Obama mans up and apologizes for his misstatement on keeping insurance

[Flopper]

that not necessarily so, and in a lot of cases they trade off higher deductibles or co pays higher yearly thresholds in overall out of pocket costs.

I don't know what is so hard for you and those like you ( unless you don't want to) to understand- the law was intended to squeeze the balloon and shift money/costs from one grp. of folks ot another

- the 50 somethings that make more than 4 times the poverty line and don't qualify for subsides were designed to be pushed into other plans that would make them in effect pay more ;

the game being hay we have upgraded your policy you get mental health coverage or maternity/pediatrics or some such ( for them useless coverage) now, it matters not that they may be of sound mind and are past child baring years and don't even dream of having children, the admin knows they will not use this care, so they transfer their payment- the point in this whole Health Care "Reform" is for them via "Reform" a transfer to pay for the subsidies for those who get them....

This is exactly the way it was intended to happen. Now, you may agree with this transfer and "reform" but don't pretend thats not whats being done and willfully. Its the only way to keep Obamacare "budget neutral".

And of course if the folks are happy with what they have, your answer is, well but they will be happier if they just stfu and move on to a plan that we say they need....again if you agree that thats the way gov. should work, fine, but again, don't tell me thats not whats happening and not what was intended , it was.

Oh and And the "wealthy are outraged", I love how you add that to make this the usual class warfare issue, a couple living in SF making over 80K are rich? so if they get screwed, oh well, they're 'rich', let them squeal.....

If maternity coverage was optional in the law, women that were post menopausal, on birth control, women who couldn't have children, and women committed to celibacy would reject maternity coverage and rates would be sky high for women that are likely to bear children. This is exactly what happened in the individual insurance plans for singles. In many parts of the country individual insurance that covered maternity was not even offered because of the cost.

The average cost of childbirth including prenatal care in the US was billed at $30,000. For many women without maternity coverage, abortion or skipping prenatal care was the only viable option, both being counter to the goals of the ACA.

Question:

Why would men need maternity care as part of his insurance? Because as far as I can tell we don't have the equipment for that.

Kathleen Sebelius: ?Men often do need maternity care? - Washington Times

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

 

[mudwhistle]

For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.

And that is a true statement. The law did not require insurance companies to update or cancel their current plans to meet the requirements of the ACA.

There are many plans that don't meet ACA requirements and are being grandfathered, not canceled. Other plans are being updated rather than cancelled. Still others are being cancelled and being replaced with ACA compliant plans. These are business decisions made by insurance companies, not the government.

Horseshit. "Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period."

None of it happens without threats in the form of regulations from the government.

If the insurance company wants to stay in compliance with the law they must change what they offer to the customer or face fines, thus cancelling out the grandfather clause.

 

[Trajan]

If maternity coverage was optional in the law, women that were post menopausal, on birth control, women who couldn't have children, and women committed to celibacy would reject maternity coverage and rates would be sky high for women that are likely to bear children. This is exactly what happened in the individual insurance plans for singles. In many parts of the country individual insurance that covered maternity was not even offered because of the cost.

The average cost of childbirth including prenatal care in the US was billed at $30,000. For many women without maternity coverage, abortion or skipping prenatal care was the only viable option, both being counter to the goals of the ACA.

Question:

Why would men need maternity care as part of his insurance? Because as far as I can tell we don't have the equipment for that.

Kathleen Sebelius: ?Men often do need maternity care? - Washington Times

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

 

[Flopper]

Question:

Why would men need maternity care as part of his insurance? Because as far as I can tell we don't have the equipment for that.

Kathleen Sebelius: ?Men often do need maternity care? - Washington Times

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

How so?

 

[Trajan]

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

How so?

the example we have been discussing proves the point and contradicts yours above...figure it out...

 

[mudwhistle]

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

How so?

This has never been how insurance works.

Insurance has always been a risk that the insurance company takes by offering to pay for possible health needs of the consumer. The way they do it is by offering customers plans they need, not forcing them to buy coverage they don't need. Most people do not need health care when they're young, but when they get older, younger subscribers essentially pay for them, which they did when they were younger spreading the costs out. Some people die and never even file a claim.

What Obama is doing is not only forcing insurance companies to insure (insure isn't the proper word) high-risk patients and in the process forcing everyone else to pay for them, but forcing people to buy insurance they know they will never use in their lives.

This isn't insurance. All this really is is medicaid (or welfare) on steroids. It's one big massive tax on everyone.

 

[Noomi]

Obama on health plan cancellations: 'I am sorry' | MSNBC

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based, based on assurances they got from me. We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

This was the right thing to do.

At least he owned up and apologised. Doesn't fix things, though.

 

[Flopper]

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

How so?

the example we have been discussing proves the point and contradicts yours above...figure it out...

So you choose not to answer. OK.

 

[candycorn]

no kidding, Candy and Sarah.... call them the Obama cheerleaders...
clueless women followers of a man...Billy Clinton would love them

Single women overwhelmingly supported Your President; women who have been oppressed (i.e. intimidated by their mate) usually vote in line with their oppressor; like you did.

Obama has developed a false image that appeals to easily impressionable folks that vote on pure emotion rather than logic.

I honestly feel that if Obama didn't have glowing media coverage he would have been toast years ago. Every single time he screws up the media finds a way to bail him out. But every time they have to do it it peels off more and more supporters. I don't think he's gaining support. He only has the hanger's on that refuse to listen to reason. The folks that rely on him and how he's thought of for their own self-esteem.

This could really affect him when he runs in 2016. Dumbass.

I thought you guys were the party of personal responsibility...yet you never place any blame on Mitt Romney for getting his ass kicked in 10 of 11 states that were in play.

 

[mudwhistle]

How so?

the example we have been discussing proves the point and contradicts yours above...figure it out...

So you choose not to answer. OK.

He's trying to get you to read other posts.

If he comments it would just be redundant.

 

[mudwhistle]

Single women overwhelmingly supported Your President; women who have been oppressed (i.e. intimidated by their mate) usually vote in line with their oppressor; like you did.

Obama has developed a false image that appeals to easily impressionable folks that vote on pure emotion rather than logic.

I honestly feel that if Obama didn't have glowing media coverage he would have been toast years ago. Every single time he screws up the media finds a way to bail him out. But every time they have to do it it peels off more and more supporters. I don't think he's gaining support. He only has the hanger's on that refuse to listen to reason. The folks that rely on him and how he's thought of for their own self-esteem.

This could really affect him when he runs in 2016. Dumbass.

I thought you guys were the party of personal responsibility...yet you never place any blame on Mitt Romney for getting his ass kicked in 10 of 11 states that were in play.

Speak of the Devil....here's one of them.

 

[candycorn]

liberals and crystal balls...most Americans will be happy with it...they just KNOW THAT
show them just how happy you are people at the voting booth when the time comes
vote the bastards in the Democrat party OUT...they are a Danger to your lives, families and Freedoms
the Obama Stooges in this thread is shining

Ask President Romney about your ability to predict things....

They're not that good at it, are they.

When you first consider that they predicted a McCain win
Then the ACA not passing
Then the ACA not being constitutional
Then the 2012 election going to Romney...

If I were them, I'd stop handicapping politics.

 

[candycorn]

liberals and crystal balls...most Americans will be happy with it...they just KNOW THAT
show them just how happy you are people at the voting booth when the time comes
vote the bastards in the Democrat party OUT...they are a Danger to your lives, families and Freedoms
the Obama Stooges in this thread is shining

Ask President Romney about your ability to predict things....

oh dear gawd...are you a child?
Obama cult member for sure... as for the rest of you crystal ball predictions I hope you end up eating every smug word of it

Cry me a river loser.

 

[mudwhistle]

I also noticed that in every other state Obama got clobbered.

Seems to me that Obama rigged the swing states by vote-farming, hacking into voting machines, same-day registration, month long early voting, busing in illegals to vote several times in several states, and holding up election reform laws in court until after the election in states like Arizona and Florida.

 

[Trajan]

Obama on health plan cancellations: 'I am sorry' | MSNBC

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based, based on assurances they got from me. We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

This was the right thing to do.

At least he owned up and apologised. Doesn't fix things, though.

he apologized if we felt put out, or held him accountable, he didn't apologize for the law......theres a difference.

 

[Trajan]

How so?

the example we have been discussing proves the point and contradicts yours above...figure it out...

So you choose not to answer. OK.

why? because I don't do your thinking for you, only obama does?


here, read this, again, think of the debate we are engaged in at large here, ala coverages wanted or not, what has to be now, what was or wasn't before........you have unwittingly answered your own question as to why its agross mischaracterization.....;

Why would men need maternity care as part of his insurance? Because as far as I can tell we don't have the equipment for that.

Kathleen Sebelius: ?Men often do need maternity care? - Washington Times

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

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Obama on health plan cancellations: 'I am sorry' | MSNBC

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based, based on assurances they got from me. We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

This was the right thing to do.

At least he owned up and apologised. Doesn't fix things, though.

He didn't own up to lying though.

 

[Flopper]

thats another gross mischaracterization...keep'em comin'....

How so?

This has never been how insurance works.

Insurance has always been a risk that the insurance company takes by offering to pay for possible health needs of the consumer. The way they do it is by offering customers plans they need, not forcing them to buy coverage they don't need. Most people do not need health care when they're young, but when they get older, younger subscribers essentially pay for them, which they did when they were younger spreading the costs out. Some people die and never even file a claim.

What Obama is doing is not only forcing insurance companies to insure (insure isn't the proper word) high-risk patients and in the process forcing everyone else to pay for them, but forcing people to buy insurance they know they will never use in their lives.

This isn't insurance. All this really is is medicaid (or welfare) on steroids. It's one big massive tax on everyone.

Insurance companies have always forced us to carry coverage that we don't need in order to have any coverage at all. All of my last employer's health insurance included maternity coverage even though my wife was well beyond child bearing years. I had a coworker who was blind yet his premium included visions coverage. There is always coverage in plans that we will never be able to use.

There has been much controversy about young people having to spend a lot money on insurance that they don't need. This is more fantasy than reality. Premiums are based on age. A 25 year old person will pay about 1/3 the premium of a 60 year old. The premiums are determined by actual claims paid for the particular age group. So the 25 year olds premium reflect what the expected medical cost of a person of that age. If the person believes they are in exceptional healthy, they can choose a catastrophic plan which has higher out of pocket costs and lower premiums. However, what the law does not allow is a for a person to reject all insurance because they believe they are invincible to serious health problems or that there're planning on saving the premium and letting the rest of of us pickup their healthcare costs through government assistance or hospital write offs if they become seriously ill.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If maternity coverage was optional in the law, women that were post menopausal, on birth control, women who couldn't have children, and women committed to celibacy would reject maternity coverage and rates would be sky high for women that are likely to bear children. This is exactly what happened in the individual insurance plans for singles. In many parts of the country individual insurance that covered maternity was not even offered because of the cost.

The average cost of childbirth including prenatal care in the US was billed at $30,000. For many women without maternity coverage, abortion or skipping prenatal care was the only viable option, both being counter to the goals of the ACA.

Question:

Why would men need maternity care as part of his insurance? Because as far as I can tell we don't have the equipment for that.

Kathleen Sebelius: ?Men often do need maternity care? - Washington Times

For the same reason a 25 year old is covered for Alzheimer's, even thou there has never been a case diagnosed or a women is covered for testicular cancer. This is how insurance works, with or without Obamacare.

Which explains why it never worked that way before.

Wait, that actually makes you an idiot, doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How so?

This has never been how insurance works.

Insurance has always been a risk that the insurance company takes by offering to pay for possible health needs of the consumer. The way they do it is by offering customers plans they need, not forcing them to buy coverage they don't need. Most people do not need health care when they're young, but when they get older, younger subscribers essentially pay for them, which they did when they were younger spreading the costs out. Some people die and never even file a claim.

What Obama is doing is not only forcing insurance companies to insure (insure isn't the proper word) high-risk patients and in the process forcing everyone else to pay for them, but forcing people to buy insurance they know they will never use in their lives.

This isn't insurance. All this really is is medicaid (or welfare) on steroids. It's one big massive tax on everyone.

Insurance companies have always forced us to carry coverage that we don't need in order to have any coverage at all. All of my last employer's health insurance included maternity coverage even though my wife was well beyond child bearing years. I had a coworker who was blind yet his premium included visions coverage. There is always coverage in plans that we will never be able to use.

There has been much controversy about young people having to spend a lot money on insurance that they don't need. This is more fantasy than reality. Premiums are based on age. A 25 year old person will pay about 1/3 the premium of a 60 year old. The premiums are determined by actual claims paid for the particular age group. So the 25 year olds premium reflect what the expected medical cost of a person of that age. If the person believes they are in exceptional healthy, they can choose a catastrophic plan which has higher out of pocket costs and lower premiums. However, what the law does not allow is a for a person to reject all insurance because they believe they are invincible to serious health problems or that there're planning on saving the premium and letting the rest of of us pickup their healthcare costs through government assistance or hospital write offs if they become seriously ill.

I have never had a policy that covered maternity care in my life.

Tell me something, if you can, why did they have to write this stuff into the regulations if this is how insurance always worked? Why did you spend weeks arguing that we get better benefits now if insurance always made us buy this stuff to defray costs? Why the fuck are insurance companies cancelling policies that are non compliant with the new benefits if they always forced people to buy the benefits they don't need?

It was an extraordinarily bold and foolish pledge. However, was it lie? A broken promise is only a lie when the person knows he can not fulfill the promise. When this pledge was made in 2009, it was before the law was passed and the bill was changing daily. When his second statement was made after the law was passed the regulations that governed grandfathering older plans had not been written. Most insurance companies and probably Obama assumed the older plans would be grandfather in, but the regulators did not believe they could meet the requirements of the law and other legislation if they allowed the old plans to stand as is. This forced many companies to cancel and reissue plans due to either state laws or internal problems.

As I said, I think Obama was foolish to make such bold statements because he could not control everything that went into the law or the regulations that came out of it.

BTW If we impeached every president that broke campaign promises, we would have impeached them all.

It has already been shown that Obama continued with the line AFTER the administration knew that some people would lose their plan.
Please stop covering for him.

When Obama said you can keep your plan, he was speaking for the government, not the insurance companies. There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that forces people to give up their health plans. The president can't speak for what the insurance companies may or may not do.

Whether the insurance companies choose to cancel and reissue the plans with the required changes or revise the current plans, the end result is same.

Why do you think everyone is so stupid they can't remember your posts?