Sir Xsarus wrote:
I got to keep my plan which covers pretty much everything and has no co pay
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Big O says he is sorry
Big O says he is sorryFollow
Speaking of which my relatives called. It's supposed to be -30 and they're expecting like 2 more feet of snow. The health plan sounds nice and all, but I'm not sure I'm willing to make kind of sacrifice.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Nobody wants to live where Xsarus lives. However, its only going to drop to -2 here, with no snow. Same health plan. You're **** out of luck though, no employment options here.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I wish we got 2 feet of snow here, snow is awesome.
Gbaji wrote:
Sigh. That's simply not true. I don't know how much more clearly I can explain that this simply is not true. It's not even that "everything" isn't grandfathered in, but "nearly nothing" is because of the way the law is written. But don't take my word for it, let's get the information from the horses mouth
See the problem is that while a plan could be grandfathered in, only those plans that meet a set of new criteria that were required by Obama care *and* do not require a significant increases in premiums or other costs can be grandfathered. The problem as we conservatives predicted 3+ years ago is that this is a nearly impossible standard to meet.
....
No. True. Read the actual link to the actual healthcare.gov site. Even a grandfathered plan must still meet certain Obamacare requirements. The problem is that they have to somehow magically meet a new set of more expensive requirements without increasing the cost to the consumers. And if they fail to do this then even the small list of things they're allowed to be exempted from no longer apply. The conditions for what can be grandfathered are so narrow as to be more or less meaningless.
See the problem is that while a plan could be grandfathered in, only those plans that meet a set of new criteria that were required by Obama care *and* do not require a significant increases in premiums or other costs can be grandfathered. The problem as we conservatives predicted 3+ years ago is that this is a nearly impossible standard to meet.
....
No. True. Read the actual link to the actual healthcare.gov site. Even a grandfathered plan must still meet certain Obamacare requirements. The problem is that they have to somehow magically meet a new set of more expensive requirements without increasing the cost to the consumers. And if they fail to do this then even the small list of things they're allowed to be exempted from no longer apply. The conditions for what can be grandfathered are so narrow as to be more or less meaningless.
Grandfathered plans are those that were in existence on March 23, 2010 and haven’t been changed in ways that substantially cut benefits or increase costs for consumers. Insurers must notify consumers with these policies that they have a grandfathered plan.
There are 2 types of grandfathered plans: job-based plans and individual plans (the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer).
Job-based grandfathered plans can enroll people after March 23, 2010 and still maintain their grandfathered status. They can do this as long as the plans haven’t been changed in ways that substantially cut benefits or increase costs for consumers, notify consumers with these policies that they have a grandfathered plan, and have continuously covered at least one person since March 23, 2010.
Individual grandfathered plans can’t newly enroll people after March 23, 2010 and have that new enrollment be considered a grandfathered policy. But insurance companies can continue to offer the grandfathered plans to people who were enrolled before that date. An insurance company can also decide to stop offering a grandfathered plan. If it does, it must provide notice 90 days before the plan ends and offer enrollees other available coverage options. Learn more about plan cancellation.
There are 2 types of grandfathered plans: job-based plans and individual plans (the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer).
Job-based grandfathered plans can enroll people after March 23, 2010 and still maintain their grandfathered status. They can do this as long as the plans haven’t been changed in ways that substantially cut benefits or increase costs for consumers, notify consumers with these policies that they have a grandfathered plan, and have continuously covered at least one person since March 23, 2010.
Individual grandfathered plans can’t newly enroll people after March 23, 2010 and have that new enrollment be considered a grandfathered policy. But insurance companies can continue to offer the grandfathered plans to people who were enrolled before that date. An insurance company can also decide to stop offering a grandfathered plan. If it does, it must provide notice 90 days before the plan ends and offer enrollees other available coverage options. Learn more about plan cancellation.
Gbaji wrote:
Um... You're missing my point. The law can say it's about providing "affordable health care" to consumers, but the way that Obamacare attempts to do that is by putting healthy people into the insurance pools that currently cover sick people. That way the sick people pay less and thus their health care becomes more "affordable". The problem is that in order for this to work, a whole lot of healthy people must purchase health insurance that they don't need.
Gbaji wrote:
1. It sets down mandated coverage levels with which each tier of insurance plan must comply. So folks who might have otherwise chosen to purchase insurance that only covered a small number of things that they really needed (like say a healthy person who's only worried about injuries, but not say ongoing prescription costs) would be required to purchase broader more comprehensive (and more expensive care).
Everyone in this group would have their insurance changed, whether they wanted it to or not. And none of them would meet the requirements to be grandfathered in.
2. It mandates that everyone must buy health insurance. Either their employer must provide it for them or they must purchase it themselves. And any insurance purchased must meet those requirements mentioned above. However, people can choose not to buy health insurance and instead pay a fine. That fine for individuals is $95/year or 1% of your income each year.
This is why I say that the purpose of the law is to force people to change their health insurance. What they're trying to accomplish can't be done without pushing healthy people out of cheap (or no) insurance and onto expensive coverage. That's what the law does. It's also why the grandfather clauses can't be broad enough to actually be used. If they were, then too many people would be able to get their coverage grandfathered, and the law would not work. It's not like they set those requirements so restrictively just because they felt like it. They did so intentionally to ensure that very close to zero people would actually qualify.
Gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here. I will simply repeat what I said: Changing the law to actually allow a significant number of people to keep their old insurance plans would effectively "repeal" the law because forcing people off their old plans is the core point of the law itself. I've explained this in what I thought was quite clear language already. Are you really that confused?
Look. If I write a law that attempts to make the cost of big screen TVs lower by forcing everyone in the country to buy a new big screen TV every year (volume, right?), we can debate endlessly whether that will actually result in lower costs down the road (and I'd tend to argue it would have the opposite effect of course), but we should not have to get into an argument over whether the law is going to require that people replace their old TVs with new ones. Again, the whole point of the law is to get people to do precisely that.
And guess what? The entire point of Obamcare is to get people to replace their old insurance plans with the new ones defined in the law. Similarly, we can debate whether that will actually make costs lower or higher, but to deny that this is what the law does, or to lie about it and claim it wont have that effect, is just plain stupid. It's what the law does Alma. Changing that more or less undoes the law itself. If you take the part that forces people to change their health plans to comply with the new standard out of a law that forces people to change their health plans to comply with the new standard, then you basically don't have a law anymore. You've gutted it. You now have a law that says that any plan that happens to already meet the criteria will meet the criteria, but any that doesn't isn't required to. That's like saying that you've set the speed limit to 65mph, but anyone who wants to go faster can, and there's no penalty. Duh. It only works if you force everyone to comply. Remove the compliance and you don't have a law anymore.
Which is the problem the Dems are facing. They've been hit with a massive uproar about this, but they can't actually fix the problem. They just have to keep paying lip service to it and hoping it goes away.
Look. If I write a law that attempts to make the cost of big screen TVs lower by forcing everyone in the country to buy a new big screen TV every year (volume, right?), we can debate endlessly whether that will actually result in lower costs down the road (and I'd tend to argue it would have the opposite effect of course), but we should not have to get into an argument over whether the law is going to require that people replace their old TVs with new ones. Again, the whole point of the law is to get people to do precisely that.
And guess what? The entire point of Obamcare is to get people to replace their old insurance plans with the new ones defined in the law. Similarly, we can debate whether that will actually make costs lower or higher, but to deny that this is what the law does, or to lie about it and claim it wont have that effect, is just plain stupid. It's what the law does Alma. Changing that more or less undoes the law itself. If you take the part that forces people to change their health plans to comply with the new standard out of a law that forces people to change their health plans to comply with the new standard, then you basically don't have a law anymore. You've gutted it. You now have a law that says that any plan that happens to already meet the criteria will meet the criteria, but any that doesn't isn't required to. That's like saying that you've set the speed limit to 65mph, but anyone who wants to go faster can, and there's no penalty. Duh. It only works if you force everyone to comply. Remove the compliance and you don't have a law anymore.
Which is the problem the Dems are facing. They've been hit with a massive uproar about this, but they can't actually fix the problem. They just have to keep paying lip service to it and hoping it goes away.
Senator Ted Cruz wrote:
As you know, the exchanges are going to be up and running shortly. On January 1, the subsidies are scheduled to kick in. And President Obama's strategy is very simple. He wants to get as many Americans as possible addicted to the subsidies, addicted to the sugar because he knows that, in modern times, no major entitlement has been implemented and then unwound.
Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 2:50pm by Almalieque
Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 12:41am by Almalieque
Grandfathered plans that need these changes made to still be relevent.
End lifetime limits on coverage
End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
Cover adult children up to age 26
Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Man, what a horrible burden they are placing on insurance companies. Especially those last 2. Man, make a lay-mans explanation of your plan AND make sure the premiums are actually spent on health care? Crippling changes to the system and I am now totally convinced that Gbaji was right all along. Obamacare is evil.
End lifetime limits on coverage
End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
Cover adult children up to age 26
Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Man, what a horrible burden they are placing on insurance companies. Especially those last 2. Man, make a lay-mans explanation of your plan AND make sure the premiums are actually spent on health care? Crippling changes to the system and I am now totally convinced that Gbaji was right all along. Obamacare is evil.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly you are reading, but below clearly says the plans are grandfathered in unless they are substantially changed afterwards.
Yes. The problem is that nearly every plan will have to "substantially change" in order to meet the criteria that Obamacare still requires even of grandfathered plans. I thought I'd already explained this, but let me try it again:
1. Obamacare requires that every plan must comply with conditions A, B, C, and D. Period.
2. Obamacare also requires that plans comply with conditions E, F, G, and H, however, if a plan existed prior to March 2010 and never changes substantially (meaning increases in co-pay, deductible, or coverage) then it is "grandfathered in" and will not have to comply with E, F, G, and H.
The problem is that prior to Obamacare being passed, nearly no plans complied with conditions A, B, C, and D. Thus, in order to meet rule number 1, nearly all plans will have to change to include those conditions. And since those conditions will increase the cost of the insurance, this will violate the requirements of rule number 2. Thus, nearly no plans will actually be grandfathered.
I even linked an article talking about how GOP opposition 3+ years ago was to this exact problem within the law. I even quoted the exact section where this was clearly stated. Why then did you choose to completely ignore that and just blindly claim that plans can be grandfathered in?
The reality is that the only plans that can actually be grandfathered in are the ones that already met the bulk of the Obamacare requirements anyway. Um.... Which makes the whole thing meaningless.
Quote:
Unless you can predict the future, everyone needs healthcare. That's the problem. We have too many people who do not have insurance that is being paid by taxpayers anyway. So, why not have them be part of the 53% as opposed to the 47%?
Two reasons:
1. People have a right to make their own choices about their own lives. Even if those are poor choices. You know... liberty?
2. Health insurance is not the only means of obtaining health care. And I would argue that for much of the care that we're talking about, health insurance is one of the least efficient means to deliver health care.
Quote:
The main point that you keep overlooking is that even if you had the perfect healthcare plan, the second you get sick, you could get kicked off or have your premiums raised dramatically.
Um... No, you can't. If you have health insurance and you pay to be covered in the event of <whatever>, then if that happens, you are covered. Insurance is a civil contract. You pay for a service, and the insurer is obligated to pay if/when you meet the conditions in the contract. Period.
Quote:
ACA is supposed to create more stability. You might pay a little bit more, but have guaranteed coverage for the same price no matter what happens. Translate this into any other form of insurance and people would jump over it.
False. Do you understand that most people choose to buy insurance that covers less stuff because they don't want to pay for more? If people would jump all over it, then we wouldn't need the government to pass a law forcing people to buy it. Seriously. Stop and think about that. If the insurance offerings under Obamcare are so wonderful and cost effective and what everyone would want, then we shouldn't have needed to pass a law.
You pass laws to force people to do things they don't want to do or force them to not do things they do want to do. I honestly suspect that some people don't get that. The very fact that the law forces people to buy a product should be your fist clue that the product isn't something people would choose to buy. That's why the government takes that choice away from them. Which leads us back to the whole liberty point I made earlier.
Quote:
I'm asking the same thing. You act like these 5% would choose their own plans over ACA, but people tend to chase after deals.
Yes, they do. Which is presumably why the ACA made it illegal to buy any plan other than those which complied with the ACA. It's about making it impossible to "chase after deals". You really don't see this?
Quote:
People run over each other every Black Friday for a deal. ACA is a deal.
No. It's not. At least, it's not for everyone. It's another case of making some people pay more so that others can pay less that the Left just loves to foist on us.
Quote:
That's why Republicans don't want it and have admitted to it. Read below
Senator Ted Cruz wrote:
As you know, the exchanges are going to be up and running shortly. On January 1, the subsidies are scheduled to kick in. And President Obama's strategy is very simple. He wants to get as many Americans as possible addicted to the subsidies, addicted to the sugar because he knows that, in modern times, no major entitlement has been implemented and then unwound.
And? I've never argued that the ACA isn't going to lower prices for some people. In fact, that's the exact point I'm making. The problem is that most of the cost reductions the ACA promises to deliver come about as a result of forcing more people into the actuarial pools than would otherwise choose to buy into them in a free market. This lowers the cost to those who would be in those insurance pools anyway (by necessity in some cases). But the process of forcing people into those pools is forcing them to change their existing health care plans, which violates Obama's promise. Thus, if he were to actually keep his promise that people could keep their existing health insurance if they liked it, the additional revenue required to cover the additional coverage costs would not be there. Thus, those in those more expensive plans would find their costs rising significantly.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
xantav wrote:
Grandfathered plans that need these changes made to still be relevent.
End lifetime limits on coverage
End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
Cover adult children up to age 26
Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Man, what a horrible burden they are placing on insurance companies. Especially those last 2. Man, make a lay-mans explanation of your plan AND make sure the premiums are actually spent on health care? Crippling changes to the system and I am now totally convinced that Gbaji was right all along. Obamacare is evil.
End lifetime limits on coverage
End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
Cover adult children up to age 26
Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Man, what a horrible burden they are placing on insurance companies. Especially those last 2. Man, make a lay-mans explanation of your plan AND make sure the premiums are actually spent on health care? Crippling changes to the system and I am now totally convinced that Gbaji was right all along. Obamacare is evil.
If those were the only two things, you'd have a point. But focusing on the two things that don't cost much and ignoring the ones that do is more than unfair, right? Regardless of how important/necessary we think they are, the first three items in the list will add to the cost of the insurance. That cost has to be made up by changing the cost of the insurance. This means some combination of higher premiums, copays, or deductables. Any of which then invalidate the grandfather status.
Which is why the whole "but there's a grandfather clause!" is complete BS. Very close to zero insurance plans will qualify for it, and obviously the more time goes by the fewer will continue to do so.
Also, let's not forget that the current issue is that next year is when the employer mandates kick in. So expect to see a lot more cancellations and notifications of significant changes in people's health care. And here we're not talking about 5% of the population, but closer to 30%. That should be.... fun.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Also, let's not forget that the current issue is that next year is when the employer mandates kick in. So expect to see a lot more cancellations and notifications of significant changes in people's health care. And here we're not talking about 5% of the population, but closer to 30%.
Hahaha, no. 1% maybe. Do you just guess? Or do you regurgitate actual lies? It's often hard to tell.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Also, let's not forget that the current issue is that next year is when the employer mandates kick in. So expect to see a lot more cancellations and notifications of significant changes in people's health care. And here we're not talking about 5% of the population, but closer to 30%.
Hahaha, no. 1% maybe. Do you just guess? Or do you regurgitate actual lies? It's often hard to tell.
I've been hearing numbers in the 75-80 million range. I suppose you can claim those predictions are lies. But then the track record of the folks on your side claiming that the folks on my side are lying and/or fearmongering about the negatives of Obamacare is pretty poor at this point.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I've been hearing numbers in the 75-80 million range. I suppose you can claim those predictions are lies.
Hard to say. If you've "been hearing" them from a guy at the Ralphs, they might just be bad information. If you've "been hearing" them from Sean Hannity or the like, yes, they are lies.
Hard to say. If you've "been hearing" them from a guy at the Ralphs, they might just be bad information. If you've "been hearing" them from Sean Hannity or the like, yes, they are lies.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
But then the track record of the folks on your side claiming that the folks on my side are lying and/or fearmongering about the negatives of Obamacare is pretty poor at this point.
I'm not sure what that means, really, but let's clear a few things up. I'm not responsible for something Al Sharpton says until I post that I agree with him. I don't assume you're responsible for something Rush Limbaugh says until you post that you agree with him. Not complicated. This isn't a sporting event, there aren't actually "sides".
The Obamacare roll-out has been handled poorly. Some people will have to pay more for insurance they may not want. Healthy young people in particular will have to carry a financial burden for older sick people. Why? Because single payer was dead on arrival because managed care interests bought politicians from both parties, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to argue that the GOP was more stridently against a single payer model. So you have this clusterfuck. It'll be bad from some people. That happens. It's being sold as bad for no one. That's a lie. It's not my lie, though. See the distinction? Long term, it's better for probably close to everyone. Short term it sucks for some people.
I'm not sure what that means, really, but let's clear a few things up. I'm not responsible for something Al Sharpton says until I post that I agree with him. I don't assume you're responsible for something Rush Limbaugh says until you post that you agree with him. Not complicated. This isn't a sporting event, there aren't actually "sides".
The Obamacare roll-out has been handled poorly. Some people will have to pay more for insurance they may not want. Healthy young people in particular will have to carry a financial burden for older sick people. Why? Because single payer was dead on arrival because managed care interests bought politicians from both parties, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to argue that the GOP was more stridently against a single payer model. So you have this clusterfuck. It'll be bad from some people. That happens. It's being sold as bad for no one. That's a lie. It's not my lie, though. See the distinction? Long term, it's better for probably close to everyone. Short term it sucks for some people.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I've been hearing numbers in the 75-80 million range. I suppose you can claim those predictions are lies.
Hard to say. If you've "been hearing" them from a guy at the Ralphs, they might just be bad information. If you've "been hearing" them from Sean Hannity or the like, yes, they are lies.
Hard to say. If you've "been hearing" them from a guy at the Ralphs, they might just be bad information. If you've "been hearing" them from Sean Hannity or the like, yes, they are lies.
So the same folks who've been saying all along that Obama's claim about being able to keep your insurance was false. Those people?
Hell. I'm lowballing apparently Forbe is estimating 93 million. But hey! I'm sure this is all just crazy fearmonging from right wingers, just like all the other stuff we said was going to happen that happened exactly as predicted.
So what will be your excuse when this one turns out to be true as well? I predict more changing of the subject. I mean, if you haven't figured out the pattern yet, you probably wont. But then, I'm not trying to convince you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. The problem is that nearly every plan will have to "substantially change" in order to meet the criteria that Obamacare still requires even of grandfathered plans. I thought I'd already explained this, but let me try it again:
1. Obamacare requires that every plan must comply with conditions A, B, C, and D. Period.
2. Obamacare also requires that plans comply with conditions E, F, G, and H, however, if a plan existed prior to March 2010 and never changes substantially (meaning increases in co-pay, deductible, or coverage) then it is "grandfathered in" and will not have to comply with E, F, G, and H.
The problem is that prior to Obamacare being passed, nearly no plans complied with conditions A, B, C, and D. Thus, in order to meet rule number 1, nearly all plans will have to change to include those conditions. And since those conditions will increase the cost of the insurance, this will violate the requirements of rule number 2. Thus, nearly no plans will actually be grandfathered.
I even linked an article talking about how GOP opposition 3+ years ago was to this exact problem within the law. I even quoted the exact section where this was clearly stated. Why then did you choose to completely ignore that and just blindly claim that plans can be grandfathered in?
The reality is that the only plans that can actually be grandfathered in are the ones that already met the bulk of the Obamacare requirements anyway. Um.... Which makes the whole thing meaningless.
1. Obamacare requires that every plan must comply with conditions A, B, C, and D. Period.
2. Obamacare also requires that plans comply with conditions E, F, G, and H, however, if a plan existed prior to March 2010 and never changes substantially (meaning increases in co-pay, deductible, or coverage) then it is "grandfathered in" and will not have to comply with E, F, G, and H.
The problem is that prior to Obamacare being passed, nearly no plans complied with conditions A, B, C, and D. Thus, in order to meet rule number 1, nearly all plans will have to change to include those conditions. And since those conditions will increase the cost of the insurance, this will violate the requirements of rule number 2. Thus, nearly no plans will actually be grandfathered.
I even linked an article talking about how GOP opposition 3+ years ago was to this exact problem within the law. I even quoted the exact section where this was clearly stated. Why then did you choose to completely ignore that and just blindly claim that plans can be grandfathered in?
The reality is that the only plans that can actually be grandfathered in are the ones that already met the bulk of the Obamacare requirements anyway. Um.... Which makes the whole thing meaningless.
Gbaji wrote:
And? I've never argued that the ACA isn't going to lower prices for some people. In fact, that's the exact point I'm making. The problem is that most of the cost reductions the ACA promises to deliver come about as a result of forcing more people into the actuarial pools than would otherwise choose to buy into them in a free market. This lowers the cost to those who would be in those insurance pools anyway (by necessity in some cases). But the process of forcing people into those pools is forcing them to change their existing health care plans, which violates Obama's promise. Thus, if he were to actually keep his promise that people could keep their existing health insurance if they liked it, the additional revenue required to cover the additional coverage costs would not be there. Thus, those in those more expensive plans would find their costs rising significantly.
Read/watch above. He did not break his promise. He did not clarify the cut off date and state that your insurance company can still decide to drop you. You can't choose to stay in an environment where people gets dropped all of the time and then complain about getting dropped.
Gbaji wrote:
Two reasons:
1. People have a right to make their own choices about their own lives. Even if those are poor choices. You know... liberty?
2. Health insurance is not the only means of obtaining health care. And I would argue that for much of the care that we're talking about, health insurance is one of the least efficient means to deliver health care.
1. People have a right to make their own choices about their own lives. Even if those are poor choices. You know... liberty?
2. Health insurance is not the only means of obtaining health care. And I would argue that for much of the care that we're talking about, health insurance is one of the least efficient means to deliver health care.
2. What is and has been the GOP alternatives?
Gbaji wrote:
Um... No, you can't. If you have health insurance and you pay to be covered in the event of <whatever>, then if that happens, you are covered. Insurance is a civil contract. You pay for a service, and the insurer is obligated to pay if/when you meet the conditions in the contract. Period.
gbaji wrote:
False. Do you understand that most people choose to buy insurance that covers less stuff because they don't want to pay for more? If people would jump all over it, then we wouldn't need the government to pass a law forcing people to buy it. Seriously. Stop and think about that. If the insurance offerings under Obamcare are so wonderful and cost effective and what everyone would want, then we shouldn't have needed to pass a law.
You pass laws to force people to do things they don't want to do or force them to not do things they do want to do. I honestly suspect that some people don't get that. The very fact that the law forces people to buy a product should be your fist clue that the product isn't something people would choose to buy. That's why the government takes that choice away from them. Which leads us back to the whole liberty point I made earlier.
You pass laws to force people to do things they don't want to do or force them to not do things they do want to do. I honestly suspect that some people don't get that. The very fact that the law forces people to buy a product should be your fist clue that the product isn't something people would choose to buy. That's why the government takes that choice away from them. Which leads us back to the whole liberty point I made earlier.
What you fail to acknowledge is that this law is less about forcing people to have health care and more about forcing insurance companies to provide affordable health care. However, with the solution chosen, everyone has to be part of it in order for it to be successful. It's not that difficult to understand.
Gbaji wrote:
Yes, they do. Which is presumably why the ACA made it illegal to buy any plan other than those which complied with the ACA. It's about making it impossible to "chase after deals". You really don't see this? ....No. It's not. At least, it's not for everyone. It's another case of making some people pay more so that others can pay less that the Left just loves to foist on us.
Every person/couple on Fox news that complained that they were getting screwed over were all busted for not being accurate. So, unless you're arguing that people prefer to pay more for less, you have no argument.
Edited, Nov 26th 2013 11:31am by Almalieque
Almalieque wrote:
your only other alternate choice is to support not caring for people without health insurance, allowing that person who got shot in the streets to rot and die in the streets.
How could you not know this?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
The 70-80 million number sounds like the people who are getting notices from companies that it's the legally allowed time of year to make adjustments to their coverage, which may or may not have an affect on price. Have to add a new baby or drop a a 27 year old off your plan? Now is the time. Want to change from a high deductible with HSA to a low deductible/high premium plan? Now is the time.
Yep, a good third of the country is getting letters from their insurance company about this time of year like they do every single year.
Yep, a good third of the country is getting letters from their insurance company about this time of year like they do every single year.
Recent Visitors: 265
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Big O says he is sorry
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC