Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Obamacare, broken down.

Watch this.

THEN, if you have something stupid or rightwingy to say, go ahead.

But not until you watch this.

by Anonymousreply 17511/14/2013

It's not "Obamacare" you right wing freeper! Don't watch this racist freeper video!

by Anonymousreply 109/27/2013

It's produced by the white house, and they are referring to it as obamacare ONLY because that's what many people think of it as. I find r1's hysterical "don't watch it!!" response fascinating.

It's under three minutes.

Please watch it. Then, if you can poke any holes in it, post them!

I am PRO-"obamacare" so r1, stfu.

by Anonymousreply 209/27/2013

...c'mon.... surely someone else has an opinion?

by Anonymousreply 309/27/2013

They are running constant commercials here in ohio with cancer survivors who are all claiming Obamacare would have killed them blah blah blah, that the government is not capable of providing health care. It is full of such large lies it is laughable.

by Anonymousreply 409/27/2013

OP- Your error was using "broken down" in the title without context and it kind of sounds like a stand in for "not working." It sounds like you disapprove. Many Republicans are hysterically using "broken down" to describe Obamacare even before it's started.

And R1, it is known as Obamacare. The White House refers to it as Obamacare. OFA uses it as a hashtag on Twitter. The Kaiser Family Foundation and many healthcare orgs and advocacy groups use it as a hashtag on Twitter. Where the hell have you been for the last three years?

by Anonymousreply 509/27/2013

It's going to work—it's already starting to—and the rethugs are going to seriously regret that they started calling it Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 609/27/2013

thanks, r5. You're right. I mean of course "breaking it down" as in explaining...

by Anonymousreply 709/27/2013

....where are the Obamacare critics??!

by Anonymousreply 809/27/2013

Because there is nothing to criticize, except fear of 'obamacare' working.

by Anonymousreply 909/27/2013

One of the dangerous points for those of us who support ACA is dealing with people who claim that premiums will go up, yada, yada. Many people don't realize that they have to go through the marketplace exchanges in order to get the better/reduced pricing. If they go through an uncertified/unapproved insurance agent (think used car salesman) or through the insurance companies directly, they will not get the benefit of the advanced tax credit/subsidy.

Of course, the insurance companies will jack up the prices wherever they are legally permitted to do so. Republicans are selectively presenting this last bit as evidence that Obamacare isn't working. Really?! Because some people are uninformed or can't figure out how to get the lower-priced insurance, Obamacare isn't working?

In fact, the exchanges are an open, competitive marketplace and should be a free market advocate's wet dream. Up until now, it's been nearly impossible for consumers to comparatively shop and choose what's best for them because they way the system was, it was difficult for the average person to compare and contrast available products on the basis of price for services offered. Insurance companies now have to stand on their own merits for the consumer to choose.

by Anonymousreply 1009/27/2013

CBS: Costs soar under Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 1109/27/2013

Even before this bill was passed, people have tried to shut down any conversation/debate about it, why? Any analysis=freeper. Grow up.

by Anonymousreply 1209/27/2013

r12, then critique it herin!

by Anonymousreply 1309/27/2013

Yes, it is. October 1 is going to be an absolute circus

by Anonymousreply 1409/27/2013

Anytime something so relatively huge is implemented there are kinks to work out.

Your point, r14?

by Anonymousreply 1509/27/2013

Yes, it is what, R14? You do realize enrollment isn't a one day affair, right? It will run from Oct. 1 through March (this time around since it's the first time to give people ample opportunity to enroll).

by Anonymousreply 1609/27/2013

There is NOTHING in that short video that doesn't sound like improvement to a horrible system.

by Anonymousreply 1709/27/2013

R11: please check where the "unbiased" info in that link came from. (hint: right wing think tank)

by Anonymousreply 1809/27/2013

Too true r18.

Or, as someone else wrote about r11's link:

"The supposedly big price hikes in this article only exist if you compare an existing catastrophe-only plan with one of the new plans that meets the ACA minimum requirements. So yes, people that only had catastrophic plan before are going to have to pay more for insurance, just like people that had no insurance before are now going to have to pay more for insurance. The whole point of the law is to make sure everyone is covered by a minimum level of insurance. To call these changes "price hikes" is extremely disingenuous."

by Anonymousreply 1909/27/2013

The menopausal frau author of that article was also pissed off because plans are required to provide maternity coverage.

by Anonymousreply 2009/27/2013

as well they should!

by Anonymousreply 2109/27/2013

I'll admit I had fiscal reservations about the ACA initially because I do feel that the administration didn't communicate the costs and ramifications initially, largely due to what a very very complicated piece of legislation it was, by necessity. But learning more about how it would actually work and what my options are going to be and what the projected economic impact is going to be has won me over. I think the plan can and will work long-term and that the GOP's Chicken Little pearl clutching will be seen as exactly that in the history books.

by Anonymousreply 2209/27/2013

It's Medicare and the big stink the Birch Society made about.

All over again.

Same people. A few generations later.

by Anonymousreply 2309/27/2013

...still no one has refuted anything in that video.

Fascinating.

by Anonymousreply 2409/27/2013

and still the GOP is hell bent of defunding/overturning ACA. They will shut down the government to do it. It seems to be their one blinding ambition. Because if it is successful in the next 3 years - they will never get a republican president in the white house. Stopping it before it is a success will make them heroes...and people will never know what they could have had.

by Anonymousreply 2509/27/2013

But CAN they?!! If October 1 comes and goes they can't stop it, right?

by Anonymousreply 2609/27/2013

They can defund it. There are huge parts of ACA they have delayed in concessions to the republicans.

by Anonymousreply 2709/27/2013

If everything in that white house video is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, we shall soon see it in action.

by Anonymousreply 2809/27/2013

.

by Anonymousreply 2909/27/2013

The Repunlicans know that if ACA works its curtains for them. It already is.

by Anonymousreply 3009/27/2013

Ezra Klein:

Months before it launched in 2006, Medicare Part D was less popular than today’s Affordable Care Act — 21 percent of the public viewed it favorably while 66 percent did not understand how it would work.

The rollout was a disaster. Some seniors who earned too much to qualify for subsidies received them anyway. Some low-income enrollees who should have received financial aid didn’t. On "Fox News Sunday," then-House Minority Leader John Boehner didn’t mince words. “The implementation of the Medicare plan has been horrendous,” he said.

Today, Medicare Part D has more than 50 million beneficiaries and is extremely popular. In an October survey, over 90 percent of enrollees described themselves as satisfied. “The temporary issues were just that, temporary,” said Mark McClellan, who led Medicare during the rollout. “The memories didn’t last that long. In the end, it comes down to how good the insurance coverage is.”

by Anonymousreply 3109/27/2013

There are a lot of things like men being forced to accept and pay for maternity benefits for themselves that aren't well known yet.

Another thing is the annual deductible. If a person only had one doctor visit per year that they paid for in cash without insurance, they're still going to have to pay for all of that one office visit, but in addition, 12 months of premium.

by Anonymousreply 3209/27/2013

Good god, are there really people like R32 that do not understand how INSURANCE works??

by Anonymousreply 3309/27/2013

Please don't listen to R32 He doesn't seem to get a very basic tenet of Obamacare: Preventive care and annual checkups are free. Could you dazzle us with some more of your knowledge?

Regarding maternity benefits, I'm not sure how you think men will be paying for them. (at least you do know that better maternal care means reduced future medical costs, right?) In fact, prior to this insurance companies penalized women, despite not using maternity services:

[quote]The National Women’s Law Center recently found that in states that haven’t banned the practice, over 90% of the best selling plans charge women more than men, even though only 3% of them cover maternity services. In fact, even when maternity care is excluded, almost a third of plans charge women at least 30% more than men for the same coverage.

Also, keep in mind that Obamacare now covers birth control, so you will have fewer unwanted crotch spawn to complain about. Please, R32, at least tell us that you know what fewer unwanted children means in terms of $$$.

by Anonymousreply 3409/27/2013

In related news, the "CBS News" article in idiot R11's link is a press release from the helpful plutocratic wingnuts at the Manhattan Institute.

by Anonymousreply 3509/27/2013

Oh, please, oh, please, R32 will you come back and explain all of this to us?!

Well?!

by Anonymousreply 3609/27/2013

One small problem. It is not AFFORDABLE. If you make 45k you get NO subsidy.

You are taking home just over 600 a week in NYC. You are likely paying out 2k in rent or close to it.

This gives you 400 a month for everything else. You simply cannot afford to pay a 300 a month premium.

The affordable care act is not affordable and that is the problem.

by Anonymousreply 3709/28/2013

if you make 45K and pay 2k in rent then you are an idiot anyways.

by Anonymousreply 3809/28/2013

[quote]One small problem. It is not AFFORDABLE. If you make 45k you get NO subsidy.

This is a problem and I believe it will be fixed going forward. As it stands now, there is a hard and fast number for a subsidy. They need to fix this by phasing it in instead of drawing the line with a fixed income amount.

This won't be perfect out of the gate. The thing that really pisses me off is the republicans are trying to make it fail. I really wish the members of congress had to go on the plan, then they would make effort to make it a good system.

by Anonymousreply 3909/28/2013

Not a solution R38.

It is not an uncommon situation in NY. Or maybe the rent is 1990 because the person has been in the apartment several years.

Say they got laid off and had to accept a much lower paying job, don't have the cash to move and no extra for insurance.

It is simply NOT affordable for a lot of people. Time to face reality instead of calling names.

by Anonymousreply 4009/28/2013

The dolts don't realize that if they already have insurance, they won't be affected at all. My insurance company sent me a letter...begging me to stay when aca goes into effect.

by Anonymousreply 4109/28/2013

The insurance is affordable, R40. Your lifestyle isn't.

by Anonymousreply 4209/28/2013

thanks for finding this thread. I tried searching before i started the new one.

by Anonymousreply 4309/28/2013

R42 you are full of shit.

Until you reach about 85K in NY you do not have disposable income in the amount that would allow you to spend more than 300 on insurance.

This is also true in SF and a few other cities.

AFFORDABLE for the people in the 50 to 80 range in many cities would have to be under 100 without the OUTRAGEOUS co-pays. A hospital stay will bankrupt many people on these plans.

by Anonymousreply 4409/28/2013

I am mind-boggled by how many posters seem to be against the concept of INSURANCE. Ignorant about how it works, and idiotic about this particular case.

Do none of you have CAR INSURANCE???

it's the same basic premise. Dolts.

by Anonymousreply 4509/28/2013

R37 and R40 is your point that we shouldn't move forward with implementation?

Is it your point that all public policy should be crafted to cover people who earn a living wage (or more) but have made financial commitments beyond their means?

Is it your point that sometimes the names politicians pick for bills are not 100% accurate?

Is it your point that Obamacare will make health care less affordable?

Is your point that Obamacare is not single-payer universal health care so it should be dumped?

by Anonymousreply 4609/28/2013

... and still no refuting of ANYTHING in that video...

by Anonymousreply 4709/28/2013

Why did the Democrats, the Obamas, whoever, wait so long to expound in detail about the benefits of Obamacare/ACA?

by Anonymousreply 4809/28/2013

don't know, but what do you make of the video.

See anything in there that you don't like, r48?

by Anonymousreply 4909/28/2013

No, not at all, R49. That's my point. The Republicunts have done an excellent job of pointing out the horribleness of the ACA, and the Democrats have countered it with virtually nothing. That commercial is the first thing I've ever seen that speaks about the positive aspects.

How the hell did they let this happen? It's so easy to pick out any number of positive selling points, but the Dems have been silent.

by Anonymousreply 5009/28/2013

r30 told the politicians to vote for the Affordable Health Care bill to find out what's in it. They voted. They still don't know and neither do we.

by Anonymousreply 5109/28/2013

You are an idiot, r51.

Go re-read r31.

by Anonymousreply 5209/28/2013

[quote]very basic tenet of Obamacare: Preventive care and annual checkups are free

That's got to be the most ignorant statement on this board, R34. Doctors don't work for "free" - SOMEONE IS PAYING FOR IT.

by Anonymousreply 5309/28/2013

r32's probably one of those people champing at the bit to invest THEIR Social Security into a 401k-like investment.

by Anonymousreply 5409/28/2013

But Obama made a prediction that once it becomes popular, the Repubs will stop calliong it ObamaCare.

Let's wait and see what happens during the 2014 election cycle, boys and girls.

by Anonymousreply 5509/28/2013

r53, don't be obtuse, do you prefer the language "included benefit"?

Yes, everyone is paying for it and all people get the benefit.

by Anonymousreply 5609/28/2013

Obama's foreign policy has been tremendously positive. I don't understand how anyone could criticize him in that regard. His ACA will be a fantastic step forward for America's healthcare.

by Anonymousreply 5709/28/2013

R38 - so true. You can't afford to live in NYC then - plain and simple. What would happen to that person making 45K if they DIDN'T have insurance and had an illness? Absolute financial ruin.

Stupid.

by Anonymousreply 5809/28/2013

there is a REASON people need insurance.

There's homeowner's insurance.

Car insurance.

Health insurance.

The home and car is mandatory.

It makes TOTAL sense for health to join that club, finally.

by Anonymousreply 5909/28/2013

People are making big bucks sabotaging Obamacare just before its rollout.

by Anonymousreply 6009/28/2013

Regarding R11's link, the author of that article links to a Manhattan Institute analysis, the first clue that its a less than honest and unbiased look at the ACA. Notice how she doesn't link to the actual analysis, but to other, shall we say, suspect pieces? Then, she goes on to say that no blog commenters have written her that their coverage was going to be better. Well, imagine that... A right-wing hack whose readership doesn't post contradictory comments!

Where she loses all credibility, however, is trying to claim that her insurance cost $208 a month as a 50-something year old woman. Again, notice that the only detail she provides is that her annual checkup was/is included in that premium (oh gosh, why does that sound familiar? BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE FEATURES OF OBAMACARE THAT ALREADY KICKED IN!) and a deductible of $5000. Well, if that's all that $208 a month was buying, she was/is getting ripped off. It amounts to a catastrophic coverage plan that paid for a single office visit because it had to.

The whole point of the exchanges is to allow people to look at their options and choose the coverage that's right for them, side-by-side, so that you have an understanding of the actual costs and benefits. The way we have bought insurance in the past is so convoluted, it's hard to draw a comparison, but basically it goes like this: you get a job, and someone at your new company decides what coverage you get based on what they want to pay. It's as though the company was providing your car, and decided that all you need is to get back and forth from work. Never mind if you have kids, and need to drive them to soccer practice. Never mind if you have no kids, and don't need an SUV. Never mind if you live in a cold climate and want heated seats. You'll take the car the company can negotiate the best deal for, and that's it.

Now, it's going to be rocky for a few years while people figure out that they have to think about their circumstances and buy the right level of insurance coverage. For a 50-something year old, post menopausal woman, if she were really healthy, choosing the cheapest and least coverage plan might be okay for a year or two; but, god help her if she finds a lump in her breasts one day and decides to get it looked at. She's going to get to her max-out-of-pocket very quickly. But, at least under the ACA, she'll have the coverage to deal with the issue, won't have to worry that her insurance company will drop her the moment she receives that diagnosis (unlike her $208 a month existing plan), and she won't have to worry that after receiving treatment for her issue, that the next problem won't be covered because she hit a lifetime cap (again, like her $208 existing plan).

The bottom line is that it is disingenuous for someone like the author of this CBS opinion piece to say her premiums are "skyrocketing" when 1) she didn't divulge all of the details of her existing plan; 2) didn't give any details about her current health status; 3) didn't provide any balance to her reporting, looking at all of the other studies that show that the cost for coverage is in fact decreasing -- in states that are implementing the exchanges, like California and New York; and 4) she presented cherry-picked details and examples (as rightwingnuts are wont to do) to make a point.

by Anonymousreply 6109/28/2013

thank you so much for posting, r61!

by Anonymousreply 6209/28/2013

Regarding R27's assertion that the Pubbies in the House can defund Obamacare, the reality is that they cannot. The bill actually places most of the costs in the mandatory column of the Federal budget, and even though they made a big show out of trying, even if the Senate had gone along with it and even more unlikely even if Obama had signed their CR (another cheat on the budgetary process brought to you by worthless politicians who can't do their jobs), the ACA would proceed as planned. What their 2-month budgetary trick would do is just kick the can down the road, cause havoc in the rest of the government, and end up creating an even worse mess. But that was the goal, after all, since the Pubbies have succeeded spectacularly at making people believe government is bad and can't do anything. Well, put a bunch of buffoons in charge and then act shocked -- shocked! -- when they are revealed for not knowing how to do much of anything, let alone, govern.

Canadian Ted Cruz's little sideshow was a disgrace to the Senate. These teabaggers are going to do everything they can to destroy everything we've done for the American people for the past 75 years. Just look at Texas, where teatards reign supreme: they can't even pave the roads! But they have time to make sure that when a woman wants an abortion, she has to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound regardless of need, medical advice, or free will. So much for the teatards' claims of individual liberty, freedom from government intrusion and fiscal responsibility.

by Anonymousreply 6309/28/2013

If you make $45k, then you can't afford to live in NYC or SF, period. And you certainly can't afford $2k a month in rent. You need to stop living beyond your means and move to a place that you can afford. There are many places within a few hours drive of NYC that have half the living costs of NYC.

by Anonymousreply 6409/28/2013

Obamacare is a fucking joke that will end up pissing off everyone.... and then it will be swiftly and justly killed off.

by Anonymousreply 6509/28/2013

you wish, r65. sorry. not going to happen.

by Anonymousreply 6609/28/2013

Jonathan Gruber, the mastermind behind Romneycare, provides his perspective:

The number of people covered by employer-based health-care plans is dropping by a percentage point a year. The system is falling apart. So you put in a new safety net. That means a few more people are going to come in. If you’re not willing to risk making some things worse, you’re never going to make anything better. My estimate is that 80 percent of the people are not going to feel any change at all, and that 17 percent or so are going to find that things are better, and that about two or three percent will be worse off, and those are the people who benefit from the discriminatory nature of health-insurance at the present time. If health-insurance companies can’t discriminate any more, those people will have to pay a little more. When we decided that people couldn’t discriminate in what they paid black people or women any more, people had to pay more because employers couldn’t discriminate in what they paid black people and women. Was that a bad thing?

by Anonymousreply 6709/28/2013

Actually no one is making the argument that Obamacare is like car or homeowner insurance.

Because it's not. Neither are mandatory for everyone. If you don't own a car or home - no requirement to carry the insurance.

Don't get me wrong, I support Obamacare.

But it works financially because it requires people who don't need or want health insurance to purchase it.

If you're under 30 and in good health you don't really need the level of coverage Obamacare requires.

by Anonymousreply 6809/28/2013

too bad. we are all going to get sick, grow old and eventually die.

it's time for all of us to acknowledge that and pay into the system.

If EVERYONE owned a car and a home it WOULD be mandatory.

Everyone DOES 'own" a human body that will eventually need medical care.

by Anonymousreply 6909/28/2013

The government isn't capable of running a huge healthcare organization! ...except Medicare... and Medicaid ... and the Veterans healthcare plan ...and others.

But those plans aren't perfect, there's huge fraud in them! Yep, they aren't perfect. Big surprise there. While providing healthcare insurance to millions, some bad stuff happens. Just like the rest of life, they're not perfect.

by Anonymousreply 7009/28/2013

[quote]If you're under 30 and in good health you don't really need the level of coverage Obamacare requires.

I disagree. Life is a crap shoot. You never know when an accident or illness could happen. I was always very healthy, until they found the brain aneurysm.

by Anonymousreply 7109/28/2013

[quote]But it works financially because it requires people who don't need or want health insurance to purchase it.

Like all those people who pay into Social Security when they are young...

by Anonymousreply 7209/28/2013

R66 is fucking delusional.

Personally, I can't wait for the shit to hit the fan.

by Anonymousreply 7309/28/2013

It's not like Social Security. If it was Medicare for everyone - it would be like Social Security.

Look, it's a compromise plan. Unlike anything else we have done. The compromise is a government mandates on individuals and insurance companies to provide coverage to the uninsured. At the same time it is done through the private sector allowing health insurance companies to continue to exist, grow and prosper.

I never claimed if you were under 30 and in good health you don't need health insurance. As a demographic they don't need the level of insurance required.

My concern is that Obamacare will need to improved and the Republicans won't let the improvements happen.

For example insurance companies are already gaming the system. They are using the tried and true method of redlining. Policy prices will vary based upon geographic areas. I suspect in five years we will see that policies are more expensive in lower income areas.

Already there is a problem for low income families where employer based plans are offered. The cost of adding dependents can be very high - but since the family has access to an employer based plan they aren't eligible for a subsidy. In short they're screwed.

by Anonymousreply 7409/28/2013

Oh, R65, just keep telling yourself that. And whatever you do, don't buy any insurance. But by the same token, when you break your leg, don't go to the emergency room and demand that a doctor put you in a cast (or give you any pain meds) because its all just a fucking joke.

I really think this is an opportunity for the right to put their money where their mouths are. Sign an oath that you don't want to buy into Obamacare, but which also precludes you from ever buying into it. No exceptions. And when you die from a simple infection, or go bankrupt from injuries sustained In a car accident, or can't buy high blood pressure meds subsidized by all those youngsters who don't need coverage today, well, we'll note it on your grave: here lays a dipshit who said "Obamacare is a joke."

by Anonymousreply 7509/28/2013

There is an argument that young people get stuck paying more for insurance and are subsidizing older people's insurance.

I think that's only true for healthy unemployed young people who don't qualify for 18 months of COBRA coverage; and who are over 26 and can't stay in their parents plan (thanks Obamacare for that). Or the same person who's working but has shitty employers who won't provide insurance (thanks Obamacare for the penalty on large employers not providing insurance). Is that a large percentage of the population? If you're in that group, it always sucks to pay more for anything that you're used to paying.

None-the-less, healthy young people eventually become less-healthy older people, God willing. Also, their subsidy of older people's healthcare insurance can't possibly approach the sum that older people pay in subsidizing young people's public education and tax deduction.

by Anonymousreply 7609/28/2013

[quote]The cost of adding dependents can be very high - but since the family has access to an employer based plan they aren't eligible for a subsidy.

This is a good point. I understand that Walmart offers health insurance just to be able to say they offer it. However, it is so crappy and expensive that most of the workforce doesn't sign up for it. These people won't be eligible for the ACA.

by Anonymousreply 7709/28/2013

WalMart's plan for full time employees will have to meet ACA standards.

Yes the ACA does require dependent coverage through employer based plans be extended to 26. The employee will still have to pay for the coverage. But it doesn't require parents to keep children over 18 on their plans.

I imagine that particular provision will lead to some very uncomfortable conversations this Thanksgiving. I'd be surprised to find out a majority of parents want to take on the additional financial burden of insuring their 25 year old kid.

One of the things that really pisses me off are progressives who oppose the plan because it isn't single payer and progressives who refuse to acknowledge it's not perfect but one hell of a great first step.

by Anonymousreply 7809/28/2013

I don't have kids, yet a percentage of my taxes go to fund local schools and colleges for other people's kids. I don't complain because I know that education is a vital part of a successful society.

by Anonymousreply 7909/28/2013

[quote] I don't have kids, yet a percentage of my taxes go to fund local schools and colleges for other people's kids. I don't complain because I know that education is a vital part of a successful society.

You don't see the difference between a tax which funds public schools and a law which directly provides the private sector?

by Anonymousreply 8009/28/2013

r80 you are being deliberately obtuse.

by Anonymousreply 8109/28/2013

R81 - not me, but you.

Look Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

But it is not like Social Security.

It is not like public education.

It is not like Medicare.

What is so wrong with admitting that Obamacare supports private sector insurance companies and actually in the short term will contribute to wealth accumulation by the top 1%?

by Anonymousreply 8209/28/2013

"You don't see the difference between a tax which funds public schools and a law which directly provides the private sector?"

While not twins separated at birth, both serve the public interest, albeit imperfectly.

by Anonymousreply 8309/28/2013

[quote]Sign an oath that you don't want to buy into Obamacare, but which also precludes you from ever buying into it. No exceptions. And when you die from a simple infection, or go bankrupt from injuries sustained In a car accident...

R75, you do realize that Obamacare is not an insurance company. You're scenario makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 8409/28/2013

r61/63 Thanks for your posts. Smart and to the point.

by Anonymousreply 8509/28/2013

R84: I used the term 'Obamacare' as shorthand for the insurance exchanges and changes to the law which govern the insurance market, meaning everything from the pre-existing conditions ban to the mandate that insurance companies must spend 80% of the premiums we pay in actual care. In case you don't know, you can still buy old style insurance that doesn't include ACA-mandated coverage. I can't see why anyone would buy that, but I'm sure some will. And ultimately, just like how non-union employees in a union shop benefit from the presence of the union - things like holiday and overtime pay - in order to remain competitive, all plans will eventually cover pre-existing conditions and come without lifetime caps, so perhaps the point is moot. For that matter, the fact that so many red states are not setting up the exchanges themselves but deferring to the federal government, I believe puts us on the fast track to single-payer, making the whole insurance reform argument moot, as well.

by Anonymousreply 8609/28/2013

" In case you don't know, you can still buy old style insurance that doesn't include ACA-mandated coverage."

He doesn't know that because it's not true--ACA mandated certain benefits (unlimited wellness) as well as other provisions (keeping dependents on until age 26, for example) starting just a few months after the law was passed. All health insurance sold since has those enhanced benefits as part of the coverage.

You really should learn more what you think you know.

by Anonymousreply 8709/28/2013

damn damn damn!

by Anonymousreply 8809/29/2013

r68 you can be covered by your parents insurance up to age 26 so most people under 30 get a better plan and deal through mom and dad.

How corporations view us is the problem. There was a time where healthcare was a benefit that attracted employees. It was in the employers best interest to have healthy employees. Somewhere along the way we changed to expendable. Employers no longer care about the health of an employee because they can hire another one at lower benefits and lower costs. One 20 year employee who requires healthcare, vacation and 401K can be replaced by three offshore employees who require none of that and a fraction of the cost. Healthcare is now just a cost something corporations are fighting to reduce and why we are seeing companies forcing all employees into the HDSA (High deductible) health plans putting more and more cost on the employee rather than the company.

by Anonymousreply 8909/29/2013

[quote] If you make $45k, then you can't afford to live in NYC or SF, period. And you certainly can't afford $2k a month in rent. You need to stop living beyond your means and move to a place that you can afford. There are many places within a few hours drive of NYC that have half the living costs of NYC.

Dear idiot,

Please tell all NYC employers including McDonald's that they must make over 45K the minimum wage so that folks can afford Obamacare. Because you see dear idiot, jobs don't pay that much. More than 50% of New York's residents make less, some far less. You tell them to buy a car and commute a few hours.

by Anonymousreply 9009/29/2013

...still not a single person has been able to refute ANY part of the video I shared.

by Anonymousreply 9109/29/2013

No one one here is even mentioning the city and state workers who pay absolutely nothing into their health insurance. 'Obamacare' will not affect them at all.

A friend's schoolteacher brother is always bragging about his "great healthcare plan" and how "I pay zero into it, no premiums, nothing". This idiot is so smug, he needs to be slapped repeatedly! No wonder her goes to Europe for one month every year.

This must change, I am so sick of subsidizing city and state workers, many who are already making too much money for their substandard work. You want to talk about people bleeding a system!

These are the same jokers who pad their last few years with tons of overtime before retirement, so they can get ever larger pensions. This is not a myth, several people in my family have perpetuated this scam.

As person who has never used any social service programs or had any children use the public school system, I never even used the public school system, after a while, it gets tiresome hearing about city/state workers who pay nothing into their health care.

City and states want to save money, the need to start requiring their workers to pay premiums for their health insurance.

by Anonymousreply 9209/29/2013

R92, you may not have children but you benefit from an educated populace.

I pay $200 a month towards my premium (I am state worker). Do you feel better now? Do you want us all to suffer or do you want to fight back for what's been lost?

by Anonymousreply 9309/29/2013

Um, I live in NYC, and I earn $45K and I have an apartment which costs $800. I can be in Manhattan in 20 minutes. It's called the boroughs.

by Anonymousreply 9409/29/2013

it's called smart.

by Anonymousreply 9509/29/2013

[quote] AFFORDABLE for the people in the 50 to 80 range in many cities would have to be under 100 without the OUTRAGEOUS co-pays. A hospital stay will bankrupt many people on these plans.

Supplemental coverage will pay off those co-pay and deductible costs as well as protect lost income while recovering medically. These insurances are less than $50 per month and are 100% claimable with IRS. Everyone who a sub contractor, a 1099, or self employed should have this coverage anyway.

[quote]A friend's schoolteacher brother is always bragging about his "great healthcare plan" and how "I pay zero into it, no premiums, nothing". This idiot is so smug, he needs to be slapped repeatedly! No wonder her goes to Europe for one month every year. This must change, I am so sick of subsidizing city and state workers, many who are already making too much money for their substandard work. You want to talk about people bleeding a system!

Now examine the federal workers plans (congress and all federal employees) that are even better with pretty much full dental and extended maternity and very attractive drug addiction/mental health benefits.

Someone should expose the republicans and their families on how often and much is spent on getting their kids clean in programs or their wives psychoanalyzed on OUR dime.

Palin, before Obamacare, had a downs syndrome child who would have been declined for coverage before Obamacare prevented children from being declined, ever again.

Republicans are a disgrace on this issue. However, Obama has been fighting this fight virtually alone while liberal fringe groups complain that he didn't secure complete socialized medicine.

The next time Palin or Cruz complain about Obamacare, request that they publish their list of medical claims for their family coverage that they get for nothing (Palin gets on a job she quit. Outrageous) and demand that they pay what the average citizen pays. They are the ones with socialized medicine.

They just don't want you to have it.

by Anonymousreply 9609/29/2013

[quote]I pay $200 a month towards my premium (I am state worker). Do you feel better now? Do you want us all to suffer or do you want to fight back for what's been lost?

It's not about "feeling better" R94, it's about a totally unfair system. As a state worker, surely you must see all the dead wood, people who have lifer jobs who are incompetent yet are protected by their unions?

Fight back for what's been lost, WTF are you talking about?

I would have actually enjoyed hearing that this country was finally going to join the rest of the industrialized world, that we were going to have an option of actually getting 'free' universal health care for all workers. We certainly pay enough taxes to do this!

That's how Europeans have 'free' health care, their taxes work for them....not for bike lanes and all the other shit Bloombucks has put my tax dollars into during his reign!

It would be nice to have some say where my tax dollars are going.

The guy I referenced seems to take great pleasure in bragging about his big salary as well as his 'free health care".

Not only is this annoying twit not paying a dime into this coverage, he is from a wealthy family! He gets an allowance, basically his salary is just extra spending money. Essentially, I am subsidizing some rich bastard!

by Anonymousreply 9709/29/2013

It would be nice to have a say in tax dollar spending; I would redirect many hundreds of billions of dollars from the military industrial complex to public education, for example.

Essentially we are ALL subsidizing rich bastards, but what is your opinion of Obamacare, r97?

by Anonymousreply 9809/29/2013

R94

Tell us how long you have been in your abode?

Where you commute from?

If you have room mates?

By 20 minutes from Manhattan do you mean the first stop into the city up in Inwood?

Where can all the other people who do not make big $$ find these amazing 800 buck apartments so close to the city?

Clearly you have the secret to life.

You make sure and tell everyone who pays more rent than you what they are doing wrong so they too can get Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 9909/29/2013

R82, do you remember the Harry and Louise ads in the 90s? The insurance companies crushed any government efforts toward increased government healthcare programs. Obama got them on board early by going through the private sector so that they wouldn't sink a program.

Remember, this move toward the Affordable Healthcare Act began because of significantly rising healthcare costs. People couldn't get coverage so they ended up in the emergency rooms instead of receiving regular care and all of us pay for that in higher medical fees, higher insurance costs and increased denial of coverage.

by Anonymousreply 10009/29/2013

R98, I think Obamacare is great, it's wonderful that people who were once unable to get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions etc, can now buy it.

I've had the same health care plan since 1983, I belong to an HMO. I am self employed.

My plan no longer exists, I'm happy to be locked in. If I drop it, I wouldn't be able to get the same plan again, especially not for my low premium rate.

Unfortunately, as per most managed care plans, I am limited to seeing the doctors within my managed care system. The HMO does allow patients to go outside the HMO to see cancer an other specialists who accept any HMO under the banner of Emblem Health, which my HMO is now affiliated with.

I pay premiums, the choice is to pay monthly, four times a year, twice a year or yearly. I have no co-pays for doctors, diagnostic tests or hospital stays. I pay small co-pays for my medications. The best part of my insurance is that there is virtually no paperwork to deal with.

The dental part of this plan is quite bad, I didn't like any of dentists in their system, I, of course, didn't see them all, the ones I did see were awful. I've been seeing a private a dentist for years.

by Anonymousreply 10109/29/2013

So, instead of commenting on the "white board" video, or the plan in general, you'd rather talk about your specific gripes with your specific health insurance. OK....

by Anonymousreply 10209/29/2013

[quote]Clearly you have the secret to life.

I am not R94. There are bargains to be found, especially if you are a native New Yorker who either remained in or moved back to their old neighborhoods pre-gentrification. I know several people paying unbelievably low rents, $350 for Kips Bay and $375 for LIC, with a skyline view.

One guy has being living in his Manhattan apartment since 1977, the other inherited their childhood apartment in LIC, a nice large pre-war two bedroom.

My mom gets a kick out of hearing how expensive Greenpoint, Bushwick and Williamsburg have become, especially hearing about the outrageous rents on those old railroad apartments!

by Anonymousreply 10309/29/2013

[quote]So, instead of commenting on the "white board" video, or the plan in general, you'd rather talk about your specific gripes with your specific health insurance. OK....

WTF are you talking about? You are quite the school marm, aren't you?

You asked me what I think about 'Obamacare', I could have been rude and basically told you, "It does not apply to me." Which is essentially the truth.

I am self employed and rather happy with my plan. I survived cancer, I have no plans to even look into 'Obamacare'. Period. Too much on my plate: new accounts and sick elderly parents etc.

I have no plans to drop my health insurance, I basically stated it's great that people once denied health insurance can now buy it.

No you are demanding I watch a video?! I voted for the President, is that enough for you?

by Anonymousreply 10409/29/2013

R89 I keep seeing this brought up over and over. "Hey, you can stay on your parents insurance until you're 26!". I would have been more than embarrassed to even approach my parents about continuing to pay my bills for me to that age. But then again, I actually WANTED to grow up and get my own life, not stay joined at the hip to my "best friends".

And one thing that no one will admit is that a huge part of rising medical costs (and employer's wanting to cut down on them) is simple overutilization. The "mommy" brigade drags little dipshits Brayden & Maddyssyn into the doctor's office every time their ass itches. Then after they do the school dropoff, they run to their own doctors convinced they have the latest bullshit Dr. Oz is blathering on about. Then there's those (plenty admit it here on DL) that are flat out malingering They go in and fake whatever illness in order to get whatever pills they enjoy. And then there's those that are flat out just gaming the system. I worked with a woman years ago who went around bragging to anyone that would listen that she got her tits reduced for just one $10 copay, including the hospital stay. In the next breath, she'd tell you she lied and told them her knockers made her back hurt so they'd cover it.

Yes, employers do not value employers the way they used to, but employees have also been abusing their benefits for a while now, and they know it.

by Anonymousreply 10509/29/2013

[quote]That's how Europeans have 'free' health care, their taxes work for them....not for bike lanes and all the other shit Bloombucks has put my tax dollars into during his reign!

Europeans pay a lot more taxes than you do, percentage-wise, which enables their countries to not only provide universal health care but also to fund many things you'd no doubt deride, including bike lanes.

by Anonymousreply 10609/29/2013

EMPLOYEES ABUSING THEIR BENEFITS?!!?

WHAT benefits?!!!

by Anonymousreply 10709/29/2013

R105, just as you can cite anecdotes about people overusing the system, I can do the opposite. I know many people who haven't seen a doctor at all for years and years. Most people I know hate to go to the doctor, and rapidly increasing co-pays and deductibles have only increased their antipathy.

by Anonymousreply 10809/29/2013

Heck, I have a decent plan by all accounts but I get so nervous about going to the doctor because I worry the insurance company will refuse to cover something.

So we get double screwed in America. Not only do we pay through the nose for health insurance, we also don't even get a guarantee of coverage for all that cost.

by Anonymousreply 10909/29/2013

[quote]I keep seeing this brought up over and over. "Hey, you can stay on your parents insurance until you're 26!". I would have been more than embarrassed to even approach my parents about continuing to pay my bills for me to that age. But then again, I actually WANTED to grow up and get my own life, not stay joined at the hip to my "best friends".

Why assume these young people in their 20s are not working? Not every young person these days is a wealthy hipster or yuppie being subsidized by their rich parents!

Perhaps these young people are working and the employer's plan is awful? Or they are working part time and can't afford the premiums, so they'd rather pay their parents the lower amount towards the parent's coverage plan?

When I was 23, working full time and making a really crappy salary, I was still on my mom's health plan until I was 25. In fact, her plan was better than my father's plan! My father even went on her plan.

I couldn't afford the health plan through my job, I was barely making enough for rent and food. I was allowed to remain on my mom's plan even though I had a full time job. I had my wisdom teeth removed, as well as some other dental work done. I eventually left the low paying job, then went on the new job's health plan.

Why assume young people, who are allowed to remain on their parent's health care plans, are not employed? The assumptions being made in this thread are ridiculous!

by Anonymousreply 11009/29/2013

Indeed.

by Anonymousreply 11109/29/2013

Well, aren't you the clever one, R87. Perhaps if you go back and read my other posts... Oh, who am I kidding. Here, I'll type slowly so you can understand.

There were a host of laws that passed as part of the ACA, and the two that you mentioned were indeed included. However, there were a bunch of provisions that apply only to the plans in the exchanges. However, like I said, these plans will evolve over time to include them due to the competition the exchanges set up.

That said, you can most definitely still buy old style insurance. Hence, the president saying "if you like the plan you're on, you can keep it." But, please, tell my insurance company to stop haranguing me to renew my company's plan (NOW!) because it doesn't include some of the costly provisions they're happy to not provide.

Point of fact: Obamacare does not include "unlimited wellness." What it does include is one physical per year, and all of the attendant tests. That, however, is far, far away from "unlimited." I wish Obamacare did, in fact, include unlimited wellness.

by Anonymousreply 11209/29/2013

R112 is correct. Be very careful about buying existing "grandfathered" plans outside of the exchanges. These "grandfathered" plans are not required to provide some of the consumer protections and benefits that plans bought through the exchanges will have. If you peruse Healthcare.gov they tell you all about this.

by Anonymousreply 11309/29/2013

Scroll down to page 4.

There is a chart showing what is mandated for various plans.

People should also check to see if there plans are self-insured. I think self-insured plans are fairly common in higher ed.

by Anonymousreply 11409/29/2013

R110 Actually, you are the one making the assumption. No where did I suggest that these young people were all unemployed. They still need to stop expecting mommy and daddy to support them to that age.

by Anonymousreply 11509/29/2013

The age 26 was selected due to college/grad school. Children of age who get jobs that offer health insurance will take that over being on mom and dads as there is a premium when you insure someone who is able to get insurance through work. Quite honestly the competition will only drive up the amount of coverage and lower premiums. Competition will always drive down costs.

by Anonymousreply 11609/29/2013

"Point of fact: Obamacare does not include "unlimited wellness." What it does include is one physical per year, and all of the attendant tests."

Not true--again, you state things that are fundamentally wrong. The law is very clear about preventive care. There is no cap--something that did exist prior to coverage effective prior to 1/1/11.

"There were a host of laws that passed as part of the ACA, and the two that you mentioned were indeed included."

There is one law with thousands of provisions. Sheesh, are you even bothering at this point?

"That said, you can most definitely still buy old style insurance."

No, you can't. Try--those policies exist but are *not* sold anymore.

There are plans that will not satisfy requirements that are required as of 1/1/14. You can buy them where available (& they are not available everywhere--it largely depends on your state of residence) , but they will have the non-mythical unlimited wellness & the other features required by ACA. You could even be denied. Those plans have renewal dates that not based on a calendar year plan renewal & are required to phased out in 2014.

Coverage that has been continuously in effect prior to the legislation being signed in March 2010 are even less likely to offer wellness, but are also required to offer dependent coverage to age 26. These plans are also not available for purchase.

Short-term, temporary policies are not required to follow the ACA regulations & will continue to (potentially, depending on the carrier) have pre-existing condition limits & are not required to provide wellness care.

This thread just proves how much misinformation there is out there regarding ACA.

Don't fuck with me--I have lived & breathed implementation of the regs for 2 years for my employer (rhymes with "true floss".)

by Anonymousreply 11709/29/2013

Can NO ONE refute a single thing about that white house video???

Anyone???

by Anonymousreply 11809/30/2013

their pen was squeeky.

by Anonymousreply 11909/30/2013

r117, True Floss is evil.

So is True Yield...

by Anonymousreply 12009/30/2013

The big insurance companies being involved at this level is why the ACA is far from perfect, but STILL NO ONE comes forward to offer anything about how that white house-produced video is not true, which leads me to believe it IS true, which makes it clear that Obamacare is a HUGE step forward in this country's progress towards becoming a more perfect Union.

by Anonymousreply 12109/30/2013

I'm intelligent and educated, but I am so freaking confused by all of this. I have no idea what we're supposed to do now. Could we just please have a national plan?

by Anonymousreply 12209/30/2013

Watch the video, r122.

It's pretty damned simple.

by Anonymousreply 12309/30/2013

OMG! THIS IS ALMOST A PUBLIC OPTION! THIS IS GREAT NEWS!

U.S. Plans to Unveil New Insurance Options By ROBERT PEAR Published: September 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans on Monday to announce scores of new health insurance options to be offered to consumers around the country by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees, according to administration officials.

The options are part of a multistate insurance program that Congress authorized in 2010 to increase options for consumers shopping in the online insurance markets scheduled to open on Tuesday.

Congress conceived multistate plans as an alternative to a pure government-run insurance program — the “public option” championed by liberal Democrats and opposed by Republicans in 2009-10.

“The multistate program will help deliver choice and high-value health plans in the new marketplace, expanding quality, affordable options for uninsured Americans,” an administration official said.

Federal officials said they had signed a contract with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association to offer health insurance next year in the marketplaces, or exchanges, of 30 states and the District of Columbia. In later years, the officials said, they hoped to see at least two multistate plans in every state, as Congress envisioned.

Under its federal contract, Blue Cross and Blue Shield will offer different products in different states — a total of more than 150 products, including health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations, which give discounts for using selected health care providers. In many of the products, consumers will have access to a nationwide network of doctors and hospitals.

The federal government negotiated the benefits and premiums for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield products, so this plan carries a federal seal of approval.

When Congress was debating the health care legislation in 2009, many Democrats wanted the federal government to offer an insurance plan like Medicare, to compete directly with private insurers in the exchanges. In a letter to Congress in June 2009, Mr. Obama said: “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest.”

Supporters of the multistate plans authorized by Congress say the plans will increase competition in local health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by one or two carriers. The multistate plan will, for example, be available next year in New Hampshire and West Virginia, which would otherwise have just one carrier in their exchanges.

Federal officials said the multistate plan would also be in operation next year in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

by Anonymousreply 12409/30/2013

and yet, STILL so much ignorance about the ACA...

by Anonymousreply 12509/30/2013

Unfortunately, the ignorance is being perpetuated by the people that want to keep the USA's masses ignorant and poor.

by Anonymousreply 12609/30/2013

the Affordable Care Act is essentially a plan created by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank filled to the brim with hawkish Republicans.

by Anonymousreply 12709/30/2013

The new "multistate" plans announced today are the "public option" that Democrats wanted, but the administration is not calling it that for fear that it will scare some people off. It looks like it's going to be the same plan that federal employees get, including Congress. We're now going to be able to get the same health insurance that our Congressman have been enjoying for decades.

by Anonymousreply 12809/30/2013

that is truly FANTASTIC, r128! Do you think the administration should publicize this more, or are they trying to keep it quiet...?

by Anonymousreply 12909/30/2013

??

by Anonymousreply 13009/30/2013

I don't think the multi-state plan is the same as the Public Option. This multi-state plan is run by a private company. Unless I'm corrected I assume BCBS is a for-profit organization.

The Public Option as discussed a few years ago would have been run by the government and be like Medicare. It might even have taken the form of letting younger people buy-in to Medicare. The government already runs Medicare, Medicaid, the VA medical plan, and others, so it has experience with this, and does it well. These plans have very low overhead. And people with these plans live them.

One thing I liked about the Public Option was getting the private sector out of the business of making money by denying people health care they need.

by Anonymousreply 13110/01/2013

R122, you forgot to mention that you're good looking, too. 😜

by Anonymousreply 13210/01/2013

[quote]We're now going to be able to get the same health insurance that our Congressman have been enjoying for decades.

Isn't the big difference that congressmen don't pay a dime into their premiums?

These jerks make $175,000 a year and receive free health insurance? They don't even work a full year.

by Anonymousreply 13310/01/2013

No the difference is congress get a subsidy of 12-22K per year for health insurance. Under ACA that goes away and they get the same options we get.

by Anonymousreply 13410/01/2013

Funny, no one bumped this once it became obvious that the website was 22 different kinds of fuckedup.

by Anonymousreply 13510/27/2013

Why should we? What's wrong with the website is pretty easily fixed and has little to do with the success or failure of the program itself. Out here in the real world, the program has been pretty successful thus far, with a greater variety of plans and lower prices than was first estimated.

And then, of course, there's the example of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the more recent example of Medicare, Part D, all of which had massive problems on initial rollout and all of which went on to great success.

by Anonymousreply 13610/27/2013

R136-

Really?

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Obamacare’s Web site, already a tangled mess, might need to be rebuilt from scratch to to protect against cyber-thieves because he fears it’s not a safe place right now for health-care consumers to deposit their personal information.

“ I know that they’ve called in another private entity to try to help with the security of it. The problem is, they may have to redesign the entire system,” Rep. Mike Rogers said on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” political talk show. “The way the system is designed, it is not secure.”

Returning to questions he raised last week at a chaotic oversight hearing on Obamacare, Rogers said healthcare.gov could be vulnerable to cyber-mischief because of a potentially leaky data-sharing arrangement between the seven federal agencies that manage different parts of Obamacare.

“That’s the weakest, most vulnerable part,” Rogers said of the data portals between agencies. “And it was clear to me they don’t have those boundaries secure.”

by Anonymousreply 13710/28/2013

Yes, R137, really. You're actually citing "the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee"? ROFL...

by Anonymousreply 13810/31/2013

The website is the easy part. The ACA is headed over a cliff, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. It's not sustainable, and calling people names isn't going to change that. But hey, if it makes you Libs feel better, have at it.

The current liberal talking point is, "Look how great some of the state exchanges are working." Right. Dig deeper, it's mostly Medicaid signups.

What a cockup.

by Anonymousreply 13911/01/2013

you wish r139.

by Anonymousreply 14011/01/2013

Like it or not the problems are deeper than the website. To work the ACA needs to get enough healthy people to sign up for decent enough plans to keep future premium costs down. There is no evidence yet that this is going to happen. It could, but it also may not. First year penalties for not signing up are very low. If the website isn't soon fixed there will be no penalties at all.

This is a disastrous beginning. It may recover but it's not self evident that it will. Anyone who claims it is is a pure ideologue.

by Anonymousreply 14111/01/2013

As someone on the left who thinks Obama is very right wing, I don't see how this could ever work.

First, he took universal or single payer off the table even without being asked.

And then he forces people to buy services from private companies that are answerable to their shareholders and not to the people who are required by law to be their customers?

And costs will go down?

I don't see it happenng. Surprise me, America.

by Anonymousreply 14211/01/2013

Clearly, r142, you don't understand the rules of the Affordable Care Act. Under it, insurance companies are not allowed to simply maximize profits for the benefit of their shareholders.

There is also no chance in the world single payer would have had the votes. Are you really suggesting that Obama should have started the process fighting a fight he knew he couldn't win?

Maybe America wouldn't surprise you so much if you educated yourself to reality a bit.

by Anonymousreply 14311/01/2013

R143: A private company not allowed to maximize profits. Hmm. Let us see how that plays out in a country where the people in Congress are paid for and put in office by private business. Where some companies are too big to fail and are bailed out with your and my money by the leader who takes the route he can win. So who loses?

And the wave of cancellation of existing policies - after all the big-talk assurances from Obama to the contrary? Oh yeah,pick a fight you can win even if it means a lousy deal.

Let us see, my friend, who needs education about how things really work in America.

by Anonymousreply 14411/01/2013

Do you have an actual argument in there, r144?

I don't understand your connection between the ACA's regulations on insurance companies' profits and those other unrelated things.

Clearly you do thing Obama should fight losing battles though. Which makes you an idiot. Because fighting and dying on single-payer would have left more people in much worse situations than they are now with the ACA.

Yes, the Obama administration did a very lousy job messaging. They should have been clearer that to keep your current healthcare it had to meet minimum standards. They also should have been clearer that any change to existing programs immediately made them unavailable for grandfathering in. But the fact remains, more people will be better off under the ACA by a country mile.

So what exactly should I educate myself about? You make no actual points that could increase my knowledge as far as I can see. On the other hand, you have shown ignorance about several facts, as I have pointed out.

by Anonymousreply 14511/01/2013

R145: I wish I had your faith in the system. I hope for all of us you are right. The act does not exist in isolation. It is bred of the system. Therefore it is related to the way the country is run.

Ah, so it is a matter of message to you is it. I would call it a lie. A lie to sell an idea.

I am not one of those vote for the lesser evil types. We see this has only resulted in Republican lite leadership and programs like Obamacare it produces.

While most people supported a single payer system and no-one really likes insurance companies coming between their doctor and the patient, between preventive medicine and health, there was a cave-in even before discussions started. Or a sell-out as some of us would have it.

Obamacare means we have been denied the healthcare people want for a few more generations. Because we had no debate, no discussion, no leadership.

And I can't think of any product one is required to buy, can you? My friend, this is corporate welfare for insurance companies.

By the way, I know this is DL but do refrain from abusive language. It is bad manners.

by Anonymousreply 14611/01/2013

Care to point out my abusive language?

And while you are at explain to me what possible debate or discussion would have led to single-payer. Be sure to explain how anything would have persuaded the necessary Senators.

The ACA is not what I would have wanted. But it was the best that could have been done in the world we actually live in.

by Anonymousreply 14711/01/2013

This on-going acceptance of what leaders on our side have given us without fighting for what we want and elected them for is what has brought our country to where we are today R147.

Calling me an idiot is abusive by my standards, and I hope I am not alone in thinking this and that it is also by our social and cultural standards as well.

by Anonymousreply 14811/01/2013

r148 not only are you an idiot, but you are also quite odd.

by Anonymousreply 14911/02/2013

R149: There you go again. There's no medicine for the shameless.

by Anonymousreply 15011/02/2013

All those posters cheering Obamacare in prior posts in this thread, now are left with egg on their faces. Even Obama is saying it's a mess.

by Anonymousreply 15111/02/2013

still trolling, r151?

by Anonymousreply 15211/02/2013

Actually, r149 isn't the same person who called you an idiot before. That would be me.

The ACA is not a disaster. The website launch was a disaster. No one disputes the latter. So grow up, r151.

by Anonymousreply 15311/02/2013

If being called an idiot on an anonymous gossipboard know for snark is "abusive" I would suggest Mr. ACA is a Disaster might want to take his schtick elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 15411/02/2013

Ah sorry R153 to not give you the credit. You are the one who is shameless and without manners. Sure this is snarky DL, R154. Rudeness is rudeness.

by Anonymousreply 15511/02/2013

A tech firm linked to a campaign-donor crony of President Obama not only got the job to help build the federal health-insurance Web site — but also is getting paid to fix it.

Anthony Welters, a top campaign bundler for Obama and frequent White House guest, is the executive vice president of UnitedHealth Group, which owns the software company now at the center of the ObamaCare Web-site fiasco.

UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI), which built the data hub for the ObamaCare system, has been named the new general contractor in charge of repairing the glitch-plagued HealthCare.gov.

Welters and his wife, Beatrice, have shoveled piles of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers and ­apparently reaped the rewards.

...

The couple have been frequent guests at the White House.

Visitors logs show at least a dozen visits between the two by the end of 2012, the most recent information available.

The entire Welters family has gotten into the donation game.

The Welters, along with their sons, Andrew and Bryant, have contributed more than $258,000 to mostly Democratic candidates and committees since 2007.

What’s more, UnitedHealth Group is one of the largest health-insurance companies in the country and spent millions lobbying for ObamaCare.

...

The insurance giant’s purchase of QSSI in 2012 raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, but the tech firm nevertheless kept the job of building the data hub for the ObamaCare Web site where consumers buy the new mandatory health-­insurance plans.

QSSI has been paid an estimated $150 million so far, but officials couldn’t say how much more the company might collect on the repair contract.

by Anonymousreply 15611/02/2013

Just more cronyism by the government.

---

A tech firm linked to a campaign-donor crony of President Obama not only got the job to help build the federal health-insurance Web site — but also is getting paid to fix it.

Anthony Welters, a top campaign bundler for Obama and frequent White House guest, is the executive vice president of UnitedHealth Group, which owns the software company now at the center of the ObamaCare Web-site fiasco.

UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI), which built the data hub for the ObamaCare system, has been named the new general contractor in charge of repairing the glitch-plagued HealthCare.gov.

Welters and his wife, Beatrice, have shoveled piles of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers and ­apparently reaped the rewards. Via NYPost--

...

The couple have been frequent guests at the White House.

Visitors logs show at least a dozen visits between the two by the end of 2012, the most recent information available.

The entire Welters family has gotten into the donation game.

The Welters, along with their sons, Andrew and Bryant, have contributed more than $258,000 to mostly Democratic candidates and committees since 2007.

What’s more, UnitedHealth Group is one of the largest health-insurance companies in the country and spent millions lobbying for ObamaCare.

...

The insurance giant’s purchase of QSSI in 2012 raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, but the tech firm nevertheless kept the job of building the data hub for the ObamaCare Web site where consumers buy the new mandatory health-­insurance plans.

QSSI has been paid an estimated $150 million so far, but officials couldn’t say how much more the company might collect on the repair contract.

by Anonymousreply 15711/02/2013

Damn timeouts.

by Anonymousreply 15811/02/2013

Obamacare is falling apart. Can we PLEASE repeal it and get something that works. Hate to say it, but looks like the Repugs were right about this one.

by Anonymousreply 15911/07/2013

Damn this keeps getting worse....

Just 22 percent of uninsured Americans plan on getting health insurance through the government exchanges -- the websites that help you sign up for coverage -- or have already done so, a Gallup poll released Friday found. What’s more, less than one-quarter of uninsured Americans who say they plan on buying coverage through the exchanges have visited one so far, according to Gallup.

The poll's results are troubling, suggesting that uninsured Americans aren’t responding to a part of Obamacare that’s critical to its success.

by Anonymousreply 16011/08/2013

Oh for crying out loud! What did you people expect? Nobody, and I mean nobody, including our dear leader, bothered to read this bill. And of course he lied. He had to lie over and over to get it passed. The spectacle of that ridiculous apology was insulting. The only people taken in by that were sycophants and idiots.

It was always intended for millions of people to lose their current coverage. They would then be forced to buy to the "new and improved and more expensive" government approved plans. They're more expensive to help pay for all of those who can't afford to pay.

The website is the least of the problems with the ACA. The website is currently masking the real problems. This thing is a mess of epic proportions, and it's what we get and probably deserve when we elect a president who is more style than substance. He certainly isn't a leader.

by Anonymousreply 16111/08/2013

r161, you are busy bumping threads this morning with your ignorant screed aren't you?

Are you even American?

by Anonymousreply 16211/09/2013

American? Last I looked at my passport. What does it matter, if I'm French, Brit or Yank? The ACA is an unmitigated disaster, and Obama is still an empty suit, regardless who points it out.

by Anonymousreply 16311/10/2013

It matters. You don't know what you are talking about.

by Anonymousreply 16411/10/2013

Obama lied? How horrifying that he said people could keep their insurance, and then insurance companies cancelled crappy individual policies - which in 95% of cases were temporary until the individuals could get covered by their employers. Yes, Obama is the bad guy.

It's curious that "lying" was never mentioned when the topic was death panels or secret armies or socialist medicine. Then, the phrase was "some say."

by Anonymousreply 16511/10/2013

R165...MARY!!

At this point the Obama apologists should be shot. Mercy killing.

Look, he capitulated to the Republicans by giving them the health care plan they created. He stupidly thought this would get them to pass it easily. Then they did what they always do...they fucked him in the ass. Hard. This is what happens when you elect a blue dog president who hates liberals.

The Affordable health care act will go down in history as one of the worse ideas ever. Which makes sense, given that it was created by the far right-wing Heritage foundation.

The only Dens defending Obama at this point are neoliberal morons. He's been the most successful republican president ever.

by Anonymousreply 16611/10/2013

Hi People-

Obama first President to scale back AIDs funding - link taken from ACH.

Oh..yeah - also this new ACA and the horror stories you are reading about people with cancer losing their insurance or having the cost triple - substitute HIV for cancer - and keep adding to the nightmare.

Get your heads out of the sand.

by Anonymousreply 16711/10/2013

You mean the horror stories that have all been debunked? That same thing is going to happen elsewhere? Fox News is going to trot people out and lie about their healthcare? OK.

by Anonymousreply 16811/10/2013

You are insane, r167.

by Anonymousreply 16911/10/2013

How is what I posted insane? It comes right from the ACH? Wow are you drinking the kool aid.

This entire law, rollout, communication is a debacle. It will be repealed or scaled down to the point it is unrecognizable. My question is how much damage will it cause before this happens?

The end of the liberal experiment is in our sites. Pat Buchannan is going to seem progressive compared to the next President and congress we get.

by Anonymousreply 17011/14/2013

Massachussetts isn't complaining. You naysayers are nothing more than political tools.

by Anonymousreply 17111/14/2013

Lets face it. Neither side will listen to the other. Everyone is right- everyone is wrong!

We are dangerously close to the point of not being able to fix this country. Everyone is so vitriolic and self serving anymore.

POLITICS IS THE DEVIL! (to paraphrase the "waterboy's mama)

by Anonymousreply 17211/14/2013

Thank god there is a sane forum where Obama is still honored no matter what. Please ignore the right wing nuts at the WaPo, Politico, CBS, TPM, and now the jealous Howard Dean, plus Bill and Hillalary. All right wing tools. Obama cannot be questioned, please stick together!

by Anonymousreply 17311/14/2013

How dare you question? One party only, no dissent, no doubt. Surely there can't be any sane person who is republican or Libertarian? WTF country do we live in?

by Anonymousreply 17411/14/2013

Please delete this topic, it is embarrassing to all of us who supported Obama.

by Anonymousreply 17511/14/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!