subsidies...everyone else who used to have company backed healthcare are now at the mercy of insurance companies...since i think there won't be employer backed healthcare much longer, instead of group plans the insurance companies will be selling individual policies at much higher cost.

insurance companies must be licking their lips at the feast they see coming!!!!

thebigt tip of the day....BUY insurance company stock, the value is gonna go thru the roof in the next few years...

any way i look at it... i see the insurance companies as well as business as a whole being the big winners in this game.




You can't be serious...please tell me you're joking.
 
OK - that was emotionally scarring. Either HC is REALLY flexible, or .... yuck.

yeah...normally the thought of 2 women having sex is a turn on.....but like i always say, there are exceptions to every rule!!!!
 
Medicaid is anything under 12,000 per year for an individual (varies roughly state to state)

so they expand it to $39,000, the feds reimburse the states and BAM...everyone who wants it has healthcare. the advantage to this over obamacare is medicaid is already in place, and those with existing policies they like can carry on as before...this also eliminates the possible corrupt actions of insurance companies as they won't be needed as the middlemen anymore. as we know middlemen is where cost gets inflated.
 
so they expand it to $39,000, the feds reimburse the states and BAM...everyone who wants it has healthcare. the advantage to this over obamacare is medicaid is already in place, and those with existing policies they like can carry on as before...this also eliminates the possible corrupt actions of insurance companies as they won't be needed as the middlemen anymore. as we know middlemen is where cost gets inflated.

So a family of 4 making under 94k could get medicaid since they also qualify under Obamacare.

So you are against obamacare, but want to expand Medicaid?
 
So a family of 4 making under 94k could get medicaid since they also qualify under Obamacare.

So you are against obamacare, but want to expand Medicaid?

At least if you had a buy in program to Medicaid the money would go directly into health care rather than some insurance brokers that who's only real service is making money for doing nothing.
 
So a family of 4 making under 94k could get medicaid since they also qualify under Obamacare.

So you are against obamacare, but want to expand Medicaid?

i am saying it makes more sense to utilize an existing program like medicaid than to try and start a project as huge as obamacare from scratch....plus the fact it would be a government non profit program....how much money do you think they would save by eliminating the insurance companies from the equation?

c'mon...you are smart enough to realize that what i am saying makes sense. c'mon, fess up!!!
 
At least if you had a buy in program to Medicaid the money would go directly into health care rather than some insurance brokers that who's only real service is making money for doing nothing.


Interesting. So you would rather the government running healthcare? A single payer system?
 
i am saying it makes more sense to utilize an existing program like medicaid than to try and start a project as huge as obamacare from scratch....plus the fact it would be a government non profit program....how much money do you think they would save by eliminating the insurance companies from the equation?

c'mon...you are smart enough to realize that what i am saying makes sense. c'mon, fess up!!!


I understand fully but I don't quite understand how you are upset that employee coverage would go away (which is run through private insurance) and the government is subsidizing you, yet you are in favor of shifting that large of percentage of teh economy to the government to run FULLY.
 
Back
Top