# 250,000 Coloradoans lose their health insurance under Obamacare



## oreo (Nov 6, 2013)

> Almost 250,000 Colorado residents have or will have their health insurance plans cancelled under ObamaCare, the state&#8217;s Division of Insurance said Wednesday.
> 
> A spokesman for the agency said in a press release that the plans are being cancelled for numerous reasons, one being that some of the plans do not meet the new requirements for patient care under the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> ...



Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News

_This is going on all over the country--making it millions whom are getting letters from their insurers telling them they're dropped._  I know it's the high deductible plans that Coloradoans chose along with millions of others to get--which saved them on their monthly premiums.  These people calculated how much they can afford in a deductible and chose the plan in that manner.  *What right does Obama have--to make them go to more expensive plans--with lower deductibles to meet his cough-cough "Affordable Health Care Bill?"*


----------



## 1776 (Nov 6, 2013)

The bad thing is the majority of them are white middle class GOP supporters, not the trash living in the barrio and ghetto that vote for the Dimwits and will get free obamacare handouts paid by those very middle class workers losing their insurance.


----------



## oreo (Nov 6, 2013)

1776 said:


> The bad thing is the majority of them are white middle class GOP supporters, not the trash living in the barrio and ghetto that vote for the Dimwits and will get free obamacare handouts paid by those very middle class workers losing their insurance.




There's a lot of people in Colorado that voted for Obama--1st and 2nd term that are now getting notices from their insurers in the mail that they are getting their policies cancelled.

Make no mistake about that.  I imagine there are millions across this country that are middle income people--who voted for Obama that are getting notices too, and that's why democrats who are running for reelection in 14 are in a panic.  15 democrat senators today--had a secret meeting that's no longer at secret at the White House.


----------



## oreo (Nov 8, 2013)

5.2 million across this country now getting cancellation notices and rapidly growing.

While Obama's approval rating is CRASHING.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2013)

Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2013)

And he's crashed about the margin of error, while ACA actually has RISEN....zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2013)

oreo said:


> 5.2 million across this country now getting cancellation notices and rapidly growing.
> 
> While Obama's approval rating is CRASHING.




funny thing about lies....especially when you are a sitting president, they ALWAYS catch up with you......


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> And he's crashed about the margin of error, while ACA actually has RISEN....zzzzzzzzzzzzz



You talk as if it had been nailed to a cross and crucified. Nope. It was chased out of heaven while being beaten with a scroll.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...



Only idiots like you fail to realize that 5 million is too much!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 9, 2013)

The thread title is not true.  People who object to others not telling the truth should try to live by their own standards.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

.

We're among those Coloradans who lost coverage.  Our "new and improved" plan will cost us 40%+ more and will have deductibles that are nearly twice as high as our old plan.

The response at this forum and other places is "well I got mine, you're paying for it, tough shit".

Okay.  The higher costs are not going to cause us financial harm, but we are definitely among the many to whom Obama lied.  _And lied and lied and lied._  If his apologists think that's funny, if they don't care that he lied to our face to get elected, that's fine, that's what I would expect from them.

This is what happens when we allow politicians this much control over our lives.  Absolutely predictable.  It's also predictable that their sycophants will defend them no matter what, since these people are so devoted to the politicians.  "You can lie to me all you want, just gimme."

It is what it is.  The decay continues.

.


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Nov 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...
> ...



Exactly.  Obama LIED when he said you can "keep your plan".  Now he says, "you can get a better plan".  Guess what, if you're young and healthy, you don't need a "better plan"  as much as you need extra money to save for retirement, invest, and pay for basic expenses.  

This is classic redistribution of wealth from those who are successful to those who are not.  It's unacceptable.


----------



## Vox (Nov 9, 2013)

well, they are getting what they voted for, aren't they?


----------



## Nova78 (Nov 9, 2013)

Quit your job ,and get on the free Obama train -choo -choo ............


----------



## boedicca (Nov 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...





Yet more confirmation that you are a collectivist moron who supports the Tyranny of the Majority (which in the case of ObamaCare, is actually a minority).


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> We're among those Coloradans who lost coverage.  Our "new and improved" plan will cost us 40%+ more and will have deductibles that are nearly twice as high as our old plan.
> 
> ...



lol, you're in the 99% of USMB Obama haters who just happen to fall into the 3% of Americans who might in some way end up paying more under Obamacare.

Such a demographic oddity, this forum.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.

97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.

Good program that.

Thank the GOP-Dem Congress from 1994 to 2006 that could have done this much more easily and controlled at the state levels.


----------



## regent (Nov 9, 2013)

Have insurance companies been bilking the public with lousy health care policies?


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Naw, I'll leave the "hating" to partisan ideologues like you.  It's just not my nature.

People who don't qualify for subsidies can expect to pay more for less.  No "demographic oddity" required.

And if you're one of the many who do qualify for subsidies, you're welcome.

.


----------



## driveby (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.
> 
> 97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.
> 
> ...



Fakey Jakey, always the ignorant fool, plans that REQUIRE you to cover more things don't cost less, hope this helps.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.
> 
> 97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.
> 
> ...



Try using that thing that sits on your shoulders for something other than a hat rack, Jakey!

Logic is a wonderful thing!  In this case logic tells us that those Democratic Senators aren't holding secret meetings at the White House begging Barry to delay the ObamaCare roll out until after the 2014 elections because so many of their constituents will be getting better insurance at a lower cost!  If that was the case they'd be going on TV and proclaiming how wonderful ObamaCare is and reminding their constituents that *they* supported it.  Those Democratic Senators held that secret meeting because voters in their districts are getting letters in the mail cancelling their insurance policies and then they are discovering that getting replacement insurance that conforms with ObamaCare guidelines is making their policies much more expensive.  

That's the reality of this situation...

Logic clearly shows that.  But you'll continue to blather the same nonsense as you always do...ignoring reality because it doesn't jibe with your political agenda.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.

Tuff dat.

Driveby has trouble understanding that the ACA can be modified as time goes by.

*REACTIONARIES*!!!: we are not going back to your pitiful far right world.


----------



## driveby (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> 
> Tuff dat.
> 
> ...



Fakey, the marxist crown jewel of ignorance doesn't understand that covering ten items will always cost more than covering six items......


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

.

Looking at the way the ACA is structured, it's a brilliant political document and strategy.

Millions of people who make less than 400% of the Medicaid requirement will have their plans subsidized by "someone else", creating or solidifying a massive voting bloc that will be far more likely to both vote to protect their goodies and to vote Democrat.  

Those of us who purchase individual health and who do not qualify for the subsidies will pay their freight, and Obama knew that when he lied about the plans to get re-elected.  That $2,500 annual savings?  Ha ha, fooled you, tough shit.

And the 400% of Medicaid figure?  I have no doubt that this was pure calculation, that the figure was arrived at to create an optimum, paid-off subsidized voting block larger than the bloc who was both lied to AND screwed.

The lefties know this, that's why they're having so much fun with it.  The least they could do is be honest about it.

.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> We're among those Coloradans who lost coverage.  Our "new and improved" plan will cost us 40%+ more and will have deductibles that are nearly twice as high as our old plan.
> 
> ...



I spoke with a good friend who lives in Fort Collins this morning. He hasn't received any notification (yet) but expects that he'll be getting his in the near future. He is/was insured through Anthem and, apparently, they are canceling nearly 80,000 policies.

Funny thing, though, according to him - the Denver media is strangely silent on this..

Go figure.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 9, 2013)

1776 said:


> The bad thing is the majority of them are white middle class GOP supporters, not the trash living in the barrio and ghetto that vote for the Dimwits and will get free obamacare handouts paid by those very middle class workers losing their insurance.



The ones living in the barrio don't have to worry with Obamacare.  They have Medicaid.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

RandallFlagg said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Yup.

I believe the appropriate response is:

"If you lose your coverage, tough shit."

"If your ACA plan doesn't include the doctor you've had for 30 years, tough shit."

"If you don't get subisdies on a new plan _because you make too much money, _, tough shit."

"If you therefore have to subsidize other people's plans _because you make too much money_, tough shit."

"If your new premium is higher _because you make too money,_ tough shit."

"If your new deductible is higher _because you make too much money,_ tough shit."

"If we found a backdoor way to get more of your money _because you make too much money, _tough shit."

"If you have figured out that Obama lied right to your face dozens of times to get re-elected, tough shit."

"If you have figured out that the ACA is just a mechanism for buying millions of votes with health care subsidies, tough shit."

"If you don't like it, tough shit."


Hey, I think I'm getting this down!



.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> We're among those Coloradans who lost coverage.  Our "new and improved" plan will cost us 40%+ more and will have deductibles that are nearly twice as high as our old plan.
> 
> ...



Most of the libs on here live on welfare and they all have Medicaid.  Obamacare will not impact their lives at all.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Yes Sir! 

You are closer to understanding the democrats "victimhood" mentality!


----------



## oreo (Nov 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...
> ...




It's going to be a lot more than 5 million that lose their insurance polices.  The ones that Obama PROMISED 32 times that they would be able to keep--and that NOTHING would change.

*This is just the BEGINNING.*  There are going to be millions more that lose their insurance because of Obamacare.

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:  Insure the uninsured.  EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:  Uninsure the insured.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

driveby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> ...



Driveby could not define "marixism" or "socialism" if facing a firing squad were the alternative.

He simply cannot understand terms and definitions, and he has no concept of the American narrative.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



And let us not forget the way this horsesh$t was sold to the American public"We need this law to insure the 18 million Americans that are without healthcare".

Funny - we started out with 18 million Americans (less than 1% of the population) who refused to be insured (and probably STILL won't get insurance) and what have we accomplished in 30 days??  We have added 5-7 million more honest, hard working Americans to the list of the uninsured. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it??

Now, add in the 20-30 million MORE honest, hard working Americans who will undoubtedly lose their employer provided insurance in 2014 when the employer mandate kicks in - and we are well on our way to screwing the pooch.

All this to insure those poor, pitiful artful dodger types (18 million of them) who have, for years, successfully gamed the system and have used the American taxpayer to take care of them.  Let's seeover the years, the taxpayer has probably picked up the tab of what" 10-15 billion dollars to care for the stupid? 

Now, what have we "gained" with this wonderful, thoughtful, and well thought out law that we are saddled with?  Hmmma TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN NEW EXPENSES!?!?!?!?  

Stupid, stupid democrats..


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 9, 2013)

If I ever decide to leave retirment and return to my career in health and life underwriting, it would be a sad event for me. The days of telling people that they failed to meet underwring standards are gone, and I would miss the power trip I had of telling people that they were uninsurable, with my company, as well as all the other insurers. It just wouldn't be the same...like returning to your childhood home and finding that they had torn it down and built a Starbucks on the site....


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2013)

wduke said:


> What we have is insurance reform and not health care reform.   Unfortunately, Im afraid the reform is a huge step backwards for america as a whole.



Indeed.

It does however, bear repeating. This has never been about "reform". Anyone who tells you that is lying to himself, and you. This is about "control". It is about "take over". And, it is about "slavery".


----------



## oreo (Nov 9, 2013)

wduke said:


> What we have is insurance reform and not health care reform.   Unfortunately, Im afraid the reform is a huge step backwards for america as a whole.




Ya Think--LOL.  Right now there are millions of democrats and republicans who are getting notices from their insurers that they are getting booted from their insurance plans.  These are people who made the free choice to select their insurance according to their personal health needs.

*Now we have 60 year old's forced to pay for maternity insurance.*  Everyone that has gotten booted off of their plans are looking at their premiums doubling or tripling in some cases to meet the requirements of Obamacare.

_This is going to spread like a virus into the employer mandate._  Employers are already gearing up for it by--working people part-time.  We are going to turn into a part time work force in this nation--and *everyone* is going to pay out of pocket for medical insurance.

This is just the beginning.


----------



## wduke (Nov 9, 2013)

What we have is insurance reform and not health care reform. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the reform is a huge step backwards for America as a whole.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

RandallFlagg said:


> wduke said:
> 
> 
> > What we have is insurance reform and not health care reform.   Unfortunately, Im afraid the reform is a huge step backwards for america as a whole.
> ...



No, it is not.


----------



## driveby (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Your attempt to mask your benightedness with an Alinksy-esque deflection not only falls flat, it magnifies the utter ignorance you constantly display.... 

Fakey has cornered the market, nothing says American narrative like a die hard liberal pretending to be a republican on a political message board....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 9, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Most of the conservatives here are lying when they say they're going to pay more under Obamacare.

You know what you'll never hear on this forum?  A conservative admitting that he or she is getting less expensive coverage from the exchange because of Obamacare.

And yes, those people are here.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 9, 2013)

Insurance companies now have to maintain a ratio of paying out 85% of the premiums they collect in healthcare,

or rebate the difference to their customers.  That is a very important feature of Obamacare that no one seems to care about.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

driveby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



drivey uses alinksy-type deflection to makes his own failure here.

He is a concern troll pretending to protect the far right while tearing it down.


----------



## regent (Nov 9, 2013)

Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to get on a government gravy train. The corporations  can start by eliminating all their old policies and start fresh, taking into account new government backing. Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited. 
Maybe Obamacare should be canceled?


----------



## driveby (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Fakey goes from deflection to projection in a feeble attempt to flee from his obtuse ravings, much to my amusement ........


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

1776 said:


> The bad thing is the majority of them are white middle class GOP supporters, not the trash living in the barrio and ghetto that vote for the Dimwits and will get free obamacare handouts paid by those very middle class workers losing their insurance.



This is hyper partian bullshit at it's worst.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...



Since truthmatters left YOU now rank as the most stupid poster on this board.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.
> 
> 97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.
> 
> ...



You now rank just slightly behind franco on the bullshit meter.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Insurance companies now have to maintain a ratio of paying out 85% of the premiums they collect in healthcare,
> 
> or rebate the difference to their customers.  That is a very important feature of Obamacare that no one seems to care about.



80% you stupid fuck.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

regent said:


> Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to get on a government gravy train. The corporations  can start by eliminating all their old policies and start fresh, taking into account new government backing. Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited.
> Maybe Obamacare should be canceled?



I don't think I've seen ACA summed up more concisely.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

regent said:


> Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to get on a government gravy train. The corporations  can start by eliminating all their old policies and start fresh, taking into account new government backing. Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited.
> Maybe Obamacare should be canceled?



*Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to get on a government gravy train. The corporations  can start by eliminating all their old policies and start fresh, taking into account new government backing.*

Well except that they were forced to policies into place that CANNOT mitigate undue risk...guarantee issue is a sure loser for insurance companies.

*Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited. 
Maybe Obamacare should be canceled*

Like it or not business is business.....and business is about making money...no business can make money when it is forced to use 80 cents of every dollar for "costs".

Do not assume I am against reform, I am not...the ACA does not facilitate business or corporate capitalistic greed.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to get on a government gravy train. The corporations  can start by eliminating all their old policies and start fresh, taking into account new government backing. Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited.
> ...



Under the circumstances, ie taking into account mandated customers, I disagree. Regent is right. They're positioning themselves as quasi-public utility companies, with all the perks that go with that. Meaning that their profits are now purely a matter of lobbying government for regulatory changes - something they are quite skilled at.



> *Did Obama think for one minute that he was going to out-smart the  corporations that care nothing for their policy holders, nothing for the nation; nothing but a chance for some capitalistic greed to be exploited.
> Maybe Obamacare should be canceled*
> 
> Like it or not business is business.....and business is about making money...no business can make money when it is forced to use 80 cents of every dollar for "costs".
> ...



It certainly doesn't facilitate a capitalist free market. But it virtual guarantees corporate profits. The laws *will* be adjusted to keep them operational, just they are for any public utilities serving 'community interests'. This is the worst of both socialism and capitalism with the benefits of neither.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



*
Under the circumstances, ie taking into account mandated customers, I disagree. Regent is right. They're positioning themselves as quasi-public utility companies, with all the perks that go with that. Meaning that their profits are now purely a matter of lobbying government for regulatory changes - something they are quite skilled at.*

You are over estimating the mandate.
MANY are foregoing it for the 95 dollar penalty....and the young are not signing up....the average of those I am signing up are mid 30's to mid 40's and the very ill.....I work for BCBS, a non-profit company.

*The laws will be adjusted to keep them operational, just they are for any public utilities serving 'community interests'.*

In your opinion of course....I see the single payor Obama wants on the horizon.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The penalties are lead-ins, and will be ramped up, along with passing other measures, to ensure compliance. Eventually you'll see scofflaws going to jail. This is exactly the way they soft-pedaled mandatory auto insurance initially. They'll wait until everyone is used to the idea before they start turning the screws.



> In your opinion of course....I see the single payor Obama wants on the horizon.



I seriously doubt it. It's funny that the eventuality of single-payer is the presumption of both camps, the hope of supporters and the fear of detractors, but in my view both are being duped.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 9, 2013)

Single payer may be a good thing.

In a single payer system there are age limits on many treatments.  

That translates into fewer people surviving to really old age.  As they die the demand on pension payments diminishes and the presently bankrupt pension systems (government and private) become more healthy.

Death, therefore, is a good thing in actuarial terms.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> Single payer may be a good thing.
> 
> In a single payer system there are age limits on many treatments.



Single payer would be better than the corporatist sellout of ACA, but it still centralizes control over a fundamental necessity, never a good thing in my view.



> That translates into fewer people surviving to really old age.  As they die the demand on pension payments diminishes and the presently bankrupt pension systems (government and private) become more healthy.
> 
> Death, therefore, is a good thing in actuarial terms.



heh.. ok, from a cynical point of view, I getcha.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 9, 2013)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


I just saw on TV that a woman in Florida had insurance that cost her $650. a year. It would have paid her $50. toward a hospital stay.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Says who?
The janitor?

Your opinion is no more valuable than an asshole...we all gotem ya know?


----------



## oreo (Nov 9, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




B.S--there is no such thing as medical insurance for $650.00 per year.  You're probably confusing that with a woman who has medicare benefits and is paying for an additional supplemental plan at $650.00 per year to cover the donut holes within Medicare.

The average cost for medical insurance under Obamacare today is $650.00 PER MONTH.  That's for the "silver plan".  The Gold plan is much higher.

The point of this thread is that millions of Americans bought and paid for their own chosen medical insurance plans--based on their personal health requirements that are now getting kicked off of those plans due to Obamacare mandates.  All of them are now forced to enter plans they don't want--at double or triple the rate that they were paying.

And there will be millions more that get the letter--and millions after that when this virus enters the employer mandate in 2014.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 9, 2013)

oreo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...


What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.

http://www.infowars.com/florida-womans-insurance-rate-increases-10x-under-obamacare/


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Yup. That's pretty much obvious. We'll see how it goes, eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.
> ...



Everything I wrote is true, and you simply _ad hom _because you know it's true.

Your problem, son.


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 9, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.
> 
> » Florida Woman?s Insurance Rate Increases 10X Under Obamacare Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



She was paying for a catastrophic plan not a comprehensive plan.

The point being, she WANTED a catastrophic plan and that choice was taken from her.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.
> ...



Can she not have a catastrophic plan added and increase her deductible to bring down the insurance?  And what is her subsidy?


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 9, 2013)

I'm losing my catastrophic plan, it cost little and now, I will have to get a bronze with high deductible and it cost me more even with the tax credit. 

It's a better plan, but it costs more and I don't want it. I want what I had, it was simple, low cost and covered me when I really needed it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> I'm losing my catastrophic plan, it cost little and now, I will have to get a bronze with high deductible and it cost me more even with the tax credit.
> 
> It's a better plan, but it costs more and I don't want it. I want what I had, it was simple, low cost and covered me when I really needed it.



C'mon. The insurance companies need our money. Do your part!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 9, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Most of the conservatives on here aren't getting their coverage from the (un)aca exchanges.  If we were, we'd be paying less ... because someone else would be subsidizing (paying for) us.  Conservatives don't go for being subsidized.  Figured you knew that.

My brother's individual catastrophic plan got axed, thanks to this mess.  He's still going to purchase individual insurance through IBC but now he gets to pay double the premium, and nearly double the deductible.  Oh, but he's getting 'better' coverage you say?  Why, yes I suppose he is ... if you consider a 55 year old single guy paying for maternity, newborn, prenatal care (including vision and dental) 'better'.  Oh, and he didn't have coverage for prescriptions because he only has one that he fills once or twice a year so he paid for that out of pocket.  Know why?  Because it kept his premium lower and was cheaper for him to pay out of pocket.  Not now, now he gets to pay a higher premium for something else he doesn't need or want.  Same goes for rehab coverage.  

dems wrote this pos, obama lied his ass off to get it passed, it is a pile of intentional shit, merely a stepping stone to single payer. Everyone knows that.  Stop with your faux outrage over conservatives calling it what it is.


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


To qualify for a catastrophic plan, you must be under 30 years old OR get a "hardship exemption" because the Marketplace determined that youre unable to afford health coverage.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/catastrophic-health-plan/

Not sure if she qualifies for a subsidy. Her income is not given.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 9, 2013)

Obviously, like all programs, changes will need to be made to ACA.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> 
> Tuff dat.
> 
> ...



I notice that you didn't want to explain why all those Democratic Senators were having that secret meeting with Barry, Jake!  You can't explain it...can you?  

Once again...I ask you why so many Democrats are running FROM this law like it's toxic waste if it's so wonderful?  Why aren't they standing on podiums around the country...thumping their chests and screaming "THAT'S RIGHT...I VOTED FOR OBAMACARE!  I'M THE ONE YOU HAVE TO THANK FOR THIS!!!"?

There is only ONE logical reason that isn't happening, Jake...and it's that the ACA *isn't *what it was advertised as being when it was sold to the American people and those Democrats that voted for it are terrified what the reaction of their constituents is going to be when they get the bill for this fiasco.


----------



## oreo (Nov 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.
> ...



No there is no such $54.00 plan per month even for catastrophic.  Someone is pulling your leg.  I "had" a plan I liked and it took care of my health care needs from Humana that was basically a simple plan for yearly physicals that included catastrophic for $238.00 per month--that just got cancelled due to Obamacare.  

Yes you are right--it is the insured choice to estimate how much they can afford in a deductible and what their needs are.  I should say we had a choice, now we are being forced into much more expensive plans that we don't want due to Obamacare.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2013)

driveby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Low information tools like you are so easy to ratchet up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2013)

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> ...



The jumbled noise in your head prevents you understanding the ACA is here to stay.

There is nothing you can do to change that, and each day the website gets better.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> > JakeStarkey said:
> >
> >
> > > Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> ...



The ACA may be here to stay for a little bit but many of the Democrats who voted for it will be long gone!  You still won't answer my question, Jakey...if the ACA is so great then why are the Democrats running for office asking for the President to delay it's roll out?  Why, pray tell do they need "protection" from this program if it's wonderful?  Don't have an answer to that very simple question...do you?

I'm curious...have you even tried going on the website?  It STILL doesn't work.  I'm sorry but it doesn't.  How that makes it "better" is something you'll have to explain.  I guess if someone says it really really sucked before and now it only really sucks that IS some kind of improvement but do you REALLY want to treat it like an accomplishment?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > I ask you why so many Democrats are running FROM this law like it's toxic waste if it's so wonderful?
> ...



There is no evidence that the Dems will lose control of the Senate in 2014, Obama is there until Jan 20 2017, and the Dems having the needed votes in the Senate to ensure the survival of the ACA is a pretty sure thing.

You have not shown that the ACA is not going to work.

So . . . we have three years to see if the government gets it right.

And watch the number of TeaPoCrappic congresscritters that shut down the government and nearly brought on a world depression are replaced next year.


----------



## oreo (Nov 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



I am 60 years old and have a catastrophic plan through Humana--that I am getting kicked off of.  People who go for less premiums higher deductibles are individuals/or small business people who could not afford group insurance policies--who elected to BE *RESPONSIBLE* and pay for their own medical insurance.

They are typically healthy, like myself--who watch our weight and exercise and get our yearly physicals.  _We don't mind paying for doctor's visit's or prescription drugs out of our own pocket._ 

These people are again being targeted and being punished by Obamacare, *because of their good health. *They are now forced to buy more expensive policies, under Obamacare--in order to pay for those that do not take care of themselves--who elected NOT to purchase their own insurance policies.

Make no doubt about it, this will spread like a virus into the employer mandate coming up in 2014. My daughter who is a nurse practitioner and is covered partially by her employer had her premiums increase over $400.00 per month (that she is required to pay) for the exact same policy last year, as millions of other employees have seen recently.

*We're all paying for Obamacare.*  Obama sold this POS to the American public based on a pack of lies--and he continues to lie about it.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 10, 2013)

oreo said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That is my situation, I don't want or need anything but the catastrophic, however the liberals on this board and Obama and his henchmen think they know what is better for me than me. It is loss of freedom. The right to live my life as I see fit and what I want for health care vs a government that doesn't know me or my needs. 

It's total bullshit, I can't understand why we need this intrusion.


----------



## oreo (Nov 10, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



*Yes, they have invaded your right to manage your own budget. *  You will now be required to carry maternity insurance.  Here is my state's health care exchange network and you'll notice there is absolutely nothing AFFORDABLE in it, *which is why 34 thousand Coloradoans signed up for Medicade--and only 3 thousand bought a medical insurance policy. *

Connect for Health Colorado | Colorado's Health Insurance Marketplace


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.
> ...



A lot of people do that and open an HSA which they use for routine services.  I'm not sure, but I am thinking their contributions to an HSA are tax deferred.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The "evidence" that the Democrats consider themselves in danger of losing control of the Senate *IS* that secret meeting Senate Democrats had with the President a few days ago, Jake!  Think back to 2010 and the vicious beating Democrats took in the mid-term elections that year.  That was due in large part because the Democrats had just passed a bill that nobody really understood because it was SO mammoth.  Now it's four years later and the voters know a lot more about ObamaCare than they did back them because NOW it's taking effect and they are losing their health care policies that Obama promised them wouldn't happen PERIOD!  They are losing their doctors that Obama promised them would never happen PERIOD!  The Middle Class voters who were told their premiums would be going down an average of $2,500 a year are getting substantial premium increases and they are bullshit about it.  You've literally got millions of pissed off Americans who feel that they have been deliberately lied to. The reason those Democratic Senators were having a "spicy" meeting with Barry is that they see their political lives hanging by a thread because of the reality of ObamaCare.

As for my "proving" that the ACA isn't going to work?  Isn't it about time that the ACA proved that it can work?  This isn't theory anymore.  This is put up or shut up time for the Obama Administration.  They made some incredible promises to the American people and told them basically to "trust us".  Now the American people are demanding results...not more campaign rhetoric...and when it comes time for results...this Administration is gawd awful!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 10, 2013)

Interesting how the leftists have ignored the information provided by those posters who are having their policies cancelled (or know people who are) and are now having to pay more for coverage they neither need or want.  

Our premium went up 44%.  44 freaking percent.  Yeah, it was due to the (un)aca.  Why?  Because now more things HAVE to be covered and we are now paying for those who are a higher risk to insure.  Can't have those p/e people paying for their own risk!  No sir-ee-bob ... in liberal land the playing field must be leveled, must be 'fair' for everyone ... even though making it 'fair' for everyone makes it unfair for those footing the bill.  

I haven't seen anyone who is rah-rahing the (un)aca address any of this.  They just come in, call people reactionaries or anarchists then leave. Where the hell is Greenbeard anyway?  He was a walking, talking (un)aca billboard.


----------



## oreo (Nov 10, 2013)

Zoom-boing said:


> Interesting how the leftists have ignored the information provided by those posters who are having their policies cancelled (or know people who are) and are now having to pay more for coverage they neither need or want.
> 
> Our premium went up 44%.  44 freaking percent.  Yeah, it was due to the (un)aca.  Why?  Because now more things HAVE to be covered and we are now paying for those who are a higher risk to insure.  Can't have those p/e people paying for their own risk!  No sir-ee-bob ... in liberal land the playing field must be leveled, must be 'fair' for everyone ... even though making it 'fair' for everyone makes it unfair for those footing the bill.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone who is rah-rahing the (un)aca address any of this.  They just come in, call people reactionaries or anarchists then leave. Where the hell is Greenbeard anyway?  He was a walking, talking (un)aca billboard.



Under this administration--the wealthy were punished and now it's the healthy that are being punished.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2013)

oreo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...


The amount of the average premium for individual insurance in the country is meaningless for two reasons:

The cost of non-group health insurance is based on income.
There has always been a huge variation in premiums across the country which is due to the number of companies offering policies.  In some counties in the country, there are only two companies that offer non-group health insurance.  In other places their are dozen or more.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Well he has 3 more years to take the heat!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2013)

[quote59]





JakeStarkey said:


> Oldstyle rants and pants about a program that should have been done twenty years before and whines about how it is done now.
> 
> Tuff dat.
> 
> ...



I ask you why so many Democrats are running FROM this law like it's toxic waste[/QUOTE]

No one is running.

Folks are asking for reasonable changes to make it better.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is running.
> 
> Folks are asking for reasonable changes to make it better.



Link to such asking?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 11, 2013)

Actually what the White House is proposing NOW is another subsidy to help cover all of the cost increases to Middle Class folks.  Anyone want to take a guess at how they are going to PAY for that?  It's either lots more taxes...or it's trillions more added to the debt.

This law is so badly written it's falling apart even as it comes on line.  That isn't a political observation...it's simply a statement of fact.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 11, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > What about the woman the Right was talking about, who was paying $54. a month ... that's $648. a year.
> ...



That Florida story was debunked as a lie last week.  You can find the debunking if you search her name on the forum.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 11, 2013)

Forget about all the over the top claims from both sides, Carbineer!

Bottom line is this...

The "Affordable Care Act" was sold to the American people as something that was going to lower their healthcare costs...while not increasing the deficit...and allowing them to keep their present health care plan if they liked it as well as their doctor if they liked them.

All of those things were lies.  The Obama Administration knew YEARS ago that costs would NOT be going down at all for the average Middle Class American, let alone the $2500 savings that Barry promised for a family of four.  They've known all along that the ACA would increase the deficit by a HUGE amount as well as increase the debt to States.  They've known all along that the ACA would cause millions of Americans to be dropped from healthcare plans they liked and they've known all along that millions of Americans would be losing the doctors they liked under this plan.

For five years now, people like you have been pooh poohing warnings that the ACA was flawed and that those promises from Obama were completely unrealistic.  Now we're seeing just how naive you've been all along.  Sorry, Carbineer...but you got punked by Barry, Harry and Nancy.


----------



## oreo (Nov 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Actually what the White House is proposing NOW is another subsidy to help cover all of the cost increases to Middle Class folks.  Anyone want to take a guess at how they are going to PAY for that?  It's either lots more taxes...or it's trillions more added to the debt.
> 
> This law is so badly written it's falling apart even as it comes on line.  That isn't a political observation...it's simply a statement of fact.




Yes I heard that a family of 4 making 96K per year can qualify for subsidy's for their more expensive plans under the cough-cough "Affordable Health Care Law."

We are quickly becoming a Welfare Nation.  Who's going to pay for all of it?  That's the Democrat party's * fix *to everything, just throw more borrowed money at it, and it will go away TEMPORARILY, until it explodes in another administration's lap.


----------



## oreo (Nov 11, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Forget about all the over the top claims from both sides, Carbineer!
> 
> Bottom line is this...
> 
> ...



TRUE and very well stated:


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 12, 2013)

oreo said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Yes, my bad.
I had my stories confused!
Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out - latimes.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...



Only a stupid fucker thinks 63 million votes for obama is America voted for obama.


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



"What I have right now is what I'm happy with, and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have," says the woman."

Argue with Political Junky. I responded to his post.

Actually, the story itself was not a lie.
The way CBS rolled it out was the lie.
Fox Corrects CBS Story Of Dianne Barrette Losing Her Health Insurance


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2013)

As I noted last week, in 2010, the Obama administration estimated that 93 million Americans would be unable to keep their prior health coverage under the narrow grandfathering provisions issued by the administration in June 2010. My colleague Chris Conover estimates that the number is 129 million. And we are here only talking about disruptions to private health plans, and not counting the laws $716 billion in cuts to Medicare.




> The level of disruption in the employer-sponsored market will be less than that in the individual market, where people shop for coverage on their own. But the President is most certainly violating his like your plan pledge in the employer-sponsored market, too. For example, employer-sponsored insurance will now have to cover costly, federally-dictated benefits that they did not have to cover before, rendering many plans illegal. Excise taxes on premiums, drugs, and medical devices will drive premiums upward. And the so-called Cadillac tax on high-value insurance plansa meritorious ideawill force a massive restructuring of many coverage arrangements.




Its for these reasons that Delta Air Lines has said that it will spend $100 million more on health insurance in 2014 than it did in 2013, and why labor unions have complained that Obamacare will drive the costs of collectively bargained, union administered plans, and other plans that cover unionized workers to unsupportable levels.


Fact-Checking The President's Kind-Of Sort-Of 'Apology' For Obamacare-Driven Insurance Cancellations - Forbes


----------



## Politico (Nov 12, 2013)

5 million who could afford insurance. There are more than that who don't have any and still won't. And they will be paying for those folks subsidies with their fines. Funny how no one talks about them. Not a ratings grabber I guess.


----------



## oreo (Nov 12, 2013)

Politico said:


> 5 million who could afford insurance. There are more than that who don't have any and still won't. And they will be paying for those folks subsidies with their fines. Funny how no one talks about them. Not a ratings grabber I guess.





The subsidies are already written in for the poor--but if this moved into middle class income it needs to be approved by congress--(from what I understand.)  Obama doesn't want to do that, because he knows the house would demand massive changes to Obamacare.

*Interestingly enough Republicans in the house passed a bill that would let millions keep their insurance--but Harry Reid and the Democrat senate voted against it.  It was dead on arrival.*

Futhermore, we learned from Kathleen Sibilious that the workers manning these sites were not screened for *prior felony convictions*!!!  People are directed to these sites--where they are giving out their social security numbers and other private information about themselves.  One would have thought they could have added this into Obamacare?



> I really believe they're underestimating the amount of people that are in the individual market for insurance that are getting cancellation notices.  They claim it's 5% of the population--but if you look at small business--considered the largest employer in this nation--along with their employees it's much more.  I imagine Jan. 1, 2014 will tell this tale.



None of this can be blamed on Republicans--because not a single one of them voted for Obamacare--and they were blocked from all committee meetings regarding Obamcare.

*Right now Obamacare is a run-away train and no one can stop it.  DEMOCRATS own this baby all by themselves.
*


----------



## Politico (Nov 13, 2013)

YEah it's written for the poor lol.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 13, 2013)

Politico said:


> YEah it's written for the poor lol.



This bill was written for the insurance companies and for politicians to make themselves look good. The reality is, it's hurting the middle class.


----------



## oreo (Nov 21, 2013)

Politico said:


> 5 million who could afford insurance. There are more than that who don't have any and still won't. And they will be paying for those folks subsidies with their fines. Funny how no one talks about them. Not a ratings grabber I guess.




Agreed there has really been no discussion or anything discussed about the Penalties that are going to be launched at people who do not sign-up for Obamacare.

I have heard that some are opting to take the penalty because it is actually cheaper than paying for Obamacare premiums--but as yet I can't find any penalty information anywhere.

I would assume that they would have to be higher than the premiums otherwise what's the use of even having Obamacare exchanges?


----------



## Flopper (Nov 21, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> As I noted last week, in 2010, the Obama administration estimated that 93 million Americans would be unable to keep their prior health coverage under the narrow grandfathering provisions issued by the administration in June 2010. My colleague Chris Conover estimates that the number is 129 million. And we are here only talking about disruptions to private health plans, and not counting the laws $716 billion in cuts to Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since there are only 15 million people covered by individual insurance in the country, 15 million is the maximum number of possible cancellations in the individual healthcare market.  Therefore a figure of 93 million must include an estimate of the group insurance policies that will be cancelled.  This is extremely misleading since almost all group insurance policies are changed yearly and reissued.

Instead of cancelling policies and offering replacements, the insurance companies could have sent a letter out saying your plan is being upgraded to the ACA requirements and your premium next year will be xxx, then there would be no cancellations just changes in benefits and premiums.  However, this would not be in the best interest of their customers since many would qualify for substantial subsidies by going through the exchange.  Although cancelling policies creates political fallout for the administration, it's much better than just upgrading the plans and adjusting premiums.


Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation


----------



## Listening (Nov 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > As I noted last week, in 2010, the Obama administration estimated that 93 million Americans would be unable to keep their prior health coverage under the narrow grandfathering provisions issued by the administration in June 2010. My colleague Chris Conover estimates that the number is 129 million. And we are here only talking about disruptions to private health plans, and not counting the laws $716 billion in cuts to Medicare.
> ...



With xxx being about 50% higher than what it was before.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 21, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Individual health insurance costs varies widely by state and income level.  Worthless plans sold at ridiculous low rates are being replaced with real health insurance at substantial increases in cost.


----------



## Votto (Nov 21, 2013)

oreo said:


> > Almost 250,000 Colorado residents have or will have their health insurance plans cancelled under ObamaCare, the state&#8217;s Division of Insurance said Wednesday.
> >
> > A spokesman for the agency said in a press release that the plans are being cancelled for numerous reasons, one being that some of the plans do not meet the new requirements for patient care under the Affordable Care Act.
> >
> ...



Colorado passed the pot law just in time.

Whew, that was close.  Now go get high Colorado.  Nothing to see here.

Now they have to do it for the rest of the country.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Not every plan that was cancelled was worthless.

It seems out of character for you to stoop to using the silly meme.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 22, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



No, most plans being cancelled aren't worthless.  The insurance company is just adding one or more new benefits and adjusting premiums so the plan can be marketed as ACA compliant.   

http://www.valuepenguin.com/health-insurance/DE/coventryone-catastrophic-100-hmo-plan
https://www.healthcare.gov/


There are a number of plans that provide practically no coverage but have very low premiums. Since worthless plans have to be replaced with real usable insurance, the premium without subsidies will increased substantially.  For example, an individual plan with a $20,000 deductible, 40% coinsurance, and $30,000 yearly maximum out of pocket could be purchased in Florida for about $50/mo before the ACA goes into effect.  The replacement plan has a $6350 deductible, $6350 yearly maximum out pocket with a premium of $132.  This is a 264% increase in premium.  This of course is not a fair comparison but that's how people will report it on the Internet.

Many worthless group insurance plans base premiums on employee turnover.  Such plans were marketed by CIGNA and a number of other companies. CiGNA's plan required an average employee turnover of 70% a year, average employee age less than 40, $2000 deductible, 30% coinsurance, and exclusions for maternity, preexisting conditions and hospital admission for the first 6 month of employment. The average premium was about $30 to $40/mo.  Some states even allow this insurance to be secondary to other insurance such as auto insurance. So if the employee was injured in an accident,which is the most common major claim for young people, this employer health insurance will probably pay little or nothing.  

These plans are sold to businesses  with younger employees with high turnover rates. Since most employees of these businesses leave within the first 6 months, claims are rare and profit margins are high.   For most  employees it's a ripoff.  When the ACA is implemented for employer sponsored insurance, this type of insurance will have to be replaced will real insurance and the premiums will probably double.  So the headlines will read, health insurance premiums will double at xyz company.  What you won't see is the fact that that the company is replacing a worthless plan with real usable insurance.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So, I have, until the end of the year a catastrophic plan that had a $5000 deductible. Now, I have $6000 plus deductible, that now cost me more. How is this helpful for a middle class person who had the 5k saved up and had nice low premiums?


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Quoting Healthcare.gove ?????

Please.

This is bulls%%t.


----------



## rdean (Nov 22, 2013)

http://www.healthplans.com/get-quotes/?CID=6300&SRC=hp_google&Sub_ID=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&position=1t3&google_network=g&creativeid=23206877597&adposition={position}&matchtype=b&mobile=&bw_keyword=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&bw_state=Colorado

FIND HEALTH INSURANCE YOU CAN AFFORD from $2 a day in Colorado

Health insurance quotes from top providers such as:
Blue Cross
Blue Shield
Aetna
UnitedHealthCare
Humana
Cigna
Kaiser

----------------------------------

Perhaps those people should try this site?  Seems to be what they need.


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2013)

rdean said:


> http://www.healthplans.com/get-quotes/?CID=6300&SRC=hp_google&Sub_ID=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&position=1t3&google_network=g&creativeid=23206877597&adposition={position}&matchtype=b&mobile=&bw_keyword=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&bw_state=Colorado
> 
> FIND HEALTH INSURANCE YOU CAN AFFORD from $2 a day in Colorado
> 
> ...



What's your point.  That has always existed.


----------



## rdean (Nov 22, 2013)

Listening said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.healthplans.com/get-quotes/?CID=6300&SRC=hp_google&Sub_ID=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&position=1t3&google_network=g&creativeid=23206877597&adposition={position}&matchtype=b&mobile=&bw_keyword=health%20care%20insurance%20colorado&bw_state=Colorado
> ...



Always existed?  Since less than a year?


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2013)

rdean said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yes, always existed.  There were plans out there for less than $2/day that had decent coverage.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 22, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


I don't understand your statement, "Now, I have $6000 plus deductible,"  The ACA makes possible  additional healthcare coverage for all Americans.  Healthcare costs will rise for some and go down for others.  Additional benefits  will lead to a healthier nation with better healthcare outcomes.


----------



## rdean (Nov 22, 2013)

Listening said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



No there wasn't and you can't prove there were.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

rdean said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



http://www.easytoinsureme.com/health-insurance-$2-per-day.html


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2013)

rdean said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



It's on you to prove they didn't exist.  

Moron.

I had members of my family on good plans at $70/month.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



What additional benefits do I get?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 23, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one is running.
> ...



It's been common knowledge for yeaers, proven by facts, so no there won't be just once more.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 23, 2013)

So what.  250,000 people in Colorado lost their coverage.  Hundreds of thousands will lose their insurance.  If they don't like it they can vote the ones who did this to them out.  They have a year to go without.  It isn't like there's a choice.  Suck it up.  Just make sure democrats never get the chance to do this again.  

Stop complaining and make your plans.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> So what.  250,000 people in Colorado lost their coverage.  Hundreds of thousands will lose their insurance.  If they don't like it they can vote the ones who did this to them out.  They have a year to go without.  It isn't like there's a choice.  Suck it up.  Just make sure democrats never get the chance to do this again.
> 
> Stop complaining and make your plans.



Good idea, we need to let this run it's course and what will be, will be.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 23, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Men have pregnancy coverage.  Men and the male and female elderly have lactation training.  That's surely worth a few thousand.

Don't enroll into anything.  Pay the penalty.


----------



## Listening (Nov 23, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





There never was a once (first time).

Facts are like death to you.


----------



## oreo (Nov 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Oh--it's definitely gone down for 500,000 in this country--they are the number one enrollees and are getting Obamacare Medicade for FREE.  The next group to actually sign up are the sick and elderly who have to have insurance.

The noted Death Spiral in Obamacare--is convincing the healthy 18 to 34 year old group to sign up with very high premiums so they can pay for the others.  If they don't which it looks like they're not--Obamacare collapses under it's own weight.

Now for me--I am 60 years old--I temporarily have a catastrophic plan, because I am healthy--I don't my mind paying for co-pays and my own prescriptions--and yes it's a high deductible, but I only pay $238.00 per month for it.  Under the Colorado Obamacare exchange I would be paying $495.00 per month something I cannot afford--and the coverage that I am required to carry--like maternity--is something I will never use nor want.

People are finding out quickly that their premiums are doubling to tripling what they were paying for their now canceled plans.  The Obamacare mandates have driven the Obamacare insurance exchanges premiums through the roof.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 23, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


That depends on your insurance.  Some plans have already added the essential benefits, but there's two  benefits that everyone will get beginning Jan 1.  No matter how sick you or a member of your family may get, your insurance company will never be able to drop you and they can't single you out for higher premiums because of family illnesses. If you decide to change plans, no insurance company can deny you coverage because of family illness.


----------



## oreo (Nov 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That has been in effect for the last 3 years.  It has absolutely nothing to do with is going on right now.  You haven't seen any of these exchanges--have you.  There is no added essential benefits--it's a nationwide group insurance policy.  *WE ARE ALL REQUIRED to carry maternity coverage, drug abuse coverage, mental health coverage, and a whole list of other things that most people don't want nor need. * The only choice is how much you want in a deductible and co-pays. You're more than welcome to browse mine and see if you can find something in there that looks affordable to you.

http://connectforhealthco.com/

BTW--I seem to remember a promise coming out of Obama's mouth that he could save us $2500.00 a year in premiums for a family of 4?


----------



## Flopper (Nov 23, 2013)

oreo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


What you pay for insurance depends on your income.   A high percentage of the 18 to 34 age  group are eligible for subsidies which will bring the cost down significantly while providing premiums needed to support the price structure.   

Keep in mind that with the ACA, many young people to age 26 are now covered on their parents policy and many more will be covered by the expanded Medicaid or through their employer.  For those that need to use the exchanges to get coverage, there is no rush since they have until the end of March.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 23, 2013)

oreo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


What has been in effect for 3 years?  The preexisting conditions exclusion and life time maximums are in individual policies being sold right now.  Denying insurance coverage for adults because of preexisting conditions and lifetime maximums become illegal on Jan 1.   

Many of the essential benefits are not included in all policies being sold today.  You can verify this by going to the websites of companies selling individual insurance and looking at the plans that will not be available beginning Jan 1.

When Obama said he could save us $2500.00 a year in premiums for a family of 4, the key world is "could".  If your income is low enough you will certainly be able to save that amount.


----------



## Antares (Nov 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Both statements are correct


----------



## oreo (Nov 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It's not working--we were lied to over 40 times by Barack Obama about being able to keep our insurance, if we liked it.  Currently there are 5.5 million Americans who have received cancellation notices from their insurers, and are looking at double to triple the premiums they were paying.

_This from Diane Feinstein D--California_


> &#8220;Since the beginning of September, I have received *30,842* calls, emails and letters from Californians, many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and *who are facing increased out-of-pocket costs.*
> 
> &#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. *I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943.* I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;



Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog

Now you can ignore all you want what prominent DEMOCRATS are telling you until you see if for yourself, when your policy (if you even have one is cancelled) due to the mandates in Obamacare.  This is due to move into the Employer mandates next year and we will see millions more lose the insurance plans they like for a more expensive one that they don't like.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 24, 2013)

oreo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


This bill does what Obama could do by executive order, change the grandfather rules. Grandfathered plans cannot be sold or modified after Jan 1.  Insurance companies cannot make any changes to these plans so their life is limited probably no more than a year.  In addition, these grandfathered plans would have to be reviewed by federal regulators plus state insurance commissions which would take a minimum of 6 months.  However, congress would have to agree on a plan and there are 5 of them floating around now.

If you're thinking Congress is going save the day forget it.  What there're doing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors so they can tell voters that they voted for a bill to save their insurance.  In reality, all they would be doing is delaying the cancellation.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yep, Obama lied, we all know that. His approval rating took a hit with the American people because of it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

From the link:

The conservative group Compass Colorado tied the President's promise to a similar pledge made by U.S. Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat up for re-election next year.

"When Senator Udall promised Coloradans they could 'keep their plan,' he was either grossly misled by the leadership of his party or he was simply lying," said Compass Colorado spokesperson Kelly Maher.

"Either way, it's the job of a U.S. Senator to know better - and protect the best interest of his constituents - Senator Udall violated the public trust," Maher said.

*******************

My friends in CO say that Udall is laying low because he's up for re-election if 2014.  I wonder if he's told Harry Reid that he think this will help him ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> So a quarter of million Coloradoans are going to get better insurance and for many at a lower cost.
> 
> 97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.
> 
> ...



I wonder if dickweed Jake still wants to stand behind this post when Sebelius stated that a lot of people are going to take a hit.

Never mind the 2500 it was supposed to save us.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

*97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.*

As always Jake is no more than an abject liar.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> *97% will pay the same or less, 3% more.*
> 
> As always Jake is no more than an abject liar.



You'll notice he piled right in to back up his claim.


----------



## oreo (Dec 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



In your "lil liberal Einstein mind"--just who is paying for all these subsidies?  *The middle class is.*

_Obamacare is nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care._ Those that didn't have insurance are now having theirs paid for by those who had health care and had their insurance policies cancelled, after being promised over 40 times by Obama that they could keep the plans they liked and their doctors too.  



> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinstein&#8217;s move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> &#8220;Since the beginning of September, I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> 
> &#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. *I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943.* I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;


Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog

*Off to Hawaii*






*Welcome to you Hope and Change!*


----------



## michael39301 (Dec 30, 2013)

There are so many examples of less-than-the-FULL-truth experiences being offered, that one simply cannot just latch onto one that "seems" to fit their own circumstances, but may not have all the facts stated.  Everyone needs to calm down and go to an exchange for their OWN evaluation of specific circumstances before making any decision.  

The main flawed statement that keeps recurring seems to be that individuals were cancelled from policies that they were happy with already.  I know each case is different, but I just wonder how many of these "happy" insured were actually reaping the benefits of their policies, and how many were just paying premiums but had no illnesses.  Health insurance is not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program.  That is the reason that all policies have coverage for all things.  Yes, a man's policy covers childbirth, just like a woman's policy covers testicular cancer.  The actual contents of the policies is the same for everyone, so the policy itself has nothing to do with cost differences.  The only things affecting policy owner cost are a person's age, income, and type of coverage like deductible amounts, co-pays, and percentage of coverage.  I feel sure that the exchanges have people available to discuss whatever your specific circumstances might require.  I wish you only the best.


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

michael39301 said:


> There are so many examples of less-than-the-FULL-truth experiences being offered, that one simply cannot just latch onto one that "seems" to fit their own circumstances, but may not have all the facts stated.  Everyone needs to calm down and go to an exchange for their OWN evaluation of specific circumstances before making any decision.
> 
> The main flawed statement that keeps recurring seems to be that individuals were cancelled from policies that they were happy with already.  I know each case is different, but I just wonder how many of these "happy" insured were actually reaping the benefits of their policies, and how many were just paying premiums but had no illnesses.  Health insurance is not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program.  That is the reason that all policies have coverage for all things.  Yes, a man's policy covers childbirth, just like a woman's policy covers testicular cancer.  The actual contents of the policies is the same for everyone, so the policy itself has nothing to do with cost differences.  The only things affecting policy owner cost are a person's age, income, and type of coverage like deductible amounts, co-pays, and percentage of coverage.  I feel sure that the exchanges have people available to discuss whatever your specific circumstances might require.  I wish you only the best.



If you have to "wonder" then you don't know.

I had two plans.  They worked for me.  Replacement plans bring no additional value and are double the cost.

I'm not everyone.  But I am not the only one.

And what about "If you like your plan you can keep it ?"  Whatever happened to that little diddy or the I'm gonna save you 2500 a year ?

That ain't happening either.


----------



## michael39301 (Jan 7, 2014)

I sure do agree that he was wrong about "you can keep your plan if you like it".  Obviously he either forgot or just failed to remember that those plans that do not meet ACA minimums cannot exist, unless they are "grandfathered" in, I think, for one year.  As for saving $2500 per family, this is probably true if the plans you are comparing are exact matches.  I doubt that most plans are really comparable because insurers were selling coverages that were no-where near offering the coverages that ObamaCare does.  This is the best way to hold costs down, everyone paying for the same envelope of coverage, while everyone certainly not using every aspect of this coverage.  The more paying in, the cheaper the coverage becomes for everyone.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jan 7, 2014)

michael39301 said:


> I sure do agree that he was wrong about "you can keep your plan if you like it".  Obviously he either forgot or just failed to remember that those plans that do not meet ACA minimums cannot exist, unless they are "grandfathered" in, I think, for one year.  As for saving $2500 per family, this is probably true if the plans you are comparing are exact matches.  I doubt that most plans are really comparable because insurers were selling coverages that were no-where near offering the coverages that ObamaCare does.  This is the best way to hold costs down, everyone paying for the same envelope of coverage, while everyone certainly not using every aspect of this coverage.  The more paying in, the cheaper the coverage becomes for everyone.



Covers what? After how much of a deductible? I'm at over $4500 in deductibles, before  I was at $5,000 and I paid $138 a month, now I am paying $488 and that is including subsidies. Just what extras do we now get that make it worth $4,200 more than what I had before?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 7, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> michael39301 said:
> 
> 
> > I sure do agree that he was wrong about "you can keep your plan if you like it".  Obviously he either forgot or just failed to remember that those plans that do not meet ACA minimums cannot exist, unless they are "grandfathered" in, I think, for one year.  As for saving $2500 per family, this is probably true if the plans you are comparing are exact matches.  I doubt that most plans are really comparable because insurers were selling coverages that were no-where near offering the coverages that ObamaCare does.  This is the best way to hold costs down, everyone paying for the same envelope of coverage, while everyone certainly not using every aspect of this coverage.  The more paying in, the cheaper the coverage becomes for everyone.
> ...




I have to tell you, the left (literally) amazes me day in and day out. Only the left could attempt to convince the american people that they are "saving" money while their wallets are being picked clean.

Amazing..


----------



## whitehall (Jan 7, 2014)

Apparently it won't hurt as much when the administration declared marijuana to be legal. You might lose your medical coverage in the "mountain high state" but with the right stuff and a couple dozen bags of potato chips you won't remember why you were concerned.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 7, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Apparently it won't hurt as much when the administration declared marijuana to be legal. You might lose your medical coverage in the "mountain high state" but with the right stuff and a couple dozen bags of potato chips you won't remember why you were concerned.




Brings up an interesting question...

20-30 years down the line when there are a host of medical issues discovered that occur with long term ingestion of pot - does the federal government (in it's divine wisdom) decline coverage for these stoners?

After all ......according to Barry, cigarette smokers and fatties shouldn't be covered. And right now, NO ONE knows the long term affects....

Do said stoners sue the state for damages?

What happens when a republican FINALLY takes the WH and decides to actually ENFORCE Federal law?????


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 7, 2014)

michael39301 said:


> I sure do agree that he was wrong about "you can keep your plan if you like it".  Obviously he either forgot or just failed to remember that those plans that do not meet ACA minimums cannot exist, unless they are "grandfathered" in, I think, for one year.  As for saving $2500 per family, this is probably true if the plans you are comparing are exact matches.  I doubt that most plans are really comparable because insurers were selling coverages that were no-where near offering the coverages that ObamaCare does.  This is the best way to hold costs down, everyone paying for the same envelope of coverage, while everyone certainly not using every aspect of this coverage. * The more paying in*, the cheaper the coverage becomes for everyone.



You mean like all those who just signed up for medicaid?  Oh wait, they don't pay much, if at all.

You mean like all those people with pre-exsiting conditions who, because they are a higher risk to insure, are paying more?  Oh wait, no they aren't.  People without p.e.'s are paying more so those with p.e.'s don't have to.  <---- Barry's definition of someone 'paying their fair share'.  

You mean like all those young people?  Oh wait, they're still on mom and dad's policy.

You mean like all those people who are paying for their own plan?  Oh wait, many are being subsidized.  <---- Barry's other definition of someone 'paying their fair share'.

Money is being paid in, to be sure.  But it isn't coming from who you think it is.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 7, 2014)

francoHFW said:


> Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...



Yep.

Amazing to me that the rw's are so afraid of the poor insurance companies losing money.


----------



## oreo (Jan 7, 2014)

michael39301 said:


> I sure do agree that he was wrong about "you can keep your plan if you like it".  Obviously he either forgot or just failed to remember that those plans that do not meet ACA minimums cannot exist, unless they are "grandfathered" in, I think, for one year.  As for saving $2500 per family, this is probably true if the plans you are comparing are exact matches.  I doubt that most plans are really comparable because insurers were selling coverages that were no-where near offering the coverages that ObamaCare does.  This is the best way to hold costs down, everyone paying for the same envelope of coverage, while everyone certainly not using every aspect of this coverage.  The more paying in, the cheaper the coverage becomes for everyone.



I am not certain how anyone says something in public 40 times and then forgets--  But nice try anyway.

Obamacare has always been planned this way.  To wipe out the private sector individual market place to move those people into the Obamacare exchange.  They had to have the estimated 14 million that were covered under these plans now paying for Obamacare.  We have 6 million "liked" policies (to-date there will be more) that have been cancelled--and it is estimated when you add in children and spouses that were covered under those plans we have another 14 million in this country that are uninsured because of the mandates in Obamacare.

*In fact--Senate Democrats voted AGAINST a fix--that would have allowed Americans to keep their "liked" policies back in September 2010--when it was brought to their attention that all these policies would be cancelled.*  All those democrats are running for reelection this November, including our own Colorado State Senator Mark Udall who fully supported Obamacare and also voted against the fix.
Flashback: Senate Democrats Killed 'Keep Your Plan' Enforcement Bill in 2010 - Guy Benson

The reason Obama is not holding up to any of his promises--and he LIED there is no getting around that.  Basically he needs everyone paying into Obamacare to offset the cost of the main group of people entering these exchanges--mostly Medicade--insurance for FREE--and of course the elderly who cannot afford to live without medical insurance.  Who's missing here--that Obama desperately needs.  The young and healthy who need to push the BUY button.  _And they're not doing it._

Some families will receive subsidizes based on their income--but after all this--millions are going to have to pay higher monthly premiums--so as Obama promised--Obamacare wouldn't add a single dime to the deficit.  _This is nothing more than a sucker punch to the middle class in this country._ If it hasn't affected you yet, be assured it will.

Now just wait until these mandates hit the employers.   Democrats wisely postponed that until after the mid-term elections and for good reason. _ Employers tend to lay-off or cut back hours when they're hit with new costly regulations--to make up for the cost to their business for those new regulations._

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the uninsured   *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE*:  uninsuring the insured

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAdrQ2RpdM]A Montage of Obama's "If You Like Your Plan Keep It" Lies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Yep.
> 
> Amazing to me that the rw's are so afraid of the poor insurance companies losing money.


​
_Physicians and other health professionals are traditionally the largest source of federal campaign contributions in this sector,_ which contributed a record $260.4 million to federal candidates during the 2012 election cycle. Aside from doctors' associations, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs are consistently generous givers.

*Democrats received 55 percent of health sector cash in the 2008 cycle and 51 percent in the 2010 cycle*. 
However, in the 2012 cycle, contributions from the health sector favored Republicans once again, as they had traditionally. 
Certain industries, such as nurses, traditionally lean Democratic.

Gee, I wonder why contributions started tanking for Democrats?
(I won't be crass and label Democrats as lw's, libtards or nutters.  I morally and ethically refuse to be so rude)
Health | OpenSecrets


_I only posted the top 10 for each cycle._

*All Senators 2008*
Candidate	Amount

Obama, Barack (D)$22,485,333
McCain, John (R)	               $8,248,434
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)	       $6,998,545
*McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)       $1,431,360*
*Baucus, Max (D-MT)	       $1,239,963*
*Cornyn, John (R-TX)	       $1,010,469*
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)	       $969,141
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR)	       $763,380
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)      $744,959
*Specter, Arlen (R-PA)	       $739,215*
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

*2008 Summary* 
Dems: $79,485,584 
Repubs: $57,621,196 
Other: $358,065 
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets


*All Senators 2010*
Candidate	                        Amount

*Reid, Harry (D-NV)	        $1,442,914*
Burr, Richard (R-NC)	        $1,084,371
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)	        $1,050,315
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)	$1,020,050
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)	        $892,352
*Specter, Arlen (D-PA)	        $862,033*
Murray, Patty (D-WA)	        $756,181
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)	        $652,070
*Brown, Scott (R-MA)	        $649,950*
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)	        $625,415
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

*2010 Summary*
Dems: $56,556,329 
Repubs: $54,266,489 
Other: $1,635,730 
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets


*All Senators 2012*
Candidate	                         Amount

Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT)	        $1,451,872
*Brown, Scott (R-MA)	        $1,351,463*
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)	$1,256,972
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)	$1,013,107
*McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)	$933,525*
Casey, Bob (D-PA)	        $928,225
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)	        $888,834
Corker, Bob (R-TN)	        $769,426
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)  	$688,756
*Baucus, Max (D-MT)	        $672,085*
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)	$666,264
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

*2012 Summary*
Dems: $66,898,342 
Repubs: $84,588,482
Other: $383,117 
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets


*All Senators 2014*
Candidate	                        Amount

*McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)	$524,325*
*Cornyn, John (R-TX)*	        $459,320
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)	$339,000
*Reid, Harry (D-NV)	        $303,400*
Markey, Ed (D-MA)	        $260,400
Booker, Cory (D-NJ)	        $234,508
Scott, Tim (R-SC)	        $213,550
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)	        $196,458
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC)        $182,800
Toomey, Pat (R-PA)	        $174,850
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

*2014 Summary*
Dems: $9,928,345 
Repubs: $14,054,458
Other: $5,022
Health: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

Happy reading!


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Only hater dupes believe 5 million is most of the country LOL - and IT'S THE INSURERS REFUSING TO UPGRADE TO GOOD STANDARDS and REFUSE TO COMPETE THEIR PRICES IN EXCHANGES. GOOD RIDDANCE lol...
> ...



I so enjoy the explanations we don't get from the morons on the left about how this work.

Basic economics tells you that if people are raking it in, more competition will enter the market.  

Where is the competition ?  Please explain to me how there isn't more competition.

They know the answer.  We already have quasi run state health care and it makes barriers to entry very difficult.

Luddy.Dumbass thinks we like that insurance companies are making those kinds of profits ?  You bet we do, if we are the ones who own the shares in the company.  Otherwise, I'd love to see more competition because it would lower my costs.

Why didn't Obama just tear down those barriers to entry ?


----------



## michael39301 (Jan 8, 2014)

Why in the world should it bother him anyhow?  He save the entire country from a Romney/Ryan fiasco that would have privatized Medicare and handed out vouchers.  All they would have said was. "When your vouchers are gone, just curl up and die."  Those Republicans are so empathetic for their fellow humans it makes me sick.  Thank the Lord I don't have to use any vouchers though.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 8, 2014)

Listening said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




You are exactly right about competition. Right now, it is beneficial for research companies to bring new medical products to the market. The US is the leading medical research country in the WORLD. It is beneficial for pharmaceutical companies to bring new products to the market. These companies, along with the hundreds of thousands of researchers, have brought more innovation to the world of medicine that nearly every other country COMBINED.

Once we become a single-payer system - and we will - this innovation will become as stagnant as the rest of the world. There is no profit in it. 

Take the free market out of the equation and you have mediocrity (as the left lives by).


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 8, 2014)

Today's anecdote. 

I met a 30 year old recovering drug addict with a history of seizures. He is a skilled laborer at a moulding production company making about 25k per year. 

He is currently uninsured.  He forks over $190 every time he goes to the clinic to get his meds. He dropped $700 last year when he broke a tooth and he owes a little over 10k for a previous bill due to a seizure. 

I gave him the info for healthcare.gov and advised him to check it out. 

He will get covered for less than $100 per month. 

Isn't that great?!


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Today's anecdote.
> 
> I met a 30 year old recovering drug addict with a history of seizures. He is a skilled laborer at a moulding production company making about 25k per year.
> 
> ...



It is if we know what he's getting covered for, what his deductibles will be, and what he could have had before (assuming he could have found something).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Today's anecdote.
> 
> I met a 30 year old recovering drug addict with a history of seizures.* He is a skilled laborer at a moulding production company making about 25k per year. *
> 
> ...




A "skilled" laborer making $25K per year!?!?  You're kidding, right? I know plenty of skilled laborers that pull down $55,000 - $70,000 per year and some - that make in excess of $100,000 per year.

99.9% of the "skilled" labor in this country has quality healthcare and 99.9% of the "skilled" labor in this country belongs to a union barn where they get excellent healthcare.

You are full of crap and you know it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 8, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Today's anecdote.
> ...



Hmmmm. I am full of crap, huh? 

Can you operate a moulder?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Absolutely not. I am a College Graduate, never needed to. My Cousin is a journeyman cabinet maker, however. Makes well over $90,000 per year.

So again - what "skilled" labor pays $25,000 per year?? A Plumber? An Electrician? A Framer?  A Contractor? A trucker?

You're still full of crap.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 8, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



You need to go back to college. When you get there, ask a professor what "laborer" means. 

Then, re-read my post and see what kind of laborer this dude is. 

Finally, if you are not able to operate a moulder, it follows that it requires some skill. Put all of this information together. 

Then, apologize for being an idiot.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Uh excuse me, moron&#8230;YOU are the one claiming that some "skilled" laborer makes 25K a year and I called you out for your idiocy. I know EXACTLY what a laborer is you fool. Unless they are involved in one of the 250 union laborer shops around the country - they aren't "skilled". They are little more than hod carriers. There isn't a "skilled" laborer ALIVE that makes that little money.

Your guy apparently works out of little Ralphies garage in BumFuck Texas.

The Union Wage Scale


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 8, 2014)

This is Florida. The dude is a moulder operator at a moulding manufacturer. He operates a machine that you couldn't operate without training. He is skilled at operating this machine. He is paid hourly. He makes about 25k. 

You are making an ass of yourself. For some reason, you thought you had some kind of win here. When are you going to apologize?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> This is Florida. The dude is a moulder operator at a moulding manufacturer. He operates a machine that you couldn't operate without training. He is skilled at operating this machine. He is paid hourly. He makes about 25k.
> 
> You are making an ass of yourself. For some reason, you thought you had some kind of win here. When are you going to apologize?



Then the "skilled" worker needs to get the hell out of Florida and go where he can be paid a living wage for his "skill" you goofy bastard.

Apologize - To a moron? Never. You know, for a guy that readily slings the crap on this forum, you sure as hell get caught in a lot of lies. I get it now, this "skilled" worker is you, isn't he?

Your hiney is on ignore.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 8, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > This is Florida. The dude is a moulder operator at a moulding manufacturer. He operates a machine that you couldn't operate without training. He is skilled at operating this machine. He is paid hourly. He makes about 25k.
> ...



I have never lied here. Period. 

I am on ignore? Cool. Beats being a man and admitting your mistake, I guess. Way to nail the stereotype.


----------



## oreo (Jan 8, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Exactly, when you refer to someone as a laborer they're not skilled craftsmen, most of the time they're helpers to someone else who is the skilled craftsmen.

Regardless if he is getting insurance for $100.00 per month--he's being subsidized through higher premiums paid for by the actual skilled craftsman that earns more than the laborer makes.  Wealth redistribution via health care.  Obamacare is nothing more than a sucker punch to the middle class in this country.

*PURPOSE OF OBAMCARE:*  to insure the uninsured * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:* uninsuring the insured

_6 million policies to-date have been cancelled due to the Obamacare mandates.  Estimates are that when you add in spouses and children that were covered under these plans Obamacare has added another 14 million to the uninsured in this country.  This after being promised by Obama and democrats over 40 times that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan._


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Today's anecdote.
> 
> I met a 30 year old recovering drug addict with a history of seizures. He is a skilled laborer at a moulding production company making about 25k per year.
> 
> ...



Bullshit!!

and

Prove it!!!


Dontcha just love how that 'nutter'ness works both ways...


----------



## michael39301 (Jan 11, 2014)

Then choose a higher deductible plan or a higher percentage of payment plan, there are ways to lower your monthly outlay.


----------

