Obama mans up and apologizes for his misstatement on keeping insurance

[Trajan]

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.

employer's health insurance

 

[Flopper]

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..

A funny comment but it reveals your profound ignorance about how health insurance works.

Let's examine why maternity care is written into all insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The reasons fall into three categories. In ascending order of importance, they are:

1. It takes two to tango. It's true, no man has ever given birth to a baby. It's also true that no baby has ever been born without a man being involved somewhere along the line. Limit maternity premium costs to women of childbearing age, and you're giving many of these guys a free pass.

2. Society has a vested interest in healthy babies and mothers. And that's all society, because unhealthy babies and mothers impose a cost on everybody -- in the expense of caring for them as wards of the public, and in the waste of social resources that comes from children unable to reach their full potential as members of society because of injuries or illnesses caused by poor prenatal and postnatal health.

Child mortality rates are among the most important indicators of a nation's overall health profile, and the U.S. rate stinks compared with the rest of the industrialized world's -- at 7 deaths of children under age 5 per 1,000 live births, it's worse than Israel's, South Korea's, Japan's and every Western European nation's. That's why maternity and newborn care and pediatric services are among the 10 health benefits that Obamacare requires to be part of every health plan.

Some of these benefits are so important, they're required to be among the free benefits of catastrophic health plans that may be sold to individuals under the age of 30. They include anemia screening for pregnant women and folic acid supplements for women of childbearing age.

The most important reason is this one:

3. Universal coverage is the only way to make maternity coverage affordable.

Up to now -- before Obamacare's rules kick in Jan. 1 -- only 12% of policies in the individual insurance market offered maternity coverage. Those that offered the coverage often did so as separate riders imposing huge deductibles for maternity care alone -- $5,000 for maternity services, according to a 2010 survey by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and limits on benefits of only a few thousand dollars. The cost of maternity and newborn care is the principal reason that, pre-Obamacare, women were systematically charged more for health insurance than men.

That's the principle of universal coverage inherent in Obamacare, after all. Once you start segmenting the market so that only those vulnerable to a specific condition can buy coverage for that condition, the cost of that coverage soars into outer space.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - latimes.com

 

[Trajan]

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..

A funny comment but it reveals your profound ignorance about how health insurance works.

Let's examine why maternity care is written into all insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The reasons fall into three categories. In ascending order of importance, they are:

1. It takes two to tango. It's true, no man has ever given birth to a baby. It's also true that no baby has ever been born without a man being involved somewhere along the line. Limit maternity premium costs to women of childbearing age, and you're giving many of these guys a free pass.

2. Society has a vested interest in healthy babies and mothers. And that's all society, because unhealthy babies and mothers impose a cost on everybody -- in the expense of caring for them as wards of the public, and in the waste of social resources that comes from children unable to reach their full potential as members of society because of injuries or illnesses caused by poor prenatal and postnatal health.

Child mortality rates are among the most important indicators of a nation's overall health profile, and the U.S. rate stinks compared with the rest of the industrialized world's -- at 7 deaths of children under age 5 per 1,000 live births, it's worse than Israel's, South Korea's, Japan's and every Western European nation's. That's why maternity and newborn care and pediatric services are among the 10 health benefits that Obamacare requires to be part of every health plan.

Some of these benefits are so important, they're required to be among the free benefits of catastrophic health plans that may be sold to individuals under the age of 30. They include anemia screening for pregnant women and folic acid supplements for women of childbearing age.

The most important reason is this one:

3. Universal coverage is the only way to make maternity coverage affordable.

Up to now -- before Obamacare's rules kick in Jan. 1 -- only 12% of policies in the individual insurance market offered maternity coverage. Those that offered the coverage often did so as separate riders imposing huge deductibles for maternity care alone -- $5,000 for maternity services, according to a 2010 survey by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and limits on benefits of only a few thousand dollars. The cost of maternity and newborn care is the principal reason that, pre-Obamacare, women were systematically charged more for health insurance than men.

That's the principle of universal coverage inherent in Obamacare, after all. Once you start segmenting the market so that only those vulnerable to a specific condition can buy coverage for that condition, the cost of that coverage soars into outer space.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - latimes.com

first; I didn't say that...hello.

second, you have an affinity for making whats called 'arguments in mitigation'.....go look it up, maybe it will help with your ignorance

 

[Amelia]

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.

If a Republican said what Obama said after having done similar to what Obama did, Democrats would not accept it as an apology. It was smoke. His PR people were trying to do damage control without Obama actually answering to what he really did, which was knowingly make false statements after he or his team decided it would be damaging to his agenda if he told the truth.

I didn't know for sure that he was knowingly making false statements -- I considered the possibility that he was just ignorant -- but proof has been posted that he knew millions of people would lose their policies.

He has yet to apologize for lying in order to get away with something he wouldn't have gotten away with had he told the truth.

And Democrats wouldn't stand by quietly if a Republican tried to make hay with an "apology" like that.



And yeah, whatever he said, it doesn't fix things -- but at least he acknowledged that there was something to fix. So that was good.

 

[Trajan]

A very hollow apology to be sure......especially since his lie is still posted on his ACA website at this minute.

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans

This Act puts individuals, families and small business owners in control of their health care. It reduces premium costs for millions of working families and small businesses by providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax relief – the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. It also reduces what families will have to pay for health care by capping out-of-pocket expenses and requiring preventive care to be fully covered without any out-of-pocket expense. 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.​

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans | The White House


This is basically a big "FUCK YOU" by Obama.

He was hardly laughing like that in the interview, it took a lot for him to talk about that directly and your article plus the picture is a deliberate attempt to dishonestly portray Obama and what he said.

If you guys were telling the truth, you wouldn't need these Freeper type tactics.

Check the link.

I got it from his own White House website.

The lie is still posted and the pic is from the page that is came from.

Beneath that pic is a headline and a link taking you to a weekly address made way back in 2009 entitled, Losing Insurance Can Happen To Anybody

How prophetic.

Of course he swears that he won't allow that to happen in the address........

: “In the United States of America,
no one should have to worry that they’ll go without health care
– not for one year, not for one month, not for one day.
And once I sign my health reform plan into law – they won’t.” September 12, 2009. ​

Epic fail

you're wasting your time Mud.....

 

[Flopper]

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..

A funny comment but it reveals your profound ignorance about how health insurance works.

Let's examine why maternity care is written into all insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The reasons fall into three categories. In ascending order of importance, they are:

1. It takes two to tango. It's true, no man has ever given birth to a baby. It's also true that no baby has ever been born without a man being involved somewhere along the line. Limit maternity premium costs to women of childbearing age, and you're giving many of these guys a free pass.

2. Society has a vested interest in healthy babies and mothers. And that's all society, because unhealthy babies and mothers impose a cost on everybody -- in the expense of caring for them as wards of the public, and in the waste of social resources that comes from children unable to reach their full potential as members of society because of injuries or illnesses caused by poor prenatal and postnatal health.

Child mortality rates are among the most important indicators of a nation's overall health profile, and the U.S. rate stinks compared with the rest of the industrialized world's -- at 7 deaths of children under age 5 per 1,000 live births, it's worse than Israel's, South Korea's, Japan's and every Western European nation's. That's why maternity and newborn care and pediatric services are among the 10 health benefits that Obamacare requires to be part of every health plan.

Some of these benefits are so important, they're required to be among the free benefits of catastrophic health plans that may be sold to individuals under the age of 30. They include anemia screening for pregnant women and folic acid supplements for women of childbearing age.

The most important reason is this one:

3. Universal coverage is the only way to make maternity coverage affordable.

Up to now -- before Obamacare's rules kick in Jan. 1 -- only 12% of policies in the individual insurance market offered maternity coverage. Those that offered the coverage often did so as separate riders imposing huge deductibles for maternity care alone -- $5,000 for maternity services, according to a 2010 survey by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and limits on benefits of only a few thousand dollars. The cost of maternity and newborn care is the principal reason that, pre-Obamacare, women were systematically charged more for health insurance than men.

That's the principle of universal coverage inherent in Obamacare, after all. Once you start segmenting the market so that only those vulnerable to a specific condition can buy coverage for that condition, the cost of that coverage soars into outer space.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - latimes.com

first; I didn't say that...hello.

second, you have an affinity for making whats called 'arguments in mitigation'.....go look it up, maybe it will help with your ignorance

Sorry about that but you included in your post #416 outside of a quote box so I assumed it was yours and that you were in agreement with the statement.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Oh sure, HaHa. Your wingnuts in the House don't have enough brains or support to repeal Obamacare after like 50 tries so you think Obama should "trash" it.

That's funny.

That's because the bills they passed got strangled in committee by the Senate.

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.

But the minute they had to raise or lower their rates, coverage, deductible etc. etc. It was excluded. But the government can do what it wants including changing rates and exempting Congress, unions and other good-ol-boys by executive order.

 

[Flopper]

Oh sure, HaHa. Your wingnuts in the House don't have enough brains or support to repeal Obamacare after like 50 tries so you think Obama should "trash" it.

That's funny.

That's because the bills they passed got strangled in committee by the Senate.

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.

But the minute they had to raise or lower their rates, coverage, deductible etc. etc. It was excluded. But the government can do what it wants including changing rates and exempting Congress, unions and other good-ol-boys by executive order.

The president said if you like what you have, you can keep it. This clearly meant if you like the plan that you have now, you can keep it. If the insurance company then changes that plan, to something else which is not compatible with the law, then of course you can't keep it. What he said was true at time he said.

I do think his statements about keeping your current plan were at best ill advised. However, I don't think he lied about it because he would surely have know that once cancellation letters were mailed out, he would be creating a big public relations problem. Besides, the law was passed and there was little reason for him to make such statements.

I believe he thought that the companies would just mail out letters stating that the plans were being updated to bring them in compliance with the law. That is what I assumed would happen. From the plan holders point of view, whether the company cancelled the plan and offered a new replacement plan or just updated the old plan, the outcome is exactly the same, benefits and premiums change.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Are you seriously trying to defend why ACA forces, through government standards, for insurance providers to offer additional insurance that no one needs and offer cancelation notices to those that don't measure up? If an individual "chooses" to pay the higher premium for added health care that's one thing, using that lame excuse as a standard that EVERYONE must carry higher premium coverage is quite another.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Then they want to say how much more "cost effective" Obamacare is, as if the government NEVER wastes money.

 

[Amelia]

Hey, did y'all's premiums go down $2500 a year?

Ours haven't. But we'll be hearing the good news any week now, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh sure, HaHa. Your wingnuts in the House don't have enough brains or support to repeal Obamacare after like 50 tries so you think Obama should "trash" it.

That's funny.

That's because the bills they passed got strangled in committee by the Senate.

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.

But the minute they had to raise or lower their rates, coverage, deductible etc. etc. It was excluded. But the government can do what it wants including changing rates and exempting Congress, unions and other good-ol-boys by executive order.

The president said if you like what you have, you can keep it. This clearly meant if you like the plan that you have now, you can keep it. If the insurance company then changes that plan, to something else which is not compatible with the law, then of course you can't keep it. What he said was true at time he said.

I do think his statements about keeping your current plan were at best ill advised. However, I don't think he lied about it because he would surely have know that once cancellation letters were mailed out, he would be creating a big public relations problem. Besides, the law was passed and there was little reason for him to make such statements.

I believe he thought that the companies would just mail out letters stating that the plans were being updated to bring them in compliance with the law. That is what I assumed would happen. From the plan holders point of view, whether the company cancelled the plan and offered a new replacement plan or just updated the old plan, the outcome is exactly the same, benefits and premiums change.

He said that in September, and would still be saying it if he hadn't been gobsmacked by the fact that every news program in the country stopped covering for him when reality gobsmacked all the idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey, did y'all's premiums go down $2500 a year?

Ours haven't. But we'll be hearing the good news any week now, right?

The only family that got that were the Typicals.

 

[Amelia]

lol

Not sure I ever met them.

 

[PainefulTruth]

"There are reportedly over 700 fake Obamacare websites that have been set up to rip people off by stealing their private information. So how does one tell which is the real Obamacare website? Easy. It’s the one that doesn’t work!" –Jodi Miller

If only it could work so it could rip us off officially as well as the other criminal sites.