And QD thinks everyone is mean and a racist....surprise, surprise, surprise.
It is not about denying people coverage QD, it is about forcing people into buying something they do not need nor want, or paying extra taxes and penalities to provide for someone else. This was not done correctly, and could have been a much better solution to the problem.
The Democrats lied to push this program, It will make a nice meme in the future..
Of course they did. It was the only way it would pass.
This man (Soetoro/Obama) is steadily chipping away at the structure and framework of this country. and if this continues, and we let it continue, in a very short time this America will crumble and fall.
Maternity, breast cancer, drug and alcohol treatment, and mental health issues. All I would not as a 66 year old male require. Although, it has been suggested that repeated contact with me may require those persons may require mental health treatment. 
I drive the left crazy!
====================
It's a short trip for them.
And QD thinks everyone is mean and a racist....surprise, surprise, surprise.
It is not about denying people coverage QD, it is about forcing people into buying something they do not need nor want, or paying extra taxes and penalities to provide for someone else. This was not done correctly, and could have been a much better solution to the problem.
I rest my case against t, he finally admits the harsh truth. He don't want healthcare for everyone.
Let me ask t; who in h ell doesn't need and want health care?
Let me remind you: "you are not to play as God" by denying anyone healthcare.
No QD, what you do not understand is that it is not what I WANT, but the INDIVIDUAL. Why should someone in this country be forced to buy a product (ie. an insurance plan that is more expesnive and provides more than they need) IF THEY DO NOT WANT IT? Do you see what I am saying? it is not your right to force me or anyone else into purchasing something they do not want or need. The liberal mentality is that the government should be allowed to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, all the while staying out of my bedroom or personal affairs. It is a two edged sword that is swung frequently on both sides of the aisle, however this montrosity is a mess created by Obama and Dems.
And QD thinks everyone is mean and a racist....surprise, surprise, surprise.
It is not about denying people coverage QD, it is about forcing people into buying something they do not need nor want, or paying extra taxes and penalities to provide for someone else. This was not done correctly, and could have been a much better solution to the problem.
====================
What Isn't Racist? According to the Media, Nothing
http://www.cnsnews.com/comment...ording-media-nothing
President Obama's election was supposed to usher in an era of racial unity greater than any Americans had previously experienced. By making the historic move to place the first black president in the White House, Americans signified that they were ready to move beyond the racial conflicts of the past and move forward, arm-in-arm.At least that's what we were told. So much for that.In the last two weeks, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, official hot-air-trial balloon for the Obama administration's public relations strategy, has played the race card incessantly. First, he proclaimed that Republican New Jersey senatorial candidate Steve Lonegan was using a racist "dog whistle" when he stated that Cory Booker's Newark was a "black hole" for state tax funds. Then, Matthews said that tea partiers using the word "we the people" to describe the country signified racism, since not everyone agrees with the tea party program.
And it is not about WANTING or NEEDING healthcare. It is about a population of people who think that it should be free of charge. That group of people want the rest of us, who are already paying for ours, to pay for theirs as well. Now that the largest percentage of people have realized that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that they will be getting an increase in the premiums to pay for those others, I expect we will see more and more revolt aginst this mandate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...health-plan/?hpid=z1
I suspect that the only way to get to a single-payer Shangrala is to totally bugger-up the present healthcare system. People won't want to pay for a overly expensive catastrophic care plan which is what they are getting with those high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. Doctors and hospitals that are part of the networks need to see a bunch of patients to be profitable. If people can't afford the deductible, they're not going.
I just watched Sebellius(sp) grilled and she was asked about the fact that a male would be forced to purchase maternity coverage in his single policy. She stumbled around and made some comment about how "yes, this is true, but it provides family coverage"....WTH? Does she not realize that there is a difference in family and indiviual polices and that you pay a different price for both? How can someone who is tasked with running a program like this not have a clue about what she is actually talking about? The more people like her talk, the dumber they make this administration look!
Almost felt sorry for Sebelius, almost! She's now the national piñata. She did stand up and say she was responsible for the website snafu. Still, she is parsing her words with Clitonesque care.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...health-plan/?hpid=z1
I suspect that the only way to get to a single-payer Shangrala is to totally bugger-up the present healthcare system. People won't want to pay for a overly expensive catastrophic care plan which is what they are getting with those high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. Doctors and hospitals that are part of the networks need to see a bunch of patients to be profitable. If people can't afford the deductible, they're not going.
____________________________
I suspect a single payer system is the goal. However, the counter argument is how could you trust the same people with all your healthcare, when they so screwed this up.
The only two nations with true single payer included the Soviet Union and Canada. Canada no longer has a single payer system because of the problems with specialist care. Their supreme court ruled against it. Insurance and private hospitals and clinics are back.
The US government does have a small single payer system -- VA. Ask a vet who seeks major care about his experience;
She won't last till the end of this administration. You could almost see her thinking to herself..."What was I thinking when I took this job?"
you boys just cannot stand to see a woman defend herself can you? Sebelius is such a woman. You two are an embarrassment.
…..and BTW t, I’ve explained this to you before. When those charged with relieving human suffering fail in that commission by default the Federal Government will afford that to the publick and make citizens pay for it based on their ability to pay. Now if you want to allow %95 of workers a fair wage rather than hawg it all for yourselves the burden will relieve itself. Arithmetic.
To Best, I don't know the insurance company. A friend repeated the story to me several times over about a 3 year period.
To the others, I've lived long enough to have "senior moments" and I ain't giving them up.
well, i wonder when the republicans will admit the insurance companies are out for more profit and just don't want to keep the "grandfathered" policies? there is little to no profit left for the insurance companies in these policies and they get to blame obama for the action.
well, i wonder when the republicans will admit the insurance companies are out for more profit and just don't want to keep the "grandfathered" policies? there is little to no profit left for the insurance companies in these policies and they get to blame obama for the action.
_____________________________________________
Sorry, NBC exposed that was not true. The Obamacare law was the reason.
"Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t
meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. "
Even NBC, whose editorial staff turned left a few years ago, ain't buying Obama's lies anymore.
Obamacare depends upon those who were canceled signing up for more expensive insurance to make the system work.
no, dire. NBC did NOT prove that was because of "obamacare". obamacare doesn't make the policy, nor to they care if you keep your current policy... your insurance company is in the business of profit. once the policies in question are no longer profitable, they're no good to the insurance companies. not to mention the insurance companies are doing their best to maximize profits in the short time they see they have left to do so.
no, dire. NBC did NOT prove that was because of "obamacare". obamacare doesn't make the policy, nor to they care if you keep your current policy... your insurance company is in the business of profit. once the policies in question are no longer profitable, they're no good to the insurance companies. not to mention the insurance companies are doing their best to maximize profits in the short time they see they have left to do so.
What part of "mandate" do you not understand, you Goob?
The basis of the braying jackass in the White House’s claim that “If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan” was a provision in the Obamacare law which purported to “grandfather” all insurance policies in place on March 23, 2010 from any of the new requirements in it – virtually all of which have the effect of making it more expensive for insurance policies to cover you. But in order for that “grandfathering” to take place, the insurer can’t make “significant” changes in the policy – and the Department of Health and Human Services gets to decide what changes are significant. Which means it’s a matter of time before everybody’s individual insurance policy, except for maybe some of the gold-plated ones, goes by the boards and Obamacare takes its place. - See more at: http://thehayride.com/2013/10/...sthash.5bFMCF6V.dpuf
…..and BTW t, I’ve explained this to you before. When those charged with relieving human suffering fail in that commission by default the Federal Government will afford that to the publick and make citizens pay for it based on their ability to pay. Now if you want to allow %95 of workers a fair wage rather than hawg it all for yourselves the burden will relieve itself. Arithmetic.
A fair wage is whatever your skills command in the marketplace.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
It must be secretly embarrassing to be attempt to defend the administration's lies, when even liberal rags like the Washington Post and left wing TV corporations like NBC agree Obama lied. Reminds me of the sycophants defending Nixon right before he resigned. The bill of particulars against Tricky D*ickie included that he considered using the IRS against his political enemies. In this administration, there was actual IRS intimidation.
Nixon resigned as there was residual honor in his character. This administration is too arrogant, and too oblivious of its failings to consider such an action.
These policies that are getting cancelled, what coverage do they offer? Does anyone know? Has that ever been part of the discussion?
From Newbusters, come an article combining the findings from Forbes that up to 93 million would be dropped, not just individual purchasing their own policies and companies, as well.
JT -
Here you are:
1. Some old plans don't meet new requirements under the ACA. Starting in 2014, most health plans will have to cover 10 "essential health benefits," from hospitalization to maternity care to dental care for children. Most will also have to limit out-of-pocket expenses to no more than $6,350 for an individual plan or $12,700 for a family plan. And they'll have to meet a minimum "actuarial value," generally meaning that across a standardized population, the insurer will have to expect to pay at least 60% of health care costs incurred by plan participants.
If your existing plan doesn't meet these requirements, it's likely that it's getting canceled. And since the new plan you're getting will offer more comprehensive coverage, it's likely to be more expensive, especially if you're young and healthy and don't qualify for a premium subsidy.
http://www.businessinsider.com...013-10#ixzz2jS6yNOGT
and what are those ten benefits?
} Ambulatory patient services
} Emergency services
} Hospitalization
} Laboratory services
} Maternity and newborn care
} Mental health and substance abuse services, including behavioral health treatment
} Prescription drugs
} Rehabilitative and habilitate services and devices
} Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
} Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
I'm hearing many of the policies being cancelled are due to the maternity/pediatric care issue. After all, what does a man need maternity insurance for? Or a 70 year old woman who can no longer have children? Their current policies, that THEY SELECTED, didnt include these services. Its like being told you MUST carry rental insurance on your auto policy when you have an extra vehicle at home. Being forced to purchase something you not only DONT WANT, but surely DONT NEED.
But, of course, they have to pay for it all somehow, why not spread it around to those that cant use it......
Thank you for an intelligent posting which answered my question.
MIAMI (AP) — Dean Griffin liked the health insurance he purchased for himself and his wife three years ago and thought he'd be able to keep the plan even after the federal Affordable Care Act took effect.
But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.
The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple, who live near Delaware, won't be able to see doctors they've used for more than a decade.
"We're buying insurance that we will never use and can't possibly ever benefit from. We're basically passing on a benefit to other people who are not otherwise able to buy basic insurance," said Griffin, who is retired from running an information technology company.
The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.
They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.
Those not eligible for subsidies generally receive more comprehensive coverage than they had under their soon-to-be-canceled policies, but they'll have to pay a lot more.
Because of the higher cost, the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty — about $100 or 1 percent of income next year — rather than buying health insurance. They say they are healthy and don't typically run up large health care costs. Dean Griffin said that will be cheaper because it's unlikely they will get past the nearly $13,000 deductible for the coverage to kick in.
Individual health insurance policies are being canceled because the Affordable Care Act requires plans to cover certain benefits, such as maternity care, hospital visits and mental illness. The law also caps annual out-of-pocket costs consumers will pay each year.
In the past, consumers could get relatively inexpensive, bare-bones coverage, but those plans will no longer be available. Many consumers are frustrated by what they call forced upgrades as they're pushed into plans with coverage options they don't necessarily want.
Ken Davis, who manages a fast food restaurant in Austin, Texas, is recovering from sticker shock after the small-business policy offered by his employer was canceled for the same reasons individual policies are being discontinued.
His company pays about $100 monthly for his basic health plan. He said he'll now have to pay $600 monthly for a mid-tier silver plan on the state exchange. The family policy also covers his 8-year-old son. Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy, he said the $600 he's left to pay is too high. He's considering the penalty.
"I feel like they're forcing me to do something that I don't want to do or need to do," Davis, 40, said.
Owners of canceled policies have a few options. They can stay in the same plan for the same price for one more year if they have one of the few plans that were grandfathered in. They can buy a similar plan with upgraded benefits that meets the new standards — likely at a significant cost increase. Or, if they make less than $45,960 for a single adult or $94,200 for a family of four, they may qualify for subsidies.
Just because a policy doesn't comply with the law doesn't mean consumers will get cancellation letters. They may get notices saying existing policies are being amended with new benefits and will come with higher premiums. Some states, including Virginia and Kentucky, required insurers to cancel old policies and start from scratch instead of beefing up existing ones.
It's unclear how many individual plans are being canceled — no one agency keeps track. But it's likely in the millions. Insurance industry experts estimate that about 14 million people, or 5 percent of the total market for health care coverage, buy individual policies. Most people get coverage through jobs and aren't affected.
Many states require insurers to give consumers 90 days' notice before canceling plans. That means another round of cancellation letters will go out in March and again in May.
Experts haven't been able to predict how many will pay more or less under the new, upgraded plans. An older policyholder with a pre-existing condition may find that premiums go down, and some will qualify for subsidies.
In California, about 900,000 people are expected to lose existing plans, but about a third will be eligible for subsidies through the state exchange, said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the exchange, called Covered California. Most canceled plans provided bare-bones coverage, she said.
"They basically had plans that had gaping holes in the coverage. They would be surprised when they get to the emergency room or the doctor's office, some of them didn't have drug coverage or preventive care," Gonzalez said.
