The word "period"

[TemplarKormac]

It's not been proven it won't work.

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.

No. It isn't. Nothing Democrats do now will save this law from destruction. The single biggest impediment to this law working, is the fact that millions of people are losing their insurance. People don't react well to being lied to, or being coerced into a more expensive healthcare plan. The reason this law won't work is because it DOES NOT take the healthcare needs of the individual into consideration, and for that matter, their financial needs.

Face it. This law is doomed to fail. The reality should be hitting you dead on in the face right now.

 

[Flopper]

And what I find particularly disturbing is that it's becoming obvious that Barry, Harry and Nancy have known all along that the ACA won't work as constituted yet they pushed it through anyways. Why? Because when it doesn't work...they will blame the failure on the insurance industry and call for a government run single payer system...which is what they wanted in the first place.

This was all a political GAME to them...a game that disrupts the lives of millions of Americans. They were quite willing to make America suffer through this in order to arrive at their "end game".

It's not been proven it won't work.

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.

Working for who? I have no doubt the federal government cost will be about $120 billion a year just as the CBO projected. Upper middle class and wealthy families will pay a larger share of the countries healthcare costs. A number of things in the law are just not going to work as intended. The exchanges are going to have to utilize insurance carrier's enrollment process. Coverage gaps are going to exist for part time workers that aren't qualified for Medicaid. The target for the exchanges will not be be reached till 2015 when the law hits employers. Many of the red states will continue to deny Expanded Medicaid to the working poor in their states.

However, the expanded Medicaid will bring healthcare coverage to millions of low income families that could have never afforded it. The subsidies will lower the cost of insurance substantially for the working poor. Millions of children are expected to gain dental benefits by 2018. Young working adults will be able to remain on their parents insurance. Preventive care, required in all plans will increase the rate of early detection of diseases. No one will lose their insurance coverage because they became seriously ill and exceeded their yearly or lifetime maximum and no one can be denied coverage because of passed healthcare problems. Billions of dollars that were written off by hospitals will now be paid by insurance companies. The Medicare part D doughnut hole will be eliminated by 2020.

 

[Redfish]

Romney was a proven liar. Who did most conservatives vote for?

What does Romney have to do with Obama lying about ACA? Did I miss something?

Did you vote for Romney?

of course, I have a working brain.

 

[Redfish]

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.

Nonsense. We are moving towards a system where people have a false sense of having health coverage, but the lack of health care providers will cause the Government Overlords to ration such limited supply in favor of their cronies and supporters, while the rest wait in line for a very long time (hopefully dying before they become a drain on the system).

If you were poor, would you rather have some healthcare or none?

You're saying that we need to deprive the poor of access to affordable healthcare because if we don't then, god forbid, the poor will actually go to the doctor, or the hospital,

and that will overburden the system.

That is classic you, btw.

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal beaurocracy to pay for.

 

[Flopper]

No, you don't understand. I'm referring to the insurance companies choice of whether to:

• leave the old plans untouched so they could be grandfathered in and thus there would be no need to cancel them or
• Cancel the old plans and issue new plans that meet the new requirements.

This was a business decision made by the insurance companies. The old plans could not be sold beginning Jan 1, 2014 and could not be changed. So if they kept all the old plans they would be administering them plus the new plans. Since the old plans would have to be cancelled eventually anyway, they decided to cancel many of them and move the people to the new plans. This accounts for most of the cancellation letters.

Many insurance companies made another business decision not to upgrade existing plans, just cancel them and issue new plans. In some states the insurance commission ask the companies to do so to avoid confusion and possible legal problems.

I believe you got it partly right, but, you left out the reason for cancelling some policies. The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. Once they complied with the law, they would have to increase the premium.

Increasing the premium meant losing grandfather status of the policy. Simple cause and effect applies here.

Cause: additional insurance coverage required by law.

Effect: Raise premium and lose grandfather status.

Result: Cancel policy and issue new policy with all the bells and whistles as well as the increase in premiums.

Thus the lie........"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period."

Not quit. You said, "The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. " This is true for plans that they will sell in 2014. The grandfathered plans do not have to meet the requirements of the law with the exception of the life time maximum elimination requirement. The regulations allowed plans to be modified to include this change and still meet the grandfather requirements. Premiums of grandfathered plans can be increased but they can not add significant cost to the beneficiary.

Insurance companies were not forced by the law to cancel their plans. Cancelling plans was a business decision. If you look at www.ehealthinsurance.com you will see a number of grandfathered plans listed which insurance companies are not cancelling and will be in effect in 2014. You will also see a number of new plans which are ACA compliant. There are also other plans that have been upgraded to be ACA compliant. Expecting the president to have certain knowledge that insurance companies would cancel, upgrade, or grandfather plans when he signed the law is asking bit much.

 

[Redfish]

It's not been proven it won't work.

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.

This is a serious question. Do you think that your personal healthcare would be free if there was single payer government controlled healthcare? try to give an honest answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.

This is a serious question. Do you think that your personal healthcare would be free if there was single payer government controlled healthcare? try to give an honest answer.

When have not been honest? Cite my lies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nonsense. We are moving towards a system where people have a false sense of having health coverage, but the lack of health care providers will cause the Government Overlords to ration such limited supply in favor of their cronies and supporters, while the rest wait in line for a very long time (hopefully dying before they become a drain on the system).

If you were poor, would you rather have some healthcare or none?

You're saying that we need to deprive the poor of access to affordable healthcare because if we don't then, god forbid, the poor will actually go to the doctor, or the hospital,

and that will overburden the system.

That is classic you, btw.

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal beaurocracy to pay for.

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.

This is a serious question. Do you think that your personal healthcare would be free if there was single payer government controlled healthcare? try to give an honest answer.

When have not been honest? Cite my lies.

No more your lies than Obama's.

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Nobody will take them away from you."

 

[Redfish]

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.

This is a serious question. Do you think that your personal healthcare would be free if there was single payer government controlled healthcare? try to give an honest answer.

When have not been honest? Cite my lies.

does that mean you won't answer the question? I want an honest answer, not talking points or partisan rhetoric.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you were poor, would you rather have some healthcare or none?

You're saying that we need to deprive the poor of access to affordable healthcare because if we don't then, god forbid, the poor will actually go to the doctor, or the hospital,

and that will overburden the system.

That is classic you, btw.

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal bureaucracy to pay for.

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

As compared to 2 or 3 random people anywhere who would need heart transplants and would have their insurance cancelled because of Obamacare, who would then die due to lack of ability to pay out of pocket premiums.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does Romney have to do with Obama lying about ACA? Did I miss something?

Did you vote for Romney?

of course, I have a working brain.

He was a proven liar. What business have you attacking others for voting for Obama, who in some cases hasn't told the truth,

when you yourself have no problems voting for a proven liar?

 

[Redfish]

If you were poor, would you rather have some healthcare or none?

You're saying that we need to deprive the poor of access to affordable healthcare because if we don't then, god forbid, the poor will actually go to the doctor, or the hospital,

and that will overburden the system.

That is classic you, btw.

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal beaurocracy to pay for.

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

people die every day waiting for organ transplants. Would ACA have produced a heart for those people? They did not die because they could not pay.

I personally know of a young woman who got a double lung transplant, she had no money and no insurance, but received outstanding treatment at a highly respected hospital. ACA would not have changed anything for her.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal bureaucracy to pay for.

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

As compared to 2 or 3 random people anywhere who would need heart transplants and would have their insurance cancelled because of Obamacare, who would then die due to lack of ability to pay out of pocket premiums.

Go ahead. Give me specific examples of people who had healthcare coverage sufficient to pay for a heart transplant that are going to lose that coverage and have to buy comparable coverage at a higher cost.

 

[Ame®icano]

We're discussing about what "period" means.

Here is the example from Barry's speech: "Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period."

 

[Redfish]

Did you vote for Romney?

of course, I have a working brain.

He was a proven liar. What business have you attacking others for voting for Obama, who in some cases hasn't told the truth,

when you yourself have no problems voting for a proven liar?

I guess you will list the lies you claim Romney told.


We all know about obama's lies, so then we can compare the list. ready? go !

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO ONE in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA. Not having insurance does not equal not getting treatment.

the rest of us were paying for the uninsured, the same will be true under ACA. The difference is now we have tons of new regulations and a new federal beaurocracy to pay for.

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

people die every day waiting for organ transplants. Would ACA have produced a heart for those people? They did not die because they could not pay.

I personally know of a young woman who got a double lung transplant, she had no money and no insurance, but received outstanding treatment at a highly respected hospital. ACA would not have changed anything for her.

You want every low income American to have their health hinge on the whims of charity or the swing of the good luck bad luck pendulum??

What century do you want to take us back to?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

As compared to 2 or 3 random people anywhere who would need heart transplants and would have their insurance cancelled because of Obamacare, who would then die due to lack of ability to pay out of pocket premiums.

Go ahead. Give me specific examples of people who had healthcare coverage sufficient to pay for a heart transplant that are going to lose that coverage and have to buy comparable coverage at a higher cost.

You have 4.2 million people to choose from. Get going, Carbine.

 

[Redfish]

Really? Then how come those 2 or 3 people down in Arizona who needed heart transplants but couldn't afford them DIED? Remember that story?

people die every day waiting for organ transplants. Would ACA have produced a heart for those people? They did not die because they could not pay.

I personally know of a young woman who got a double lung transplant, she had no money and no insurance, but received outstanding treatment at a highly respected hospital. ACA would not have changed anything for her.

You want every low income American to have their health hinge on the whims of charity or the swing of the good luck bad luck pendulum??

What century do you want to take us back to?

You claimed that people were refused transplants because they could not pay for them------------that, my friend, is a bold faced lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

I believe you got it partly right, but, you left out the reason for cancelling some policies. The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. Once they complied with the law, they would have to increase the premium.

Increasing the premium meant losing grandfather status of the policy. Simple cause and effect applies here.

Cause: additional insurance coverage required by law.

Effect: Raise premium and lose grandfather status.

Result: Cancel policy and issue new policy with all the bells and whistles as well as the increase in premiums.

Thus the lie........"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period."

Not quit. You said, "The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. " This is true for plans that they will sell in 2014. The grandfathered plans do not have to meet the requirements of the law with the exception of the life time maximum elimination requirement. The regulations allowed plans to be modified to include this change and still meet the grandfather requirements. Premiums of grandfathered plans can be increased but they can not add significant cost to the beneficiary.

Insurance companies were not forced by the law to cancel their plans. Cancelling plans was a business decision. If you look at www.ehealthinsurance.com you will see a number of grandfathered plans listed which insurance companies are not cancelling and will be in effect in 2014. You will also see a number of new plans which are ACA compliant. There are also other plans that have been upgraded to be ACA compliant. Expecting the president to have certain knowledge that insurance companies would cancel, upgrade, or grandfather plans when he signed the law is asking bit much.

Cancelling plans are a business decision.

Correct.

Aren't insurance companies in business?

It's a matter of choosing between getting screwed by the new requirements or cutting loose a few million customers. Which would you do?

Insurance companies cannot stay in business if they are losing money. Obama expected them to do what businesses do to survive. Those evil companies aren't like the government where they lose trillions and don't have to answer to anyone.