If you use the term "crap policies"...

[Katzndogz]

Whether or not a product, including insurance is junk is not a decision the government should be making for any individual.

 

[MeBelle]

So, as I understand it, in an effort to "insure 18 million uninsured Americans" we have (thus far) added (by this report with less than 50% of states responding) 3.5 million MORE Americans with, probably another 10-30 million more americans coming once American business begins canceling their work-force policies. All this to be "socially just" for the less than 1% of the population that was too stupid to have health insurance.

Sounds like a plan to me! Way to go Barry!!

And it STILL does not address the big elephant in the room:

Illegal immigrant healthcare.

 

[RandallFlagg]

...you prove that you're unable to think for yourself.

From the AP today - Saturday

The AP is a TEA Party mouthpiece!!!

/bfgrn

Trust me on this...it won't be long before ALL the MSM will be against Barry...

One thing about rats...they all know when a ship is sinking....

 

[RandallFlagg]

So, as I understand it, in an effort to "insure 18 million uninsured Americans" we have (thus far) added (by this report with less than 50% of states responding) 3.5 million MORE Americans with, probably another 10-30 million more americans coming once American business begins canceling their work-force policies. All this to be "socially just" for the less than 1% of the population that was too stupid to have health insurance.

Sounds like a plan to me! Way to go Barry!!

And it STILL does not address the big elephant in the room:

Illegal immigrant healthcare.

I remember that Barry claimed that "once we get past this shutdown, I wii take on immigration reform".

Funny how strangely silent the WH is these days, wouldn't you agree?

It's almost like, with this horse hockey that is Obarrycare, Barry decided that he better not make an even bigger fool of himself right now.....

 

[bripat9643]

Junk health insurance
Stingy plans may be worse than none at all
Consumer Reports magazine: March 2012

It might seem to be health insurance, if you don’t look too closely, and most people don’t. The premiums are surprisingly affordable. And so millions of unemployed people, service industry workers, and those taken in by fast-talking telemarketers sign up. They may think they’re insured—until they have a medical problem and find out that their coverage is as skimpy as a hospital gown.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to usher in a new era of consumer-friendly health care. For instance, insurers are no longer allowed to put outrageously low limits on the amount they pay out for medical care in a year or lifetime.

While millions of Americans have benefited from that and other reforms, many are still prey to the kind of skimpy “junk” plans the new law was designed to eliminate. Some plans, known as mini-meds, are operated by employers and brand-name insurance companies with special dispensation from the federal government. Others, such as health discount cards and fixed benefit indemnity plans, from companies you’ve probably never heard of, are so meager that regulators don’t consider them to be health insurance at all—though that’s frequently not clear to consumers. And some of the companies operate one step ahead of the law.

Cheap Health Insurance - Consumer Reports

So where's the proof that ALL policies currently being cancelled due to Obamacare are "junk policies"?

Never mind. We both know there is no such proof.

Only "proof" is because the O said so a couple days ago in Boston...

Then all the drones fall in behind and meekly parrot their messiah's propaganda.

 

[Antares]

These Lefty twits simply swallow whatever jizz Bammy throws at them.

 

[bripat9643]

You need to move to Somalia. There is is no government there. You'll love it, for the few days you continue to live.

Anarchy is not what our founding fathers envisioned. The radicals are you teabagger terrorists who say you love America, it's just all those fucking AmericANS you have no use for.

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

No they didn't, moron. The federal government regulated almost nothing until Teddy Roosevelt came to power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need to move to Somalia. There is is no government there. You'll love it, for the few days you continue to live.

Anarchy is not what our founding fathers envisioned. The radicals are you teabagger terrorists who say you love America, it's just all those fucking AmericANS you have no use for.

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

The founding fathers believed that corporations had a government guaranteed right to kill anyone that competed with them. I am pretty sure you don't want that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

you expect leftards to think for themselves? LOL

they are just parroting the newest talking points lies.

if they would be really soooooo concerned about policies - why would the tax the standard PPO employer-based one by 40% starting from 2018?

but do not expect our leftards to have any logical thinking.
because they do not think.

and they expect that we don't know that their lies about "better policies" which means mandatory OB coverage for those who don't need them are not just a spreading the cost for those whom they expect to cover - the illegals with anchor babies

LOL...here is what 'thinking' folks like daveman, Mac1958, Vox and T look like...
]

That's certainly a delightful personal insult/straw man argument and all, I can see that's important to you, but I notice you didn't try to debate my points.

Not that I was expecting an intellectually honest response.

.

He's unable to formulate an argument that he can defend. I blame the education system.

 

[The T]

So, as I understand it, in an effort to "insure 18 million uninsured Americans" we have (thus far) added (by this report with less than 50% of states responding) 3.5 million MORE Americans with, probably another 10-30 million more americans coming once American business begins canceling their work-force policies. All this to be "socially just" for the less than 1% of the population that was too stupid to have health insurance.

Sounds like a plan to me! Way to go Barry!!

And it STILL does not address the big elephant in the room:

Illegal immigrant healthcare.

I remember that Barry claimed that "once we get past this shutdown, I wii take on immigration reform".

Funny how strangely silent the WH is these days, wouldn't you agree?

It's almost like, with this horse hockey that is Obarrycare, Barry decided that he better not make an even bigger fool of himself right now.....

He took that course as to divert us from this failure...lest does he know SOME OF US can multitask...He must have been talking to the LI voters with short attention spans.

LOOK! OVER THERE=====>SHINY OBJECT!

 

[The T]

LOL...here is what 'thinking' folks like daveman, Mac1958, Vox and T look like...
]

That's certainly a delightful personal insult/straw man argument and all, I can see that's important to you, but I notice you didn't try to debate my points.

Not that I was expecting an intellectually honest response.

.

He's unable to formulate an argument that he can defend. I blame the education system.

*I* blame his blind partisanship and trying to defend the indefensible...Marxists are like that you know, Rabbi.

 

[The T]

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

No they didn't, moron. The federal government regulated almost nothing until Teddy Roosevelt came to power.

Dead ON...Roosevelt...FOUNDER of the American Progressives...

 

[The T]

So where's the proof that ALL policies currently being cancelled due to Obamacare are "junk policies"?

Never mind. We both know there is no such proof.

Only "proof" is because the O said so a couple days ago in Boston...

Then all the drones fall in behind and meekly parrot their messiah's propaganda.

And those that parrot it are either IN it for power...or to get free stuff...moochers. NO ONE is this stupid. Or are they?

 

[The T]

...you prove that you're unable to think for yourself.

From the AP today - Saturday

The AP is a TEA Party mouthpiece!!!

/bfgrn

Welldone!

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

 

[daveman]

You need to move to Somalia. There is is no government there. You'll love it, for the few days you continue to live.

Anarchy is not what our founding fathers envisioned. The radicals are you teabagger terrorists who say you love America, it's just all those fucking AmericANS you have no use for.

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

Your revisionist history may impress your fellow proglodytes, but it's powerless on intelligent people.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

 

[daveman]

From the AP today - Saturday

The AP is a TEA Party mouthpiece!!!

/bfgrn

Who is 'emotional' pea brain?

You just hate to get schooled...as usual.

You're emotional. And you've never schooled me. You've ranted, raved, screeched, and parroted your programming, but you've never offered a single original thought.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's because you're incapable.

 

[The T]

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

Your revisionist history may impress your fellow proglodytes, but it's powerless on intelligent people.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

Game, Set, MATCH.

 

[The T]

The AP is a TEA Party mouthpiece!!!

/bfgrn

Who is 'emotional' pea brain?

You just hate to get schooled...as usual.

You're emotional. And you've never schooled me. You've ranted, raved, screeched, and parroted your programming, but you've never offered a single original thought.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's because you're incapable.

Maybe Rabbi was correct? Education or lack there of? Maybe this creep is a crowning jewel of colossal ignorance as leftists usually tend to be?

 

[daveman]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.