The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[PMZ]

Really [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. That is real choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.

Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )

I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world. "We", not you, hire and fire government. "We", not you, hire and fire businesses.

You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact, there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.

There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.

Sorry asshole, but I fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. I. If I don't like my insurance company, I fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, I don't do business with them - I go somewhere else.

Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.

I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we, you are powerless.

This is why you have no power in government. Why your business suppliers laugh at you. Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.

 

[Antares]

I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world. "We", not you, hire and fire government. "We", not you, hire and fire businesses.

You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact, there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.

There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.

Sorry asshole, but I fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. I. If I don't like my insurance company, I fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, I don't do business with them - I go somewhere else.

Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.

I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we, you are powerless.

This is why you have no power in government. Why your business suppliers laugh at you. Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.

Projection.

What is a qualified plan?

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean like the military? Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit. Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.

We actually have that now in many cities. Competitive street gangs.

You are a bright one.

>>> You mean like the military? Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit. Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.

Are you retarded? Our military is not socialist. War for profit? You are one sick sob.

The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas. We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military. God you are so dumb.

>>> We actually have that now in many cities. Competitive street gangs.

Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?

>>> You are a bright one.

Why thank you.

Socialism is what Brown wants it to be. Not what the English language says it is. And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.

Do you have Alzheimers?

 

[PMZ]

>>> You mean like the military? Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit. Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.

Are you retarded? Our military is not socialist. War for profit? You are one sick sob.

The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas. We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military. God you are so dumb.

>>> We actually have that now in many cities. Competitive street gangs.

Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?

>>> You are a bright one.

Why thank you.

Socialism is what Brown wants it to be. Not what the English language says it is. And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.

Do you have Alzheimers?

I don't. Are you stupid?

 

[PMZ]

There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.

Sorry asshole, but I fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. I. If I don't like my insurance company, I fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, I don't do business with them - I go somewhere else.

Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.

I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we, you are powerless.

This is why you have no power in government. Why your business suppliers laugh at you. Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.

Projection.

What is a qualified plan?

Apparently, after all of the help that I've given you, you still don't know.

You're on your own now.

 

[P@triot]

I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world. "We", not you, hire and fire government. "We", not you, hire and fire businesses.

You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact, there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.

There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.

Sorry asshole, but I fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. I. If I don't like my insurance company, I fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, I don't do business with them - I go somewhere else.

Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.

I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we, you are powerless.

This is why you have no power in government. Why your business suppliers laugh at you. Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.

And that's the point asswipe! I should be able to do whatever I want and it should not matter to you.

Unfortunately though, being the communist asshat that you are, you want everyone to be forced to row in the same direction, so that when an idiot like Obama is captaining the ship, we all row right off the cliff and to our death (just like every communist nation in history).

And why do you want that kind of misery and guaranteed failure? Because you don't want to have to get up off of your lazy ass and provide for yourself in life.

Sorry dude, we abandoned the Constitution and tried your idiot liberalism. It's been a spectacular failure. It's had a 100% failure rate world wide and it has now been confirmed to fail here in the U.S. as well.

It's time we return to the only system in world history that works - the Constitution and conservatism. It works because failures like you don't drag down people like me. You fail on your own without doing any damage to the nation or your fellow citizen.

 

[Antares]

I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we, you are powerless.

This is why you have no power in government. Why your business suppliers laugh at you. Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.

Projection.

What is a qualified plan?

Apparently, after all of the help that I've given you, you still don't know.

You're on your own now.

Huh....where did you point out what a qualified plan is?

 

[beagle9]

Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care. It's complicated. So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and, without ever leaving the EZBoy, absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.

Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity. So this is for them



Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.

You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."

So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:

"A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."

That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.

So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.

So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.

Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.

You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.

On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.

Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.

But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ? So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ? Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?

Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ? Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ? Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also ?

 

[Antares]

Kids....the truth about grandfathered plans......NEW people CANNOT buy into them...they are closed plans...the ONLY folks that can get into them now are family members of those already in.

Grandfathered plans CANNOT market on the Exchanges..because they are not "qualified" plans.

 

[P@triot]

Folks, this is proof that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.

In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:

It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.

Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills. No welfare for the wealthy.

Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.

So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:

You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination. A country of only responsible people. Many families can't achieve that. The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.

But, feel free to dream. I'll stay here in the real world.

So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".

Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?

 

[PMZ]

Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care. It's complicated. So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and, without ever leaving the EZBoy, absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.

Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity. So this is for them



Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.

You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."

So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:

"A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."

That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.

So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.

So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.

Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.

You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.

On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.

Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.

But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ? So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ? Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?

Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ? Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ? Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also ?

If I understand you points correctly, what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.

Capitalists, following make more money regardless of the cost to others, try to eliminate competition. Very often they are not able to, but when they can, the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition. Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money.

On the other hand, if regulations are successful, the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good.

So, there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism, and socialism, market by market.

 

[RKMBrown]

Socialism is what Brown wants it to be. Not what the English language says it is. And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.

Do you have Alzheimers?

I don't. Are you stupid?

Sometimes.

 

[PMZ]

Folks, this is proof that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.

In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:

It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.

Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills. No welfare for the wealthy.

Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.

So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:

You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination. A country of only responsible people. Many families can't achieve that. The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.

But, feel free to dream. I'll stay here in the real world.

So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".

Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?

He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.

My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group, like a family, of all responsible people. The odds of getting a large group, like a whole country of only responsible people are infinitesimal.

 

[beagle9]

Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care. It's complicated. So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and, without ever leaving the EZBoy, absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.

Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity. So this is for them



Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.

You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."

So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:

"A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."

That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.

So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.

So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.

Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.

You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.

On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.

Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.

But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ? So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ? Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?

Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ? Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ? Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also ?

If I understand you points correctly, what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.

Capitalists, following make more money regardless of the cost to others, try to eliminate competition. Very often they are not able to, but when they can, the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition. Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money.

On the other hand, if regulations are successful, the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good.

So, there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism, and socialism, market by market.

So what you are saying is that the government is the counter balancing needed to keep things in balance when they do run astray, but I guess this all depends on who is running the government, and to whether or not it becomes either a hammer or an adjustable wrench in the situation.

 

[P@triot]

Folks, this is proof that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.

In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:


So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:


So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".

Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?

He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.

My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group, like a family, of all responsible people. The odds of getting a large group, like a whole country of only responsible people are infinitesimal.

I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?

 

[PMZ]

But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ? So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ? Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?

Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ? Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ? Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also ?

If I understand you points correctly, what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.

Capitalists, following make more money regardless of the cost to others, try to eliminate competition. Very often they are not able to, but when they can, the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition. Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money.

On the other hand, if regulations are successful, the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good.

So, there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism, and socialism, market by market.

So what you are saying is that the government is the counter balancing needed to keep things in balance when they do run astray, but I guess this all depends on who is running the government, and to whether or not it becomes either a hammer or an adjustable wrench in the situation.

That's why Americans are so respectful of democracy. We hire and fire our representatives.

 

[PMZ]

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?

He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.

My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group, like a family, of all responsible people. The odds of getting a large group, like a whole country of only responsible people are infinitesimal.

I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?

Failure is expensive. If a business failure results in bankruptcy that consequence is dumped on creditors. Presumably responsible creditors.

What's your alternative?

 

[PMZ]

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?

He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.

My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group, like a family, of all responsible people. The odds of getting a large group, like a whole country of only responsible people are infinitesimal.

I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?

Another example. People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care, end up dumping on responsible people. That practice has been ended by ACA, exactly as you recommend.

 

[BlackSand]

Another example. People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care, end up dumping on responsible people. That practice has been ended by ACA, exactly as you recommend.

Yep ... All 50,000 of them.

.

 

[PMZ]

Another example. People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care, end up dumping on responsible people. That practice has been ended by ACA, exactly as you recommend.

Yep ... All 50,000 of them.

.

You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?