Obama lies about his lies about keeping your plan [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Clocker

11-05-2013, 10:02 AM

At a dinner last night, Obama reiterated that he never said what he said.

Obama denies ‘you can keep it’ videotaped promises

President Barack Obama told his enthusiastic supporters Monday night that he never promised what video recordings show him promising at least 29 times.

The videos show Obama promising 300 million Americans that “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.”

But that’s not what he really said, Obama announced Monday in a speech to about 200 Organizing for Action supporters, gathered at the St. Regis hotel in D.C.

“What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed,” he told Obamacare’s political beneficiaries and contractors.

That claim is not supported by his videotaped statements, which don’t include any mention of his new “if it hasn’t changed” exception.

Full story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/05/obama-denies-you-can-keep-it-videotaped-promises/)

DJofSD

11-05-2013, 10:09 AM

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/release/zeke-emanuel-said-on-morning-joe-you-dont-give-fine-print-in-a-political-speech-referring-to-obamacare-problems/

Discussing President Obama’s often repeated campaign promise, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it,” Zeke Emanuel, a healthcare advisor to President Obama, told Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough Monday morning, “You don’t give fine print in a political speech.” Especially when the fine print undermines everything you’re about to say. It turns out that not everyone will keep their current insurance, not everyone will be able to keep their doctors, and for many costs are going up, not down. It seems the White House continues to put politics first with Obamacare, worrying more about public relations than implementation, and hoping that you ignore the fine print.

Much more at the link.

johnhannibalsmith

11-05-2013, 10:14 AM

...

Much more at the link.

It's lame enough as it is to go through these justification acrobatics, but the President himself is the one that used that punctuation - "Period." - as punctuation.

The implication is pretty straightforward. There is no fine print. There are no caveats, no exceptions. When someone uses the one-word sentence "Period.", that is exactly what is implied. That it is literally just this simple, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts". So, as far as I'm concerned, if he didn't mean that "you can keep your insurance" was as simple as the oft-repeated clip implied and only a moron would believe otherwise- then he lied about the "Period." part of the statement. It's one lie or the other.

Clocker

11-05-2013, 10:17 AM

“You don’t give fine print in a political speech.” Especially when the fine print undermines everything you’re about to say.

Especially when the fine print is the truth and the bold print is a bold-faced lie.

ArlJim78

11-05-2013, 10:41 AM

“What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed,”

Jake Tapper has asked the Whitehouse for even one example when anything close to this was said. I'm sure many examples will come pouring in shortly.

Clocker

11-05-2013, 10:50 AM

I'm sure many examples will come pouring in shortly.

Right. They will be posted on HealthCare.gov as soon as it is fixed later this month.

Dave Schwartz

11-05-2013, 11:32 AM

RaceBookJoe

11-05-2013, 11:35 AM

mostpost

11-05-2013, 11:39 AM

I don't know if Obama ever said, you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed,” I do know that the law itself clearly states that there will be new standards for health insurance policies and that policies which do not meet those standards will be cancelled. Knowing that-which many of you obviously don't-how can anyone think that you can keep a plan which does not exist?

In any case, why would you "like" a plan that pays inadequate benefits?

johnhannibalsmith

11-05-2013, 11:43 AM

...I do know that the law itself clearly states that there will be new standards for health insurance policies and that policies which do not meet those standards will be cancelled...

So, what you are saying is that he never bothered to actually read his signature legislation (which is hardly surprising since few actually did) since the law states exactly the opposite of what the great communicator summarized as the highlight of the bill. Or, I suppose, that he did read it and just lied about what it said. Thanks for the clarification.

mostpost

11-05-2013, 11:51 AM

Dear Mosty and Hcp,

Please come and straighten all of us out on this topic. We seem to be so confused. We actually thought we heard him make these promises.

Come out, come out, wherever you are.

We need you.

Insincerely,
Us
I did my best to straighten this out for you in # 18, but what you guys are really saying is this. "I have this health plan which makes me pay for doctor's visits and drops me as soon as I make a claim. How dare the government make that plan illegal and offer me a plan the offers actual benefits."

mostpost

11-05-2013, 12:00 PM

So, what you are saying is that he never bothered to actually read his signature legislation (which is hardly surprising since few actually did) since the law states exactly the opposite of what the great communicator summarized as the highlight of the bill. Or, I suppose, that he did read it and just lied about what it said. Thanks for the clarification.

Your argument is specious. The truth is Obama most likely did not read the Affordable Care Act anymore than he designed, or approved, or thought about the new Marine Corps hats. But he knows what is in it. And he knows that you can not keep something that no longer exists. Obama's mistake was in assuming folks like you would be able to figure that out.

What is truly amazing is how you guys will latch onto something and not let it go. Most of us do not care about this. Most of us understood from the start what was meant. Most of us did not need a clarification or an explanation.

Mike at A+

11-05-2013, 12:06 PM

In any case, why would you "like" a plan that pays inadequate benefits?
This is EXACTLY where liberals fail.
WHO defines "inadequate"? And WHO is to say that their definition of "inadequate" is the same for everyone? Insurance is not a "one size fits all" business. People who can afford to pay a $10,000 deductible and don't mind paying a co-pay for regular visits prefer "disaster" insurance. If the unthinkable happens, they write a check for 10 grand and get the treatment they need.

Tom

11-05-2013, 12:07 PM

So you are saying we should never have listened to what he said over and over?

This is true.
He lies.

pandy

11-05-2013, 12:17 PM

Dave Schwartz

11-05-2013, 12:24 PM

... but what you guys are really saying is this. "I have this health plan which makes me pay for doctor's visits and drops me as soon as I make a claim. How dare the government make that plan illegal and offer me a plan the offers actual benefits."

Is that would you hear being said in this thread?

Because if it is, I would suggest that you have discernment issues.

What (I think) is being said is that the president led us to believe that we did not need to fear current coverage or doctor/hospital/pharmacy relationships going away; that we could continue to keep what we have, and now we find that to be untrue.

Think of this... "When you bet the #1 you also get the #1A horse on your ticket." Then, when the #1A wins, your ticket won't cash."

See? It is like that.

There. Perhaps this thread has been straightened out for you.

Mike at A+

11-05-2013, 12:24 PM

Mostie can't spin this one and even the mainstream media is reporting about this now.

Interesting to note, Romney said all along that Obamacare would result in as many as 20 million people losing their insurance plans. Romney knew this was going to happen.
0bama gets away with his lies because his low information base typically wouldn't know a health insurance premium payment if it bit them on the butt. They simply don't care about anyone losing their plan as long as the free stuff keeps coming.

mostpost

11-05-2013, 12:31 PM

This is EXACTLY where liberals fail.
WHO defines "inadequate"? And WHO is to say that their definition of "inadequate" is the same for everyone? Insurance is not a "one size fits all" business. People who can afford to pay a $10,000 deductible and don't mind paying a co-pay for regular visits prefer "disaster" insurance. If the unthinkable happens, they write a check for 10 grand and get the treatment they need.
No one can be as out of touch as you are. People who can afford a $10,000 deductible are not the people who hold these policies. Those people can afford to pay premiums on a high benefits plan.

The people who hold these plans are those who can afford nothing else. They certainly can not afford to pay a $10,000 deductible all at once. Doing so will surely ruin them. They buy this junk insurance in the hope that it will provide coverage in a major emergency; that it will pay for an operation or an accident and that, somehow, they will be able to cover the deductible.

pandy

11-05-2013, 12:34 PM

You're making this too complicated. The thread is about the President saying that you could keep your plan. That is not true. There is no way you can spin this without being full of bull.

And by the way, he also said that you could keep your doctor. That is also not true. My mom had to move to a more expensive plan because her doctor was not in her plan, which she wanted to keep.

This is simple. We were lied to.

FantasticDan

11-05-2013, 12:44 PM

0bama gets away with his lies because his low information base typically wouldn't know a health insurance premium payment if it bit them on the butt. They simply don't care about anyone losing their plan as long as the free stuff keeps coming. You realize that the vast majority of those who receive help from govt-assistance programs are poor and middle-class whites, right? So I guess this is the Obama low-information base you keep referring to? :lol:

johnhannibalsmith

11-05-2013, 12:50 PM

Your argument is specious. The truth is Obama most likely did not read the Affordable Care Act anymore than he designed, or approved, or thought about the new Marine Corps hats. But he knows what is in it. And he knows that you can not keep something that no longer exists. Obama's mistake was in assuming folks like you would be able to figure that out.

What is truly amazing is how you guys will latch onto something and not let it go. Most of us do not care about this. Most of us understood from the start what was meant. Most of us did not need a clarification or an explanation.

What is specious is your attempt to have all of these mutually exclusive explanations work both to your (the President's) benefit and then against his critics simultaneously when they simply cannot.

If people are really stupid for not understanding what the bill actually says, which is essentially what you have alleged repeatedly in this context, and the President clearly presented as a crucial selling point exactly what those people that are really stupid are hung up on, then the President is just as stupid.

If the President isn't stupid, and knew that what he said is not at all what the bill provides, then he's a liar.

Take your pick - common stupid like all of us or a simple liar. It's one or the other based on what you have posted repeatedly. It's okay, I'm good with either.

Clocker

11-05-2013, 01:03 PM

In any case, why would you "like" a plan that pays inadequate benefits?

Why would you think that you are qualified to judge what constitutes adequate or inadequate benefits for someone else? Why do you assume when Obama tells people that their benefits are inadequate, that he has a clue what he is talking about? Why do you assume that a 63 y.o. couple can't decide for themselves that they don't need maternity benefits?

You keep pounding this inadequate, worthless policy drum without a shred of evidence of what is or isn't adequate for people. Hint: it ain't the same for everyone, despite what the lord high TOTUS has deemed.

FantasticDan

11-05-2013, 01:11 PM

Why do you assume that a 63 y.o. couple can't decide for themselves that they don't need maternity benefits?This comment reminded me of Colbert's bit last nite:

http://on.cc.com/1b3a8vP

:D

Clocker

11-05-2013, 01:11 PM

The people who hold these plans are those who can afford nothing else. They certainly can not afford to pay a $10,000 deductible all at once. Doing so will surely ruin them. They buy this junk insurance in the hope that it will provide coverage in a major emergency; that it will pay for an operation or an accident and that, somehow, they will be able to cover the deductible.

Who are these people and what are these junk policies? Even the MSM is not coming up with stories about this. They are publishing stories about middle class, middle aged people who pay $500 a month for a policy they like, and they are having it canceled because it doesn't include maternity or drug addiction or mental health benefits. Which apparently, in your qualified medical opinion, constitutes inadequate benefits.

Tom

11-05-2013, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by mostpost
In any case, why would you "like" a plan that pays inadequate benefits?

Your assumption is based on no facts.
It is a lie, just like your boy's lies.

Aren't you ashamed of yourself, lying to all these nice people here?

so.cal.fan

11-05-2013, 01:16 PM

This man, Obama would choke to death if he ever told the TRUTH.
Total disgrace to this country! :mad:

Clocker

11-05-2013, 01:27 PM

I do know that the law itself clearly states that there will be new standards for health insurance policies and that policies which do not meet those standards will be cancelled. Knowing that-which many of you obviously don't-how can anyone think that you can keep a plan which does not exist?

Put that way, it is another lie. Obama said that people can keep their plan if they like it. Period. Knowing full well that he was going to outlaw most of the plans that they liked. He didn't say you can keep your plan unless I outlaw it, he said you can keep it, period.

I guess that part about outlawing plans was also part of the fine print, and you don't put fine print in political speeches. It might make people think, and you certainly don't want anyone thinking about what you say.

DJofSD

11-05-2013, 01:28 PM

I recently went back and reread a chapter in "What the Dog Saw", specifically, the chapter about Enron.

In that chapter, Malcolm has a very good discussion about puzzles and mysteries.

If the ACA and Obama's statements present a puzzle, it is very clear: he lied.

If it is a mystery then we share the blame for not "keeping up." But then I vote for elected representatives who are suppose to keep up. I put the failure squarely on their shoulders.

P.S. This appears to be the entire article/chapter: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/08/070108fa_fact

Clocker

11-05-2013, 01:29 PM

Aren't you ashamed of yourself, lying to all these nice people here?

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

delayjf

11-05-2013, 02:29 PM

Like Pelosi said, we'd have to pass it to see what's in it.

I think the administration knew what this bill was all about and the nightmare it would be to implement. I also think the issues with the website are intentional in an attempt to get draw public attention away from the true cost and impact of this bill. Liberals just wanted something passed knowing how difficult it would be to repeal once it was on the books, then when it falls apart the only answer would be single payer.

Mike at A+

11-05-2013, 03:44 PM

No one can be as out of touch as you are. People who can afford a $10,000 deductible are not the people who hold these policies. Those people can afford to pay premiums on a high benefits plan.

The people who hold these plans are those who can afford nothing else. They certainly can not afford to pay a $10,000 deductible all at once. Doing so will surely ruin them. They buy this junk insurance in the hope that it will provide coverage in a major emergency; that it will pay for an operation or an accident and that, somehow, they will be able to cover the deductible.
This is why you read things before you sign your name.

Mike at A+

11-05-2013, 03:46 PM

You realize that the vast majority of those who receive help from govt-assistance programs are poor and middle-class whites, right? So I guess this is the Obama low-information base you keep referring to? :lol:
I made no reference to race or income level. There are stupid people in all demographics.

Mike at A+

11-05-2013, 03:57 PM

Like Pelosi said, we'd have to pass it to see what's in it.

She was talking about a stool sample.

ArlJim78

11-05-2013, 04:18 PM

Obama in 2009 address to congress,

"If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."

tucker6

11-05-2013, 05:30 PM

Obama in 2009 address to congress,

"If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."

What he actually said was, "If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out if you are against it"

Always read the fine print.

delayjf

11-05-2013, 11:54 PM

People who can afford a $10,000 deductible are not the people who hold these policies. Those people can afford to pay premiums on a high benefits plan.

I know a lot of people who use medical savings accounts in conjunction with high deductible policies.

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 10:52 AM

Jon Stewart addresses the lies, lies, lies, yeah..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-5-2013/affordable-horror-story?xrs=share_copy

Clocker

11-06-2013, 11:16 AM

Jon Stewart addresses the lies, lies, lies, yeah..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-5-2013/affordable-horror-story?xrs=share_copy

One minute of Obama lying through this teeth followed by 5 minutes of showing why everything else is worse. He shows a bunch of ObamaCare opponents making erroneous statements, but no proof that they were lying, as opposed to simply being clueless. Nothing he said diminishes the fact that Obama lied, and that the president has to be held to a higher standard of truth and a higher standard of knowledge of his own policies than some 3rd rate political analyst on cable news.

And he strongly implies, without proof, that because there were problems with the healthcare system before ObamaCare, therefore ObamaCare is an improvement.

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 11:24 AM

And he strongly implies, without proof, that because there were problems with the healthcare system before ObamaCare, therefore ObamaCare is an improvement.

http://obamacarefacts.com/benefitsofobamacare.php

Let me guess, all just lies and propaganda, right? Insurance companies can no longer drop you when you're sick, or deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, etc. I can't believe someone would be naive or stupid enough to call those improvements! :eek:

JustRalph

11-06-2013, 11:28 AM

http://obamacarefacts.com/benefitsofobamacare.php

Let me guess, all just lies and propaganda, right? Insurance companies can no longer drop you when you're sick, or deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, etc. I can't believe someone would be naive or stupid enough to call those improvements! :eek:

At what cost? Millions laid off, hours cut etc. Millions being forced out of policies they were perfectly happy with. Just because you think it's better doesn't make it better.

Many many people were very happy with their policies. But a complete redistribution of wealth was the answer?

In the land of left taking from one group to give to another is perfectly normal. But it's going to fail. Because the youngsters are going to rebel. It's an unsustainable program.

Several are predicting a "bailout" for Obamacare after 5 yrs. That's the only way it can work. More wealth re-distribution

johnhannibalsmith

11-06-2013, 11:35 AM

Jon Stewart addresses the lies, lies, lies, yeah..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-5-2013/affordable-horror-story?xrs=share_copy

:D

Pretty good.

Thanks.

tucker6

11-06-2013, 11:38 AM

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 11:56 AM

Can you at least admit that Obama completely and unadulteratedly lied about:

keeping your doctor under Obamacare no matter what
keeping your current health plan no matter what
If he actually knew at the time of making those definitive statements that some current plans would have to be cancelled or adjusted because they didn't meet ACA minimums, then yes, clearly he lied. I don't know enough about the keeping your doctor angle to comment, believe it or not I haven't followed this as closely as some folks here. :p

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 11:59 AM

:D
Pretty good.
Thanks.The highlight came at the 05:12 mark :lol: :ThmbUp:

Tom

11-06-2013, 12:41 PM

He said, You can keep your doctor. Period.

pandy

11-06-2013, 12:49 PM

And I can attest to that B.S. because my mother could NOT keep her Doctor unless she switched to an even more expensive plan, which she did.

Tom

11-06-2013, 01:30 PM

One of my new options was my old policy, which I kept because it is a GOOD one, was new, replacing the old lower-end one that did not meet ACA requirements. The deductible went from $1,000 to $6,500 and weekly price from about $10 to $40.

mostpost

11-06-2013, 03:27 PM

And I can attest to that B.S. because my mother could NOT keep her Doctor unless she switched to an even more expensive plan, which she did.
Did your mother switch because her plan was cancelled? Or did she switch because her doctor was no longer in her previous plan, even tho the plan itself was still available?

DJofSD

11-06-2013, 03:39 PM

Several are predicting a "bailout" for Obamacare after 5 yrs. That's the only way it can work. More wealth re-distribution
It will be sooner than that.

The insurance companies are already projecting that it will basically become broken by the time it comes to set premium rates for 2015.

Clocker

11-06-2013, 05:29 PM

http://obamacarefacts.com/benefitsofobamacare.php

Let me guess, all just lies and propaganda, right? Insurance companies can no longer drop you when you're sick, or deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, etc. I can't believe someone would be naive or stupid enough to call those improvements! :eek:

People could get coverage for illness and pre-existing conditions before ObamaCare. It was available through state high-risk pools, and it was subsidized through general taxes rather than through hidden taxes on the young and the healthy and penalties for exercising freedom of choice. And through Medicaid. I would suggest you learn the facts before calling other people stupid.

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 05:52 PM

People could get coverage for illness and pre-existing conditions before ObamaCare. It was available through state high-risk pools, and it was subsidized through general taxes rather than through hidden taxes on the young and the healthy and penalties for exercising freedom of choice. And through Medicaid. I would suggest you learn the facts before calling other people stupid.You're right, state high-risk pools (do all 57 have them?) were working just great for everyone, no need for any kind of reform. What was I thinking.

And I didn't call anyone stupid, stupid. :p

classhandicapper

11-06-2013, 05:52 PM

Even this guy lost his plan!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USG_gjaEYak

Clocker

11-06-2013, 08:02 PM

You're right, state high-risk pools (do all 57 have them?) were working just great for everyone, no need for any kind of reform. What was I thinking.

Yeah, ObamaCare really took care of those folks too. They liked their plans and couldn't keep them either. All the high-risk pool policies are canceled and those people were forced onto the exchanges. The people in those pools who managed to get on HealthCare.gov found they would be paying more now than they were in the high-risk pools, because now they get "better" benefits like maternity and drug addiction coverage.

High-risk pools. (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2813221015001/life-better-or-worse-for-high-risk-patients-under-obamacare-/?playlist_id=928378949001)

pandy

11-06-2013, 08:39 PM

Did your mother switch because her plan was cancelled? Or did she switch because her doctor was no longer in her previous plan, even tho the plan itself was still available?

She could have kept her plan, but her doctor was not in her plan. He claimed that he had nothing to do with it. I really don't understand how that works, why he wasn't in her new plan.

In this case, she wanted to keep her Doctor so she moved into another plan. Unfortunately (and typically), it was $40 more a month. Keep in mind, she is 87. Do we really want to charge people her age more money?

Another thing that bothers me, my Mom told me that other people she knows, in that age group, are having the same problems and they are upset. When people are in their 80's, they can't handle this crap. Live should be getting easier at that point.

NJ Stinks

11-06-2013, 09:32 PM

tucker6

11-06-2013, 10:02 PM

Vote Republican for Pandy's Mom

pandy

11-06-2013, 10:12 PM

Tom

11-06-2013, 10:12 PM

You're right, state high-risk pools (do all 57 have them?) were working just great for everyone, no need for any kind of reform. What was I thinking.

And I didn't call anyone stupid, stupid. :p

So ANYTHING is better?
Why not fix what needed fixing and address health COSTS?
ACA did neither.

Not one republican contributed to the ACA - and it shows.
A stupid plan by stupid people.

tucker6

11-06-2013, 10:26 PM

JustRalph

11-06-2013, 11:15 PM

Surprisingly there are millions of people in this country that actually believe that giving the government more control over their lives is a good thing.

I hope that more people begin to realize what this new law really means. The gov't is saying, "Even though you are paying for a good insurance plan that you are happy with, or even though you are happy with your doctor, you are not allowed to keep your plan, or your doctor. You must move into a more expensive plan that we approve of. "

I can't understand how so many people don't see the problem with this. The founding fathers would not approve.

pandy, conservatives have been making this argument for 3 years now. You are responding to a man who has already decided he knows better what is good for your mother. It's a tenant of Liberalism. They know better, especially what's good for you.

I would point you at this thread.
http://paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107000&page=2&pp=40

You might want to start at post 57 where Mosty is quoted as implying that losing your doctor is a lie. I could dig up more wherein he ignores my suggestion that older people rely heavily on their relationship with their Doctor. He just doesn't care. He knows better.

mostpost

11-06-2013, 11:18 PM

She could have kept her plan, but her doctor was not in her plan. He claimed that he had nothing to do with it. I really don't understand how that works, why he wasn't in her new plan.

In this case, she wanted to keep her Doctor so she moved into another plan. Unfortunately (and typically), it was $40 more a month. Keep in mind, she is 87. Do we really want to charge people her age more money?

Another thing that bothers me, my Mom told me that other people she knows, in that age group, are having the same problems and they are upset. When people are in their 80's, they can't handle this crap. Live should be getting easier at that point.
According to ehealthinsurance.com An in-network provider is one contracted with the health insurance company to provide services to plan members for specific pre-negotiated rates

If your mother's doctor was "in network" in her plan in 2013, and is not "in network in that plan in 2014; the most likely reason is that the plan and the doctor could not agree on the negotiated rates. In that case, he did have something to do with it. Of course there might be other reasons.

But, what does that have to do with Obamacare? That is between the insurance company and the doctor. The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with your mother's situation.

You do understand that when Obama made the statement, "You can keep your doctor," he was making it in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act. He did not mean you could keep him if you moved to another state, or if he died, or if he went to jail for Medicare fraud. You do know that, right? Because I sometimes wonder.

JustRalph

11-06-2013, 11:24 PM

http://mycancellation.com

Still trying to sell that shit? huh Mosty?

FantasticDan

11-06-2013, 11:28 PM

So ANYTHING is better?
Why not fix what needed fixing and address health COSTS?
ACA did neither. Not one republican contributed to the ACA - and it shows.
:D The repubs chose total obstructionism in passing ANY sort of reform, even when many aspects of the ACA had been forwarded by republicans in the past. Imagine if they had chosen to actually participate in the process instead of choosing partisanship at every turn? Well, then I'd agree we'd likely having a better law. :ThmbUp:

nijinski

11-06-2013, 11:54 PM

She could have kept her plan, but her doctor was not in her plan. He claimed that he had nothing to do with it. I really don't understand how that works, why he wasn't in her new plan.

In this case, she wanted to keep her Doctor so she moved into another plan. Unfortunately (and typically), it was $40 more a month. Keep in mind, she is 87. Do we really want to charge people her age more money?

Another thing that bothers me, my Mom told me that other people she knows, in that age group, are having the same problems and they are upset. When people are in their 80's, they can't handle this crap. Live should be getting easier at that point.

At your Mom's age , did she get a Medicare replacement ? If she did that's unfortunate as most doctors who said they would get off it , didn't . Every
hospital and almost every facility participates now with Medicare.

One of the problems is that many are double screwed . The government
lies and so does the insurance company. Even prior to the Obamacare
debacle . The insurance companies sold policies to seniors that they
promised were better than medicare .They told them they wouldn't need a supplement . They don't , but docs can then charge them 20% co insurance .

Aetna , United and Oxford United made a choice years ago to sell to seniors and they absolutely mislead most of them . If you think Medicare is bad ,
you have no idea how much worse those replacement plans are .

Clocker

11-06-2013, 11:55 PM

The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with your mother's situation.

And you have ascertained this after extensive discussions with his mother and her doctor, correct? Your conclusion is based on enough suppositions and assumptions and "ifs" and "most likelys" to do a tort lawyer proud.

Well sorry, but the verdict remains the same. Obama lied and millions of people are losing their plans and their doctors against their wills because of requirements of ObamaCare. Period.

Clocker

11-07-2013, 12:01 AM

You do understand that when Obama made the statement, "You can keep your doctor," he was making it in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act. He did not mean you could keep him if you moved to another state, or if he died, or if he went to jail for Medicare fraud. You do know that, right? Because I sometimes wonder.

You forgot to mention that you don't get to keep your plan or your doctor if you die, or if you move to a socialist paradise in Scandinavia. I think you covered all the other totally irrelevant possibilities.

pandy

11-07-2013, 12:16 AM

At your Mom's age , did she get a Medicare replacement ? If she did that's unfortunate as most doctors who said they would get off it , didn't . Every
hospital and almost every facility participates now with Medicare.

One of the problems is that many are double screwed . The government
lies and so does the insurance company. Even prior to the Obamacare
debacle . The insurance companies sold policies to seniors that they
promised were better than medicare .They told them they wouldn't need a supplement . They don't , but docs can then charge them 20% co insurance .

Aetna , United and Oxford United made a choice years ago to sell to seniors and they absolutely mislead most of them . If you think Medicare is bad ,
you have no idea how much worse those replacement plans are .

Well, I wish I understood it all better, but basically she used to pay about $60 a month for a supplementary insurance on top of her medicare. But then she went into the hospital for a week and the bill was $60,000 and she had to pay $3,000 out of her own money. That made her nervous, so she bought a more expensive plan, $240 a month. Then last month her insurance co. told her that she has to either choose a new doctor or switch to a different company, which she did, but that's $280 a month. Many of her friends have the same insurance, they're all afraid of getting hit with big bills. I don't see what good Medicare is unless you're broke.

JustRalph

11-07-2013, 12:26 AM

:D The repubs chose total obstructionism in passing ANY sort of reform, even when many aspects of the ACA had been forwarded by republicans in the past. Imagine if they had chosen to actually participate in the process instead of choosing partisanship at every turn? Well, then I'd agree we'd likely having a better law. :ThmbUp:

Dan, the fact that you are going this route as a response puts you on a one way trip to Mosties level. If you have to respond like this, you're getting to the bottom of the barrel because you are no longer defending the product, you're blaming the other guy for not coming up with something sooner. Of course you would have been against whatever they came up with.

I have to say, you do make a somewhat valid point. If Repubs had "lead" on this issue during the mid 90's I am sure Clinton would have come along for the ride. Just like he did on welfare reform etc. Both sides are culpable for not fixing this shit first.

Btw, I am no fan of hospitals and insurance companies. They have been in bed together milking the public for decades. I have worked for some pretty sleazy hospital execs and have observed them in their native habitat. Most are heartless scum. But then again I have only worked around about a hundred of them..........

nijinski

11-07-2013, 12:47 AM

Well, I wish I understood it all better, but basically she used to pay about $60 a month for a supplementary insurance on top of her medicare. But then she went into the hospital for a week and the bill was $60,000 and she had to pay $3,000 out of her own money. That made her nervous, so she bought a more expensive plan, $240 a month. Then last month her insurance co. told her that she has to either choose a new doctor or switch to a different company, which she did, but that's $280 a month. Many of her friends have the same insurance, they're all afraid of getting hit with big bills. I don't see what good Medicare is unless you're broke.
The supplement should have fully covered the balance so someone in the family needed to speak with the hospital and work that out . Hospitals can keep resubmitting until it's resolved .
Remember one thing . With medicare you can see your physician today and
and have a medically necessary procedure scheduled tomorrow. With the private medicare replacements it could take 72 hours to 10 days to get an approval for the same medically necessary procedure . If they choose to
deny the service it can be up to a 21 day review .
Look I work in a practice that specialists refer to because they cannot help the patient any more . We prefer medicare at this point and we put up the
fight to get paid after the patient is treated and stable . There are limits
but nowhere near the limits of private plans . We can't touch them and the
hospital won't provide the bed if they have the private plans without the pre authorization process . I hope that explains it better .

mostpost

11-07-2013, 01:08 AM

And you have ascertained this after extensive discussions with his mother and her doctor, correct? Your conclusion is based on enough suppositions and assumptions and "ifs" and "most likelys" to do a tort lawyer proud.

Well sorry, but the verdict remains the same. Obama lied and millions of people are losing their plans and their doctors against their wills because of requirements of ObamaCare. Period.
I ascertained it because I know that there is nothing in Obamacare that says anything about in network or out of network doctors. I don't have to know anything about "Ma" Pandy's particular situation. Her doctor will no longer be in her current plans network because of something between him and her current insurance company. Obamacare does not tell doctors which networks to join and it does not tell networks which doctors to accept. It is strictly a coincidence that the Pandy doctor left the network at this time.

mostpost

11-07-2013, 01:18 AM

The supplement should have fully covered the balance so someone in the family needed to speak with the hospital and work that out . Hospitals can keep resubmitting until it's resolved .
Remember one thing . With medicare you can see your physician today and
and have a medically necessary procedure scheduled tomorrow. With the private medicare replacements it could take 72 hours to 10 days to get an approval for the same medically necessary procedure . If they choose to
deny the service it can be up to a 21 day review .
Look I work in a practice that specialists refer to because they cannot help the patient any more . We prefer medicare at this point and we put up the
fight to get paid after the patient is treated and stable . There are limits
but nowhere near the limits of private plans . We can't touch them and the
hospital won't provide the bed if they have the private plans without the pre authorization process . I hope that explains it better .

You make a good point. Never take what an insurance company tells you at face value. You seem to know what you are talking about. I have had a few such instances on a smaller scale. After having something done by my doctor I have gotten a bill that I felt should have been covered by insurance. I called the doctor's office, talked to his insurance people and they discovered that the wrong code had been used. Had I not called, I would have paid several hundred dollars more than I needed to.

mostpost

11-07-2013, 01:22 AM

The supplement should have fully covered the balance so someone in the family needed to speak with the hospital and work that out . Hospitals can keep resubmitting until it's resolved .
Remember one thing . With medicare you can see your physician today and
and have a medically necessary procedure scheduled tomorrow. With the private medicare replacements it could take 72 hours to 10 days to get an approval for the same medically necessary procedure . If they choose to
deny the service it can be up to a 21 day review .
Look I work in a practice that specialists refer to because they cannot help the patient any more . We prefer medicare at this point and we put up the
fight to get paid after the patient is treated and stable . There are limits
but nowhere near the limits of private plans . We can't touch them and the
hospital won't provide the bed if they have the private plans without the pre authorization process . I hope that explains it better .
Here's a question for you. If , as you say, we can not always depend on the insurance company to properly settle your claim with a little nudge or two; then can we also assume that they may send you a cancellation letter which does not include all the options you have available.

nijinski

11-07-2013, 01:24 AM

You make a good point. Never take what an insurance company tells you at face value. You seem to know what you are talking about. I have had a few such instances on a smaller scale. After having something done by my doctor I have gotten a bill that I felt should have been covered by insurance. I called the doctor's office, talked to his insurance people and they discovered that the wrong code had been used. Had I not called, I would have paid several hundred dollars more than I needed to.

It happens all the time . If you met all your plan responsibility , it's
between the doctor and the insurance to figure it out . Good thing you got
involved .

nijinski

11-07-2013, 01:42 AM

Here's a question for you. If , as you say, we can not always depend on the insurance company to properly settle your claim with a little nudge or two; then can we also assume that they may send you a cancellation letter which does not include all the options you have available.
I think that might be possible because they know you can turn to the government . I think it depends on the company .
It looks like they are going to change and the smaller the company ,the more likely they will merge with another or go out of business . I wish
I had a better answer for you but they tell me they get memos daily and there is a lot of confusion .
Emblem Health Reps told me this week to have patience with them :lol: .
You can talk to five different customer service reps and get five different answers to the same question . They are getting rid of their HMO's and merging them with HIP of NY . That's not very encouraging and just one
small example of what we have to look forward to .

This is always the time of year the insurance company makes changes . This year is going to be much more of a headache .

pandy

11-07-2013, 06:50 AM

The supplement should have fully covered the balance so someone in the family needed to speak with the hospital and work that out . Hospitals can keep resubmitting until it's resolved .
Remember one thing . With medicare you can see your physician today and
and have a medically necessary procedure scheduled tomorrow. With the private medicare replacements it could take 72 hours to 10 days to get an approval for the same medically necessary procedure . If they choose to
deny the service it can be up to a 21 day review .
Look I work in a practice that specialists refer to because they cannot help the patient any more . We prefer medicare at this point and we put up the
fight to get paid after the patient is treated and stable . There are limits
but nowhere near the limits of private plans . We can't touch them and the
hospital won't provide the bed if they have the private plans without the pre authorization process . I hope that explains it better .

Well, she's locked into this now for the next year but at that time I probably should look into it myself. Thanks for your information.

pandy

11-07-2013, 04:14 PM

mostpost

11-07-2013, 04:26 PM

I'm still not sure if my Mom's plan dropped her Dr. because of Obamacare or not. This article seems to indicate that these Insurance companies were receiving funding from the gov't through the Medicare program, but Obamacare cut billions from Medicare, so the insurance companies are dropping the more expensive doctors. I'm going to keep digging.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/25/elderly-patients-sick-over-losing-doctors-under-obamacare/
Nijinski is probably better equipped to answer this but my understanding is that the Affordable Care Act cut cut the subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program and redirected them to Medicare itself. Medicare advantage was a supplement to Medicare run by the private insurance companies. The government was subsidizing those companies to the tune of $700B+ a year. The ACA ended those subsidies. So, yes, that could very well be what happened, and you could say that Obamacare was a factor.

In reality, what Obamacare did was take that money from the insurers and hospitals and give it to the people.

LottaKash

11-07-2013, 04:32 PM

In reality, what Obamacare did was take that money from the insurers and hospitals and give it to the people.

So that they could pay more for their healthcare and get less coverage in the process, and ultimately, the insurers, the hospitals, and the doctors don't lose squat....I get it now...We pay more for less...I like that...

Thanks for the peace of mind...:rolleyes:

classhandicapper

11-07-2013, 04:42 PM

Surprisingly there are millions of people in this country that actually believe that giving the government more control over their lives is a good thing.

I hope that more people begin to realize what this new law really means. The gov't is saying, "Even though you are paying for a good insurance plan that you are happy with, or even though you are happy with your doctor, you are not allowed to keep your plan, or your doctor. You must move into a more expensive plan that we approve of. "

I can't understand how so many people don't see the problem with this. The founding fathers would not approve.

Honestly, only a total imbecile would approve of the government having more control over their lives if he was already in a position to be independent.

The problem is that there are a lot of imbeciles in the country and many of the rest are people that stand to gain from a wealth transfer and expanding government.

This is what Romney was talking about when it came to the 47% (or whatever it was). When you get to the point where more people stand to benefit from expanding government than shrinking it, there is no way home.

All the "left" has to do is promise to take even more from the minority (independent net tax payers) and give it to rest and they will automatically get elected. The" right" used to be able to promise lower taxes and smaller government and it could work. Now there are so many people dependent on the mess the left has sewn, it won't work.

Saratoga_Mike

11-07-2013, 05:06 PM

Nijinski is probably better equipped to answer this but my understanding is that the Affordable Care Act cut cut the subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program and redirected them to Medicare itself. Medicare advantage was a supplement to Medicare run by the private insurance companies. The government was subsidizing those companies to the tune of $700B+ a year. The ACA ended those subsidies. So, yes, that could very well be what happened, and you could say that Obamacare was a factor.

In reality, what Obamacare did was take that money from the insurers and hospitals and give it to the people.

Totally wrong number

pandy

11-07-2013, 05:38 PM

dartman51

11-07-2013, 06:00 PM

Well, I wish I understood it all better, but basically she used to pay about $60 a month for a supplementary insurance on top of her medicare. But then she went into the hospital for a week and the bill was $60,000 and she had to pay $3,000 out of her own money. That made her nervous, so she bought a more expensive plan, $240 a month. Then last month her insurance co. told her that she has to either choose a new doctor or switch to a different company, which she did, but that's $280 a month. Many of her friends have the same insurance, they're all afraid of getting hit with big bills. I don't see what good Medicare is unless you're broke.

Pandy, i'm sorry to hear of the struggles of your Mother with doctors and hospitals. Check with the hospital, and see if they have a patient advocate. They have them here in TN. My wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. There is a shot which she gets once per month, that cost $2500 per shot. Medicare only covers $800 of it. Our supplemental insurance will not cover the rest. The patient advocate informed us that there is a Govt. grant for this particular treatment. My wife filled out a form and, bingo, all paid. No out of pocket cost, so it won't eat up our medical savings account. It's worth checking into. :ThmbUp:

pandy

11-07-2013, 06:22 PM

That's interesting, thank you.

nijinski

11-07-2013, 06:34 PM

I'm still not sure if my Mom's plan dropped her Dr. because of Obamacare or not. This article seems to indicate that these Insurance companies were receiving funding from the gov't through the Medicare program, but Obamacare cut billions from Medicare, so the insurance companies are dropping the more expensive doctors. I'm going to keep digging.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/25/elderly-patients-sick-over-losing-doctors-under-obamacare/

Also one of the reasons docs become non participant is because many companies changed the renewal process very suddenly . Contracts were always faxed or mailed . This was fine as someone was assigned to re credential them , they don't have time for this . Some insurance genius decided lets email the contracts . So contracts are sitting in the doctors
emails and guess what . They expired ! So they no longer participate with these plans .It's a PITA !

nijinski

11-07-2013, 06:39 PM

fast4522

11-07-2013, 06:42 PM

Nice little link that fits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciesAzdCQgU&feature=youtu.be

TJDave

11-07-2013, 06:42 PM

My wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. There is a shot which she gets once per month, that cost $2500 per shot. Medicare only covers $800 of it.

Hope your wife makes a full recovery.

Has anyone questioned how a shot could cost $2500?

fast4522

11-07-2013, 06:48 PM

It is called cost sharing, illegals and uninsured drain hospitals of vast sums of money.

NJ Stinks

11-07-2013, 06:50 PM

Dartman, thanks for the tip about the patient advocate. And, echoing TJ, I wish only the best for your wife.

nijinski

11-07-2013, 07:10 PM

Hope your wife makes a full recovery.

Has anyone questioned how a shot could cost $2500?

Start with research costs and finish with lawyers and lawsuits , .

nijinski

11-07-2013, 07:13 PM

Pandy, i'm sorry to hear of the struggles of your Mother with doctors and hospitals. Check with the hospital, and see if they have a patient advocate. They have them here in TN. My wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. There is a shot which she gets once per month, that cost $2500 per shot. Medicare only covers $800 of it. Our supplemental insurance will not cover the rest. The patient advocate informed us that there is a Govt. grant for this particular treatment. My wife filled out a form and, bingo, all paid. No out of pocket cost, so it won't eat up our medical savings account. It's worth checking into. :ThmbUp:

I'm glad this worked out . What you didn't need was the added burden of debt . Well wishes for your wife too !

mostpost

11-07-2013, 10:01 PM

Totally wrong number
You're right. $700b over ten years.

pandy

11-07-2013, 11:04 PM

Just saw the Yahoo story about the President saying he's sorry. Some of the comments left by readers are eye opening. Here is one:

I've had health insurance for the past 10 years and now my plan is being cancelled. Alternative plans now being offered are over double the cost of my previous plans and they have higher deductibles and coinsurance. I could possibly scrape together enough to pay the premiums, but if I ever had to use it I would be too broke after paying inflated premiums to pay the deductible and coinsurance. I'm 33 years old. I'll just simply raise the number of dependents on my check so they take less in taxes out. I'll write a check at tax time minus Obamacare fines. I'll enclose a second envelope labeled Obamacare fee with a picture of my hairy white rear end. Thanks for ensuring me and my daughter no longer have insurance. Thanks a lot uninformed voters.

dartman51

11-07-2013, 11:13 PM

Thanks, guys, for the kind words. My wife is a red headed, Irish, Yankee, born and raised in Queens, N.Y., so she is a fighter. She won't let this get her down. :ThmbUp:

classhandicapper

11-08-2013, 01:45 PM

It's all real simple.

You can't insure millions of people that are currently uninsured and provide mandated higher levels of insurance for millions of others and not have it cost a lot more.

The money has to come from somewhere.

There is no free lunch.

Insurance companies are a simple pass through mechanism.

They look at the capital they have invested in their businesses, what the costs will be based on the prevailing laws, the rate of return they need to justify their existence, and charge the appropriate price. If according to the laws they can't earn an adequate return on certain policies, they cancel them. If they can't earn an adequate return at all, they close up shop.

Clocker

11-08-2013, 02:14 PM

If according to the laws they can't earn an adequate return on certain policies, they cancel them. If they can't earn an adequate return at all, they close up shop.

The current round of cancellations are because the terms of the policies did not meet ObamaCare requirements. They did not have the new list of benefits that all policies must have (maternity, drug addiction, mental health, etc) or they had limits, such as a lifetime cap on payouts.

Once everyone has a qualified plan or is paying the penalty, the next big shock to hit the system will be that the insurance companies are losing money, both because of increased payouts and because of a much higher ratio of sick people to healthy people than forecast. At that point, since they will not be able to cancel policies, they will either raise rates or pull out of entire markets (individual sales, high costs states, etc.).

At that point, the socialists will insist that the only answer is a public option, a government sponsored insurance company selling policies to individuals and businesses. When that fails, their answer is single payer.

DJofSD

11-08-2013, 02:26 PM

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/one-reg-could-cost-millions-of-americans-their-insurance-regulation/

Tom

11-08-2013, 03:08 PM

Start with research costs and finish with lawyers and lawsuits , .

And don't forget how many shots and other things are given away FREE to illegal who use our emergency rooms for normal health care.

If 100 doses cost $10,000, and 99 of them are given away, and YOU get the last one, guess who pays for 100 doses?

TJDave

11-08-2013, 03:13 PM

The current round of cancellations are because the terms of the policies did not meet ObamaCare requirements. They did not have the new list of benefits that all policies must have (maternity, drug addiction, mental health, etc) or they had limits, such as a lifetime cap on payouts.

Once everyone has a qualified plan or is paying the penalty, the next big shock to hit the system will be that the insurance companies are losing money, both because of increased payouts and because of a much higher ratio of sick people to healthy people than forecast. At that point, since they will not be able to cancel policies, they will either raise rates or pull out of entire markets (individual sales, high costs states, etc.).

At that point, the socialists will insist that the only answer is a public option, a government sponsored insurance company selling policies to individuals and businesses. When that fails, their answer is single payer.

That's almost the way I see it happening. The insurance lobby will drag this out as long as possible. I don't see us getting to single payer until the late 20's. A shame in that the fight will waste hundreds of billions.

dartman51

11-08-2013, 03:31 PM

That's almost the way I see it happening. The insurance lobby will drag this out as long as possible. I don't see us getting to single payer until the late 20's. A shame in that the fight will waste hundreds of billions.

I think you and Clocker are right on target. The whole thing was designed to collapse under it's own weight. Then would come the cry for the SINGLE PAYER. The problem is, I really don't believe they anticipated this much problem on start up. At this point, it could still be stopped, with minimum damage done. If, God forbid, Hillary was to get in, in 2016, it will be her TOP priority to get SINGLE PAYER, as it was Obama's, to get us where we are now.

TJDave

11-08-2013, 03:51 PM

Single payer should have been the original goal.

Single payer should be the ultimate goal.

Clocker

11-08-2013, 03:57 PM

I think you and Clocker are right on target. The whole thing was designed to collapse under it's own weight. Then would come the cry for the SINGLE PAYER.

While the liberals would prefer single payer, they would much prefer that ObamaCare works for now, at least for some years until everyone got used to the idea of the government dictating the terms and conditions of insurance. The bad thing about single payer in the short run is paying for it. That would require a shirt-load of new tax revenue. Given the current debt and deficit situation, the public would rebel at the ideal of funding single payer.

ObamaCare is as close as you can get to single payer and hide the funding as premiums and penalties, with the insurance carriers as the bad guys collecting the money. The insurance companies bought into it as much preferable to a public option or single payer, which would put them out of business. And they loved the individual and employer mandates. So they sold out to the devil and now they are screwed.

TJDave

11-08-2013, 04:06 PM

I am not a liberal. I support single payer.

JustRalph

11-08-2013, 05:42 PM

Overheard in a restaurant last night.

"I can't afford Obamacare, I thought that shit was going to be free? "

Female 20 something with two kids speaking to her female friend

fast4522

11-08-2013, 06:01 PM

I am not a liberal. I support single payer.

Not in your lifetime, the President's second term is crumbling. Obamacare is on life support and failing fast. Not enough votes to pass anything to fix it, it will implode on its own. What you are is of no importance except to your family.

mostpost

11-08-2013, 07:41 PM

Start with research costs and finish with lawyers and lawsuits , .
Admittedly this is not completely up to date, but in 2007 the cost of medical malpractice torts was $30.4 billion. At the same time, the total spent on healthcare was just over $2 trillion. Which means lawyers and lawsuits-and preventing them accounted for one and one half percent of the money spent on health care. Hardly what I would call a significant percentage.

Research costs, on the other hand, are certainly a significant factor. But I wonder how much the drug companies inflate those costs to inflate their profits. I suspect quite a bit.

tucker6

11-08-2013, 08:06 PM

Admittedly this is not completely up to date, but in 2007 the cost of medical malpractice torts was $30.4 billion. At the same time, the total spent on healthcare was just over $2 trillion. Which means lawyers and lawsuits-and preventing them accounted for one and one half percent of the money spent on health care. Hardly what I would call a significant percentage.

Research costs, on the other hand, are certainly a significant factor. But I wonder how much the drug companies inflate those costs to inflate their profits. I suspect quite a bit.
you forgot to add this from Wikipedia:

Malpractice has both direct and indirect costs, including "defensive medicine." According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year. Studies place the direct and indirect costs of malpractice between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs, as described below:

"About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans. The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

tucker6

11-08-2013, 08:13 PM

pandy

11-08-2013, 08:20 PM

Admittedly this is not completely up to date, but in 2007 the cost of medical malpractice torts was $30.4 billion. At the same time, the total spent on healthcare was just over $2 trillion. Which means lawyers and lawsuits-and preventing them accounted for one and one half percent of the money spent on health care. Hardly what I would call a significant percentage.

Research costs, on the other hand, are certainly a significant factor. But I wonder how much the drug companies inflate those costs to inflate their profits. I suspect quite a bit.

Liberals always say this, but the thing is, and Most, I think you may agree with me on this, we should have tort reform. These lawsuits, many of which are frivolous, do increase the costs of health care and we should be doing everything possible to lower the costs of health care, which are out of control.

Personally, I think this number you quote, which I've heard before 1 or 2 percent, is probably much higher than that. That's an MSNBC talking point. The truth is, the Democrats get a lot of money from lawyers, and so do the Republicans. And, we as tax payers are paying for that cronyism.

JustRalph

11-08-2013, 09:32 PM

pandy

11-08-2013, 10:33 PM

Once again you are off base. It's the threat of lawsuits hanging over the entire industry that costs untold millions. Not the actual lawsuits.

That't right. Here in PA. hundreds of doctors have left the state because the liability insurance is so high. If you want to see a specialist, such as a dermatologist, you have to wait months because there are so few of them left.

tucker6

11-09-2013, 07:17 AM

The worm is starting to turn. Congress finally looking to undo Obama's lies.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/08/207999/congress-weighing-laws-to-let.html

mostpost

11-09-2013, 02:45 PM

The worm is starting to turn. Congress finally looking to undo Obama's lies.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/08/207999/congress-weighing-laws-to-let.html
Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans. This completely undermines that.

This law is being proposed only so that the three Senators can go back to their reactionary constituents and say they tried to do something. This bill will spend its life on a shelf in a closet in an unused room in a dark corner of the capitol never to see the light of day.

And any bills proposed by House Republicans may pass that house, but will be crushed in the Senate. Deservedly so.

johnhannibalsmith

11-09-2013, 02:50 PM

Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans....

If that is indeed the purpose, they sure took a long and winding route to accomplish something that could have been done a whole lot more effectively and not nearly as offensively.

pandy

11-09-2013, 03:00 PM

The Democratic Senators are getting nervous. They don't want to lose their jobs next Nov.

Saratoga_Mike

11-09-2013, 03:05 PM

Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans. This completely undermines that.

First, who are you to determine what a "junk" plan is or is not? I've read your posts for long enough - sorry, but you simply don't know that much about the healthcare system.

Second, the purpose of the ACA was to expand coverage and allegedly make it more affordable.

Clocker

11-09-2013, 03:05 PM

The Democratic Senators are getting nervous.

They are scrambling like a cat trying to bury poop on a frozen pond. Obama gave a big speech in Louisiana the other day, and the Dem Senator there, who is up for election next year, couldn't make it due to "a scheduling conflict".

Clocker

11-09-2013, 03:08 PM

First, who are you to determine what a "junk" plan is or is not? I've read your posts for long enough - sorry, but you simply don't know that much about the healthcare system.

It must be true. A NY Times editorial said that the canceled policies are "worthless". If you can't trust the editors of the NY Times about insurance, who can you trust? You know a reputable paper like that must be unbiased, right? :rolleyes:

tucker6

11-09-2013, 03:35 PM

They are scrambling like a cat trying to bury poop on a frozen pond. Obama gave a big speech in Louisiana the other day, and the Dem Senator there, who is up for election next year, couldn't make it due to "a scheduling conflict".
Give the senator a break. When you're dental cleaning is due, it's due. He cancels that to see Obama, and he may have to reschedule for several weeks out. You're crazy man.

Saratoga_Mike

11-09-2013, 03:40 PM

Give the senator a break. When you're dental cleaning is due, it's due. He cancels that to see Obama, and he may have to reschedule for several weeks out. You're crazy man.

she, but all else true

nijinski

11-09-2013, 03:42 PM

Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans. This completely undermines that.

This law is being proposed only so that the three Senators can go back to their reactionary constituents and say they tried to do something. This bill will spend its life on a shelf in a closet in an unused room in a dark corner of the capitol never to see the light of day.

And any bills proposed by House Republicans may pass that house, but will be crushed in the Senate. Deservedly so.

Most of the bronze plans are worthless too .
Unfortunately these are the plans that those who lost there jobs from the ages of late 40's to 64 . They are now in lower paying jobs or two part
time jobs with no insurance .
They are paying much higher still , as age is still a factor and the premium
still jumps high . They thought that wouldn't happen . It did .
I spoke with a 60 yo man yesterday with one of these plans , that he already had and he said everything is identical .When he buys that bronze plan ,the only one he can afford right now . He will still have high deductuctibles.
The worst thing is that his diagnostics will only be paid up to $500 .
Wouldn't ya know he is beginning to have heart pacing problems .
A few tests and everything will be out of his pocket .
Not the promise many anticipated . This whole thing was very poorly
thought out .

Clocker

11-09-2013, 03:44 PM

He cancels that to see Obama, and he may have to reschedule for several weeks out. You're crazy man.

It's "she", the infamous Senator Mary Landrieu who had to be bribed to vote for ObamaCare. She of the infamous "Louisiana Purchase" of her vote.

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu was happy to hop a lift aboard Air Force One Friday — but she wasn’t ready to hang out in her home state with President Obama while ObamaCare is riling her constituents. Landrieu, a Democrat who faces a tough re-election battle next year, cast a key vote for the national health plan when it passed the Senate in Obama’s first term.

But this week she distanced herself from the president by introducing legislation to grandfather insurance plans that are now *being canceled by the millions *under the new system.

“Due to previously long-scheduled events in Lake Charles, the senator did not attend the event at the Port of New Orleans,” said Matthew Lehner, her press secretary.

Story here. (http://nypost.com/2013/11/09/democratic-sen-landrieu-vanishes-while-obama-visits-state/)

tucker6

11-09-2013, 04:33 PM

she, but all else true
doh!! :D

mostpost

11-09-2013, 06:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans....

If that is indeed the purpose, they sure took a long and winding route to accomplish something that could have been done a whole lot more effectively and not nearly as offensively.

Second, the purpose of the ACA was to expand coverage and allegedly make it more affordable.

You are both correct. I should have written, "one of the purposes" or "a part of the ACA." All of which does not change the basic fact that the upgrade of insurance plans is a strong part of the ACA. A part that Obama and the mainstream Democrats will not support the repeal of.

woodtoo

11-09-2013, 07:37 PM

Obama is sorry,sorry you believed him.

woodtoo

11-09-2013, 07:41 PM

Obama lied when he "apologized" for lying.

Clocker

11-09-2013, 10:00 PM

You are both correct. I should have written, "one of the purposes" or "a part of the ACA." All of which does not change the basic fact that the upgrade of insurance plans is a strong part of the ACA. A part that Obama and the mainstream Democrats will not support the repeal of.

Saying that a major goal of ObamaCare was to eliminate "junk plans" is what folks that play horses refer to as redboarding. Folks that don't play horses refer to it as the "I meant to do that" ploy.

There was no discussion of junk plans or worthless policies when the Dems were trying to railroad the ObamaCare bill through Congress. That was not a goal because the Dems needed the insurance industry on board to help sell this junk law to the American public.

Originally, all existing plans were to be grandfathered, and people could keep their plans. But as Sebelius and friends started churning out thousands of pages of rules and regulations, the ever-changing definition of a qualified plan made it more and more difficult to keep a plan. But Obama never changed his "keep it" mantra, even though he knew better.

It wasn't until the cancellation notices started going out in the last month or so that the administration suddenly discovered that millions and millions of health care plans out there were worthless.

And it won't be until October of 2014 when the cancellation notices start going out in advance of the employer mandate that the administration will suddenly discover that tens of millions of employer-based plans were junk and worthless. And claim, we meant to do that.

JustRalph

11-09-2013, 10:02 PM

Most of the bronze plans are worthless too .
Unfortunately these are the plans that those who lost there jobs from the ages of late 40's to 64 . They are now in lower paying jobs or two part
time jobs with no insurance .
They are paying much higher still , as age is still a factor and the premium
still jumps high . They thought that wouldn't happen . It did .
I spoke with a 60 yo man yesterday with one of these plans , that he already had and he said everything is identical .When he buys that bronze plan ,the only one he can afford right now . He will still have high deductuctibles.
The worst thing is that his diagnostics will only be paid up to $500 .
Wouldn't ya know he is beginning to have heart pacing problems .
A few tests and everything will be out of his pocket .
Not the promise many anticipated . This whole thing was very poorly
thought out .

This is happening all over the country..........will Americans lay down and take it?

nijinski

11-09-2013, 10:34 PM

This is happening all over the country..........will Americans lay down and take it?

Breaks ones heart JR
.
I hope we stand up and I would like to see some bright fresh intelligent
faces in Washington , someday soon .
We have the party of destruction and the party of no solutions taking up
space that badly needs to be vacated .

The Judge

11-09-2013, 11:28 PM

You guys crack me up. "Obamacare" well it's the best that could be rolled out with so much opposition from the right and the Tea Party extreme. It's a compromise it's a 1/2 a loaf. This is what you get with no co-operation.

Anytime you want a whole loaf ask the right wing and the Tea Party crazies to get on board. They will never do this because it's there job to kill the whole idea of National coverage. They and the right wing on this board are glad anytime things go wrong. Healthcare, Budget, Debt Ceiling, Drones,Court Appointments, anything that this President tries to do.

Last time I checked your ideas are still losing, but of course that was 5 days ago. Keep complaining and rolling those new and exciting plans they will surely work sooner or later.

Here is what we could have had but NOOOOO it's communist, it's against the rich , we can't afford it, death panels, and on and on.

From Wikipedia
National Health Service (NHS)

The National Health Service (NHS) is free at the point of use for the patient though there are charges associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and many aspects of personal care.
The NHS provides the majority of healthcare in England, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, ophthalmology and dentistry. The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population[citation needed], and generally as a top-up to NHS services. Recently there have been some examples where unused private sector capacity has been used to increase NHS capacity and in some cases the NHS has commissioned the private sector to establish and run new facilities on a sub contracted basis. Some new capital programs have been financed through the private finance initiative. The involvement of the private sector remains relatively small yet, according to one survey by the BMA, a large proportion of the public oppose such involvement.[2]

Now the complaints? I'm paying too much, well "Free" (no out of pocket cost) was dead on arrival.

I've been around since day one I read all the so called "sound" economic tripe the first time around so spare me .

This is the best that could be passed at time point in History. It's a step in the right direction.

LottaKash

11-10-2013, 12:06 AM

Breaks ones heart JR
.
I hope we stand up and I would like to see some bright fresh intelligent
faces in Washington , someday soon .
We have the party of destruction and the party of no solutions taking up
space that badly needs to be vacated .

HaHa....

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/No-Signs-of-Intelligent-Life_zps7b882beb.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/No-Signs-of-Intelligent-Life_zps7b882beb.jpg.html)

LottaKash

11-10-2013, 12:12 AM

Here's to "ITS WORKIN".....:jump:

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg.html)

Saratoga_Mike

11-10-2013, 12:27 PM

Now the complaints? I'm paying too much, well "Free" (no out of pocket cost) was dead on arrival.
I've been around since day one I read all the so called "sound" economic tripe the first time around so spare me .

This is the best that could be passed at time point in History. It's a step in the right direction.

So no one pays for healthcare in the UK or France? It's free? The hospitals don't generate any revenue? The doctors aren't paid? The drug companies don't charge for medication?

Nothing is "free." What a foolish notion. Now if you want to control costs, which may have been your point (if there was one within the diatribe), a single payor system will do just that. But then quality and accessibility suffer - simple tradeoff - most Americans don't want to make it.

hcap

11-10-2013, 02:07 PM

But then quality and accessibility suffer - simple tradeoff - most Americans don't want to make it.Quality and accessibility do not necessarily suffer. Whereas here in this country if you are poor and under insured quality and accessibility do suffer.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/May/High-Health-Care-Spending.aspx

Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity. Health care quality in the U.S. varies and is not notably superior to the far less expensive systems in the other study countries. Of the countries studied, Japan has the lowest health spending, which it achieves primarily through aggressive price regulation.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/May/~/media/Images/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/HealthSpending.JPG

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

Do we simply use a lot more healthcare? The average number of physician visits per person in the U.S. is 4, below the OECD median of 6.4, and far below Japan’s 13 visits per person. Similarly, we have fewer hospital discharges at 131 per 1,000 people versus the OECD median of 160 and France’s 263 per 1,000. The average hospital stay per person is also lower in the U.S., at 5.4 days versus the OECD median of 5.9 days and Canada’s average of over one week.

http://epianalysis.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2012-07-17-03-40-25-pm.png?w=952&h=716

http://epianalysis.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2012-07-17-03-41-33-pm.png?w=952&h=714

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-in-healthcare-charts/

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2012/12/cost1.png

hcap

11-10-2013, 02:12 PM

Forgot one

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/15/1119

The U.S. health care system is the world’s most expensive, consuming almost 20% of the economy and forecast to swallow half within decades if current trends continue. Yet despite the hefty cost, the U.S. lags behind many countries in Europe and other developed nations for health outcomes and quality of services, according to metrics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), such as life expectancy, mortality, and safety.

“No one would sensibly argue that we don’t have a health care spending problem,” said Peter Bach, M.D., associate attending physician at Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Yet “there is no evidence that we provide better health care to our population as a whole than these other countries.”

Clocker

11-10-2013, 03:03 PM

The U.S. health care system is the world’s most expensive, consuming almost 20% of the economy and forecast to swallow half within decades if current trends continue. Yet despite the hefty cost, the U.S. lags behind many countries in Europe and other developed nations for health outcomes and quality of services, according to metrics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), such as life expectancy, mortality, and safety.

Health care here is very expensive. We know why, and we do nothing about it. The Affordable Care Act doesn't even attempt to address affordability or care. It addresses insurance. Period.

The quality of care is subjective, and is not quantifiable. The care people want, and that provided, is very much dependent on social norms and attitudes. I don't believe any objective comparison can be made between the US and Europe and Asia. Metrics "...such as life expectancy, mortality, and safety..." also reflect life style. US deaths by auto accidents and murder are off the charts compared to other countries. That says nothing about the quality of health care.

hcap

11-10-2013, 03:09 PM

The quality of care is subjective, and is not quantifiable.Bull! It is and can be quantified by cost as well.

Just because you say something, does not prove it so.
I just posted info supporting my point of view.

Where is yours?

Clocker

11-10-2013, 03:43 PM

Bull! It is and can be quantified by cost as well.

How can you quantify the quality of care by cost? The costly the better? Or the less costly the better?

I agree that health care costs here are excessive by any standard.

I just posted info supporting my point of view.

Your "data" relies heavily on life expectancy. I pointed out why that metric is flawed as a measure of quality and you ignored it. If you factor out violent deaths (since the quality of health care is irrelevant if you are DOA), the US is number one in life expectancy.

pandy

11-10-2013, 03:50 PM

The bottom line is, the gov't is not doing enough to addressing the biggest problem, costs.

Clocker

11-10-2013, 04:38 PM

The bottom line is, the gov't is not doing enough to addressing the biggest problem, costs.

They aren't doing anything to address it. They are making it worse. The government was already a major burden on the health care and insurance industries. ObamaCare has already resulted in an additional 10,000+ pages of regulations. That ain't gonna help the cost or the quality of health care.

hcap

11-10-2013, 04:56 PM

How can you quantify the quality of care by cost? The costly the better? Or the less costly the better? . Are you joking? Getting the same or better outcomes by paying less is doable by single payer, and there are a multitude of single payer health outcomes that are as good or better than what we have. Other than just life expectancy. For example the first graphic I posted showed outcomes after hospital admission for in hospital deaths after heart attacks.

And from my previous post.......

Number of doctor visits....

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/20...usversuseurope/

Do we simply use a lot more healthcare? The average number of physician visits per person in the U.S. is 4, below the OECD median of 6.4, and far below Japan’s 13 visits per person. Similarly, we have fewer hospital discharges at 131 per 1,000 people versus the OECD median of 160 and France’s 263 per 1,000. The average hospital stay per person is also lower in the U.S., at 5.4 days versus the OECD median of 5.9 days and Canada’s average of over one week.

http://epianalysis.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2012-07-17-03-40-25-pm.png?w=952&h=716

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/Rankings/InternationalComparisons#_ftnref2

World Health Statistics 2012 publication compares the United States to other countries of the world on a variety of health related measures. While the U.S. does outperform many countries, it is far from the best in many of the key measures used to gauge healthiness, and it lags behind its peers in other developed countries. And life expectancy means something tangible. With a life expectancy of 81 years for women and 76 years for men, the United States ranks 29th among the 193 reporting nations of the WHO. Life expectancy in the U.S. doesn’t compare to most other developed countries as U.S. male life expectancy rates are on par with Chile, Cuba, and Slovenia and U.S. female life expectancy rates are on par with Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, and Poland. Not only does the U.S. spend the most on health care, it also has one of the highest health inequalities compared to other developed countries.

And access to health care must also be considered.

The U.S. ranks among the worst OECD countries for child health well-being, having an inequality higher than average.[12] Although the U.S. has the highest national income per person, it continues to rank as the worst country for income inequality. This inequality is thought to explain why it has the highest index of health and social problems compared to other wealthy nations.

Despite the highest per capita spending on health care, the U.S. doesn’t fare well in most comparisons to other developed countries. Key indicators of health and the health care system are substantially lower in the U.S. compared to other countries. The U.S. has some of the most state-of-the-art health care facilities, yet behavioral factors such as physical inactivity, smoking, and dietary choices, combined with disparities, result in poor performance. Innovative solutions from the individual to the national level are needed in order to address the health care challenges of the future.

.................................................. ............

BTW, all of this was already covered.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107354&highlight=obama

JustRalph

11-10-2013, 05:19 PM

Obamacare is officially a piece of shit. When Hcap shows up with charts and graphs to defend it, it's a done deal

hcap

11-10-2013, 05:23 PM

No, I was defending single payer. Which Obama could never get considering the repugs in congress

Single payer is much better

johnhannibalsmith

11-10-2013, 05:37 PM

...

Single payer is much better

There's one statement about this Obamacare scam that we can probably agree on.

Clocker

11-10-2013, 06:01 PM

Key indicators of health and the health care system are substantially lower in the U.S. compared to other countries. The U.S. has some of the most state-of-the-art health care facilities, yet behavioral factors such as physical inactivity, smoking, and dietary choices, combined with disparities, result in poor performance. Innovative solutions from the individual to the national level are needed in order to address the health care challenges of the future.

Further proof of my assertion that statistical analysis of the quality of health care is pointless. In both common and statistical meanings of the word, you are dealing with different populations. Comparison is meaningless.

And unlike Europe, or New York City, we don't want innovative solutions to behavioral factors here, thank you very much.

Clocker

11-10-2013, 06:04 PM

No, I was defending single payer. Which Obama could never get considering the repugs in congress

When he took office, he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. You can't blame the GOP for denying Obama his fondest desires. He couldn't even lead his own party.

TJDave

11-10-2013, 06:23 PM

When he took office, he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. You can't blame the GOP for denying Obama his fondest desires. He couldn't even lead his own party.

He didn't have the votes in the Senate. Just because they were democrats didn't mean they were pro single payer. The insurance lobby is an equal opportunity employer.

Clocker

11-10-2013, 06:26 PM

He didn't have the votes in the Senate. Just because they were democrats didn't mean they were pro single payer. The insurance lobby is an equal opportunity employer.

Are you saying that (gasp!!!) our lawmakers don't always vote their principles? :eek:

TJDave

11-10-2013, 06:44 PM

Are you saying that (gasp!!!) our lawmakers don't always vote their principles? :eek:

No. Lawmakers ALWAYS vote their principles which, unfortunately, rarely resemble our principles.

fast4522

11-10-2013, 06:56 PM

And what if this is as good as Obamacare gets, you pay 3 times what you used to before it passed. The ultimate showdown, repeal or nothing.

Track Collector

11-10-2013, 08:44 PM

No, I was defending single payer. Which Obama could never get considering the repugs in congress

Single payer is much better

I believe you have the inability to sense and/or recognize real danger when it comes to government control of critical sectors like the health industry. With the government, the checks and balances are only as good as the majority of people currently in office and their integrity. Every day we learn more and more about the "intentions" of those in power, and only the naive would believe they are in OUR best interests.

Integrity aside, the Past Performances of the government to successfully and economically run programs better than the private section are very poor. When you bet on the current horse (government), you are betting on a loser, with the majority of citizens being the ones who really lose.

We only need to convince about 10-15% of the people who voted for the current administration and have the ability of intelligent reasoning to see the error of their ways, and then we can bring about real and positive change.

...

NJ Stinks

11-10-2013, 09:27 PM

We only need to convince about 10-15% of the people who voted for the current administration and have the ability of intelligent reasoning to see the error of their ways, and then we can bring about real and positive change.

...

Nothing like trying to feel superior while getting pounded in order to stoke your fragile ego. :rolleyes:

pandy

11-10-2013, 11:08 PM

I believe you have the inability to sense and/or recognize real danger when it comes to government control of critical sectors like the health industry. With the government, the checks and balances are only as good as the majority of people currently in office and their integrity. Every day we learn more and more about the "intentions" of those in power, and only the naive would believe they are in OUR best interests.

Integrity aside, the Past Performances of the government to successfully and economically run programs better than the private section are very poor. When you bet on the current horse (government), you are betting on a loser, with the majority of citizens being the ones who really lose.

...

It's true. If you look at the recession, which was almost a depression, the government played a huge role with mishandling of Fannie Mae, keeping interests rates too low even as housing prices were soaring, and pushing banks to give out risky mortgages via the community reinvestment act. The government really screwed things up big time. The Banks did their part too, but the Federal Reserve and the SEC failed to do its job and protect the American public from the banking greed, and, in fact, actually became an unwitting partner to the banking industry. It was gross incompetence.

Track Collector

11-11-2013, 12:21 AM

Nothing like trying to feel superior while getting pounded in order to stoke your fragile ego. :rolleyes:

We see things differently.

I see the most recent Presidential election that was close, and a growing number of Obama supporters who are recognizing that they were lied to by Obama and the democrats. The realities of programs like Obamacare are causing more than just a little concern.

The current administration is arguably the most divisive and corrupt we have ever seen, and they should be dismissed as soon as possible. You are either for them or against them.

By the way...........I'm no fan of your recently re-elected REPUBLICAN governor. I see him as not much different than the current republican establishment that also need to be given the boot.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 01:31 AM

Integrity aside, the Past Performances of the government to successfully and economically run programs better than the private section are very poor.
Do you have any proof that this the case. Because I have plenty of proof that it is not. Let's start with Social Security. Social Security has never failed to fully pay out a legitimate benefit. And it will be many years before it is in any danger of failing to do so. Furthermore, any problems that may be forthcoming for Social Security can be solved simply by removing the cap on contributions.

Is it necessary for me to list the private pension plans that have gone broke or had funds stolen by the corporations that were supposed to protect them for the workers. There has been Social Security fraud, but it is fraud perpetrated against Social Security. Much-no most of the fraud in the private sector plans has been perpetrated by the operators of the plans.

Maybe Medicare? Overhead for Medicare is under 5%-well under. Overhead for private insurance is over 20%-in some cases way over. Is a Medicare client more or less likely to be approved for a treatment than a client of the private sector? In post #78 of this thread Nijinski said; With medicare you can see your physician today and
and have a medically necessary procedure scheduled tomorrow. With the private medicare replacements it could take 72 hours to 10 days to get an approval for the same medically necessary procedure . If they choose to
deny the service it can be up to a 21 day review .

Could the airline industry even exist without government to run the airports, provide security, provide air traffic controllers, issue pilot licenses and grant or refuse routes to airlines? Do you think a private company could do that?

What kind of a national highway system would we have if the government didn't coordinate and pay for their construction.

Amtrak is the best railroad passenger service we have. It is also the only one, because private railroad companies could not run a passenger service at all.

I can think of any number of programs that the government can and does run better than private industry.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 03:39 AM

Do you have any proof that this the case. Because I have plenty of proof that it is not. Let's start with Social Security. Social Security has never failed to fully pay out a legitimate benefit. And it will be many years before it is in any danger of failing to do so. Furthermore, any problems that may be forthcoming for Social Security can be solved simply by removing the cap on contributions.

Is it necessary for me to list the private pension plans that have gone broke or had funds stolen by the corporations that were supposed to protect them for the workers. There has been Social Security fraud, but it is fraud perpetrated against Social Security. Much-no most of the fraud in the private sector plans has been perpetrated by the operators of the plans.

Social Security has never failed to pay benefits because it is a Ponzi scheme, using money from those currently paying in (tax revenue) to pay those currently receiving benefits. It currently has a negative cash flow that is getting worse and worse as time goes on. The system is unsustainable, and would be illegal in the private sector. It appeared to be working as long as the labor force was growing faster than people were retiring. That gravy train is over.

Overhead for Medicare is under 5%-well under. Overhead for private insurance is over 20%-in some cases way over.

Medicare and private insurance cannot be compared. Medicare is a monopoly with mandatory contribution from all workers. Private insurance companies have sales and marketing expenses and regulatory compliance expenses that Medicare does not have. If Medicare is so efficient, how can private companies make money competing with it without the benefit of monopoly contributions and government revenue?

Thebart

11-11-2013, 07:34 AM

My compliments on an outstanding post.

Do you have any proof that this the case. Because I have plenty of proof that it is not. Let's start with Social Security. Social Security has never failed to fully pay out a legitimate benefit. And it will be many years before it is in any danger of failing to do so. Furthermore, any problems that may be forthcoming for Social Security can be solved simply by removing the cap on contributions.

Is it necessary for me to list the private pension plans that have gone broke or had funds stolen by the corporations that were supposed to protect them for the workers. There has been Social Security fraud, but it is fraud perpetrated against Social Security. Much-no most of the fraud in the private sector plans has been perpetrated by the operators of the plans.

Maybe Medicare? Overhead for Medicare is under 5%-well under. Overhead for private insurance is over 20%-in some cases way over. Is a Medicare client more or less likely to be approved for a treatment than a client of the private sector? In post #78 of this thread Nijinski said;

Could the airline industry even exist without government to run the airports, provide security, provide air traffic controllers, issue pilot licenses and grant or refuse routes to airlines? Do you think a private company could do that?

What kind of a national highway system would we have if the government didn't coordinate and pay for their construction.

Amtrak is the best railroad passenger service we have. It is also the only one, because private railroad companies could not run a passenger service at all.

I can think of any number of programs that the government can and does run better than private industry.

pandy

11-11-2013, 08:44 AM

Amtrak loses money. The post office loses money. You guys are trying to compare privately run companies to gov't run enterprises but the big difference is, in the private sector you either make a profit or shut down. The gov't can continue to run losing businesses like the Post Office and Amtrak because they just take whatever money they need from us (suckers) to keep it going.

As for the highway system, don't tell me that state governments don't abuse the toll system. It costs $15.00 go to over the Verrazano Bridge in N.Y. That's called HIGHWAY Robbery.

You're trying to tell us how efficient the government is when we have trillions of dollars in debt and we pay millions in interests payment every day.

The post office is a good example of how the gov't wastes our money. We could easily go to 4 or 5 day delivery and close half of the post offices and it wouldn't hurt us a bit, and we could get the post office at least to the break even point or maybe even profitable. In a 10 mile radius from my house there are a half dozen small post offices and if every one of them was closed all it would mean was that people would either have to hand their mail to their mailman or drive a few miles more to one of the larger post offices.

pandy

11-11-2013, 09:08 AM

And I can attest to that B.S. because my mother could NOT keep her Doctor unless she switched to an even more expensive plan, which she did.

Just an update on this: This article pretty much confirms what I already suspected.

http://tinyurl.com/mckxp4h

Tom

11-11-2013, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by mostpost
Pure stupidity. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer junk plans....

Now, only the government will be allowed to offer junk plans.

Tom

11-11-2013, 09:44 AM

Quality and accessibility do not necessarily suffer.

Yes, they do.

Tom

11-11-2013, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by hcap
...

Single payer is much better

You can't prove it.
SP has NEVER been attempted on a scale as large as the US - and not all SP is the same - you cannot compare our situation to any other country.

DJofSD

11-11-2013, 09:52 AM

You can't prove it.

Damn, Tom, now we're going to be flooded with charts and graphs.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 10:31 AM

Could the airline industry even exist without government to run the airports, provide security, provide air traffic controllers, issue pilot licenses and grant or refuse routes to airlines? Do you think a private company could do that?

Yes, the private sector could do that. The federal government owns and operates 2 airports, Dulles and Reagan National. The rest are local or private. The few airports allowed to use private security instead of the TSA are known for efficiency and customer satisfaction. Routes are no longer regulated. If the government had not taken responsibility for air traffic control, a private system would have developed. It might or might not have been better.

Amtrak is the best railroad passenger service we have. It is also the only one, because private railroad companies could not run a passenger service at all.

You don't see the irony in saying Amtrak is the best? Private railroads ran much better rail service for years, at a profit. The market changed and demand evaporated. Government regulations contributed to the decline. I worked in the rail industry while going to college, and the inefficiencies and wasted money in government operations of Amtrak were stunning.

DJofSD

11-11-2013, 10:35 AM

Clocker, that college stint as a railroad employee, where you in a union?

Clocker

11-11-2013, 10:54 AM

Clocker, that college stint as a railroad employee, where you in a union?

I had two different jobs in the rail industry. I worked in operations for a railroad. That job was union. I was a drone as far as the company and the union were concerned. The union took my dues and kept me in the dark.

I later worked for a private contractor that did repair work for Amtrak. That was non-union and I had much more freedom as far as doing my job and self-improvement. Amtrak's ignorance of the industry and waste of money was incredible.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 11:14 AM

Just an update on this: This article pretty much confirms what I already suspected.

http://tinyurl.com/mckxp4h

The insurance companies got in bed with the government to make ObamaCare as much to their advantage as possible. They drooled over all the new mandatory policies they could sell. They, of all parties, should have read the bill to see what was in it. Now the inevitable is happening. Obama is spinning like crazy trying to shift blame for lost insurance and lost doctors, and the insurance companies are the big fat easy target.

Former governor and good old boy Haley Barbour (R., Miss.) summed up the hole that the insurance companies have dug for themselves by saying that you should never pay the cannibals to eat you last.

Track Collector

11-11-2013, 11:21 AM

I can think of any number of programs that the government can and does run better than private industry.

In the one that matters the most, the government is running up a huge debt with no means to pay it off. Financial ruin and collapse are closer than you think. Whether you accept it or not, governments are not immune to the realities and laws of economics. They have the ability to print money which will just delay the inevitable.

Does it not bother you that every time the Fed prints more money, that pension of yours becomes worth less and less?

JustRalph

11-11-2013, 11:52 AM

Amtrak? Really? 800million in tax payer money and they still lose their ass!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/10/amtrak-food-service

Mosty,
This is really your response? This is why you are full of it

hcap

11-11-2013, 12:25 PM

Yes, they do.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1513819&postcount=19

mostpost

11-11-2013, 12:51 PM

Social Security has never failed to pay benefits because it is a Ponzi scheme, using money from those currently paying in (tax revenue) to pay those currently receiving benefits. It currently has a negative cash flow that is getting worse and worse as time goes on. The system is unsustainable, and would be illegal in the private sector. It appeared to be working as long as the labor force was growing faster than people were retiring. That gravy train is over.
I'm not going to waste my time explaining why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. I have done so many times and your failure to grasp the reasons is not my problem.

There may be a negative cash flow at present, but that is partly due to the Baby Boomers. That boom will come to end eventually. In any case it is well established that the negative cash flow can be solved without increasing the SS tax and without reducing benefits. Unfortunately Republicans in Congress will never go along with anything that fixes Social Security. We need to vote the bastards out.

Medicare and private insurance cannot be compared. Medicare is a monopoly with mandatory contribution from all workers. Private insurance companies have sales and marketing expenses and regulatory compliance expenses that Medicare does not have. If Medicare is so efficient, how can private companies make money competing with it without the benefit of monopoly contributions and government revenue?

If you have private insurance you make a mandatory contribution, I do not know of any insurance plan in which the payment of premiums is optional.
In the same way that private companies spend money on advertising, Medicare spends money on informational advertising; explaining programs, informing members and promoting optional plans such as Medicare part B and Medicare Part D.

Private companies compete with Medicare by receiving government subsidies, to the tune of $70 Billion a year. Of course that ended with the passage of the Affordable Care Act and now private companies are getting out of the Medicare advantage field or drastically changing their plans.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 01:12 PM

Yes, the private sector could do that. The federal government owns and operates 2 airports, Dulles and Reagan National. The rest are local or private. The few airports allowed to use private security instead of the TSA are known for efficiency and customer satisfaction. Routes are no longer regulated. If the government had not taken responsibility for air traffic control, a private system would have developed. It might or might not have been better.
Find me a municipal airport of any size which is not run by a government entity. Find me any airport into which passenger planes fly that is not run by a government entity. The private airports are the small airports serving mostly privately owned aircraft.

Your idea that a group of private companies could run air a nationwide air traffic control system as well as the federal government is foolish. How would you pass off a plane going from one jurisdiction to another? How do you insure that systems are compatible? How do you pay for this? Does United Air Lines contract with fifty different private companies to provide air traffic control for its planes? Does Southwest contract with a different set of fifty companies?

The government, federal, state or local, is not supposed to make a profit. A private system, by its nature, is. A private system would be more expensive and less efficient. By far.

DJofSD

11-11-2013, 01:15 PM

A private system would be more expensive and less efficient. By far.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Clocker

11-11-2013, 01:18 PM

If you have private insurance you make a mandatory contribution, I do not know of any insurance plan in which the payment of premiums is optional.

If I voluntarily have a private insurance policy of my choosing, I make a mandatory payment to keep it. If I voluntarily purchase a new car, I have a mandatory payment to keep it.

If I have a paycheck, FICA taxes are withheld without my consent, and used to pay benefits to retirees. The people in their 30s and 40s currently working are paying for the retirement of those over 65. It is a given that those people in their 30s and 40s are not going to have the same system in place when they retire. So it is a Ponzi scheme. They are paying for something that they will never get. The money they are paying in will be gone. They and their children will have to pay even more for whatever replaces that system.

JustRalph

11-11-2013, 01:22 PM

The government, federal, state or local, is not supposed to make a profit. A private system, by its nature, is. A private system would be more expensive and less efficient. By far.

OMG! Have you ever been a pilot flying "in the system?" If you had spent any time flying in the system you would know how bad it is........and how goofy your statement is

Btw, there are lots of private fields who have passenger service that run great. There are even passenger service routes that don't have control towers. And they work great! The less government in flying operations the better.

There are tons of contract towers too......they are private......

Clocker

11-11-2013, 01:27 PM

Your idea that a group of private companies could run air a nationwide air traffic control system as well as the federal government is foolish.

Private industries cooperatively run an airline reservation system that is a whole lot more efficient than HealthCare.gov.

Private industries cooperatively run the Internet a whole lot more efficiently than the government could.

Private railroads cooperatively deliver freight through numerous independent carriers.

You don't think that the airlines could cooperatively run an air traffic control system?

Clocker

11-11-2013, 01:30 PM

OMG! Have you ever been a pilot flying "in the system?" If you had spent any time flying in the system you would know how bad it is........and how goofy your statement is

Imagine if the airlines kept all the money they pay in taxes and used it to run an air traffic control joint venture corporation.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 02:32 PM

Amtrak loses money. The post office loses money.
They lose money because of restrictions and obligations placed on them by congress, not because of operating inefficiencies. I won't discuss the Post Office for the thousandth time.

Are you aware that Amtrak can not set its routes without approval from Congress. When Amtrak was chartered rural congressmen insisted that routes go through small towns.

These are the seven stops between Chicago, Il and Omaha, Ne. on the California Zephyr. (with population)

Princeton, IL. (7,660)
Galesburg, IL. (32,195)
Burlington, IA. (25,683)
Mt. Pleasant, IA (8,668)
Ottumwa, IA. (25,023)
Osceola, IA. (4,929)
Creston, IA. (7,834)

Total population: 112,172

Here is an alternate route that makes a lot more sense.
Rockford/Belvidere, IL. (178,456)
Rock Island/Moline, IL. (82,501)
Davenport/Bettandorf, IA. (131,902)
Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, IA. (194,188)
Des Moines, IA. metropolitan area. (588,999)

Total population 1,176,046. And that doesn't include hundreds of thousands between those stops and within 20 miles of the line.

How can Amtrak be expected to make a profit when it is serving one tenth of its potential customers on this route alone?

Clocker

11-11-2013, 03:09 PM

They lose money because of restrictions and obligations placed on them by congress, not because of operating inefficiencies. I won't discuss the Post Office for the thousandth time.

How can Amtrak be expected to make a profit when it is serving one tenth of its potential customers on this route alone?

Did you even read what you just said?

You said that Amtrak cannot be profitable because it is being run by the government.

TJDave

11-11-2013, 03:18 PM

You said that Amtrak cannot be profitable because it is being run by the government.

Of course it's not profitable. That's why it is run by the government. Governments are not supposed to be profitable.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 03:47 PM

Did you even read what you just said?

You said that Amtrak cannot be profitable because it is being run by the government.
There is the government and there is the government. Congress is the government as politicians. They make laws and rules based on their constituents, which includes voters and contributors.

Amtrak is not run by the government, but it has to operate according to rules set by the government-by Congress. Congress does not care if Amtrak does well, or makes money, or goes out of business. Amtrak is in a no win situation. It is forced to run unprofitable routes. It can't get money for needed upgrades.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 03:56 PM

Amtrak is not run by the government, but it has to operate according to rules set by the government-by Congress. Congress does not care if Amtrak does well, or makes money, or goes out of business. Amtrak is in a no win situation. It is forced to run unprofitable routes. It can't get money for needed upgrades.

So you are saying that by its very nature, government is less efficient than a private business because the people in charge suffer no personal consequences for inefficiency or even failure.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 03:58 PM

Private industries cooperatively run an airline reservation system that is a whole lot more efficient than HealthCare.gov.

Private industries cooperatively run the Internet a whole lot more efficiently than the government could.

Private railroads cooperatively deliver freight through numerous independent carriers.

You don't think that the airlines could cooperatively run an air traffic control system?
Airline reservations have been in operation for decades. HealthCare.gov has been in operation one month. How efficient would those systems be if 60% of airlines refused to run a reservation system?

If a freight train can't proceed onto the next section of track, it stops and waits.If an airplane can't proceed to the next airport, there is no stopping and waiting.

Why don't you call a few airlines and ask them what they think of switching the federal air traffic control system for a private coop? Don't blame me when they laugh in your face.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 04:02 PM

So you are saying that by its very nature, government is less efficient than a private business because the people in charge suffer no personal consequences for inefficiency or even failure.
You sure are entertaining. No matter what someone says, you respond with the same conservative talking points. "People in government don't care; poor people don't care; no one cares except me, Clocker."

Get over yourself.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 04:30 PM

Why don't you call a few airlines and ask them what they think of switching the federal air traffic control system for a private coop? Don't blame me when they laugh in your face.

I didn't say that changing now would be possible. I pointed out that it was not a law of nature that government was the only one that could have put it together.

Saratoga_Mike

11-11-2013, 04:39 PM

Airline reservations have been in operation for decades. HealthCare.gov has been in operation one month. How efficient would those systems be if 60% of airlines refused to run a reservation system?

You ignore CMS's fatal mistake of taking on the role of systems integrator (with virtually no such experience at this scale). The DoD probably could have pulled off the SI role, but not CMS. So the private sector equivalent would be the airline industry attempting to oversee the creation of an entirely new reservation systems without an outside systems integrator (like an IBM Global Srvs). One last problem with your point - CMS knew for well over the past yr that a large portion of states would not create their own exchanges.

Saratoga_Mike

11-11-2013, 04:41 PM

There is the government and there is the government. Congress is the government as politicians. They make laws and rules based on their constituents, which includes voters and contributors.

Amtrak is not run by the government, but it has to operate according to rules set by the government-by Congress. Congress does not care if Amtrak does well, or makes money, or goes out of business. Amtrak is in a no win situation. It is forced to run unprofitable routes. It can't get money for needed upgrades.

Sounds like you may support privatizing Amtrak - good for you Most!

Saratoga_Mike

11-11-2013, 04:48 PM

Airline reservations have been in operation for decades. HealthCare.gov has been in operation one month. How efficient would those systems be if 60% of airlines refused to run a reservation system?

.

One more question - I assume IL is running its own exchange. If so, could you please let us know what news reports are saying about the number of IL resident who have signed up thus far? Thanks.

Clocker

11-11-2013, 04:53 PM

Sounds like you may support privatizing Amtrak - good you Most!

Despite claims here to the contrary, governmental restrictions aside, Amtrak is not operationally efficient and would fail quickly without subsidies. When the large private railroads were still running passenger trains, they were being subsidized by the government and still could not make a profit.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 06:34 PM

You ignore CMS's fatal mistake of taking on the role of systems integrator (with virtually no such experience at this scale). The DoD probably could have pulled off the SI role, but not CMS. So the private sector equivalent would be the airline industry attempting to oversee the creation of an entirely new reservation systems without an outside systems integrator (like an IBM Global Srvs). One last problem with your point - CMS knew for well over the past yr that a large portion of states would not create their own exchanges.
I'm not ignoring it. Clearly they were not capable of fulfilling that role. That fact does not mean that Obamacare is a failure.

If you think that I think that government can do everything, then you are not thinking very well. The role of CMS hear should have been that of overseer. Let someone develop the program. Make sure it functions properly. Then launch it. (Excuse me if my phraseology is imprecise. I do not have a computer background.)

Yes it is a negative that CMS did not take the fact that thirty plus states were not going to create their own exchanges seriously.

mostpost

11-11-2013, 07:16 PM

Sounds like you may support privatizing Amtrak - good for you Most!
Just like that MetLife cartoon ad where the MetLife guy tells Lucy Van Pelt "Everything can't be five cents!!!" Everything can't be privatized.

What we can do is provide a national passenger service that serves major metropolitan areas and smaller towns in between. Here is a list of large cities not currently served by Amtrak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_cities_in_U.S._lacking_Amtrak_servic e
That list does not include major cities that are not directly connected. Why isn't there an Amtrak Route connecting Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville. Atlanta, Orlando and Miami. Why are there not reasonably priced long term parking facilities near big city train depots. Why are there no rental car facilities or at least shuttles to such facilities.

When I traveled on the California Zephyr to the Bay Area in California, I had to take a $40 car ride to the airport to pick up my rental car. And forty dollars when I returned the car and had to get back to the Amtrak station.

dartman51

11-11-2013, 09:26 PM

mostpost

11-11-2013, 10:40 PM

When Obama said that children could stay on their parents plan till they're 26. He forgot to mention that if you are in the military, or retired military, THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. You or your children will have to pay for the insurance. :eek:
Really? Perhaps you could provide us with a link to this. In the meantime, I have a link for you.

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T027-C001-S001-military-health-plan-now-covers-adult-children.html

If you have trouble accessing the link, here are the first few paragraphs.
I’m in the military and my 23-year-old son was dropped from the Tricare health insurance program when he graduated from college. I understand the rules have changed regarding coverage for young adults. Can he get back on my policy?

Even though the new health care law required most insurers to offer coverage for adult children up to age 26 on their parents’ policies starting last January, Tricare (the health care coverage for members of the military and their families) did not offer this coverage extension until recently. But now you can sign up to cover your adult children up to age 26, and you can even get coverage retroactively to January 1, 2011, if you act quickly.

Tricare coverage generally ends for adult children at age 21 (or 23 for full-time students). But the new rules let you extend that coverage until the child reaches age 26. Like the new rules for standard health insurance policies, the young adult doesn’t need to be a dependent for tax purposes and doesn’t need to live with the service member. But the young adult does need to be registered with the family in DEERS (the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System). In addition, young adults cannot be married and can’t be eligible to enroll in a health insurance plan through their own employer (even if they choose not to take their employer’s coverage). If they lose their job and are eligible for extended group health insurance coverage under COBRA, however, they can choose to get Tricare young adult coverage instead (COBRA eligibility doesn’t render them ineligible for this Tricare coverage).

Clocker

11-12-2013, 11:15 AM

Really? Perhaps you could provide us with a link to this. In the meantime, I have a link for you.

The link you posted confirms what dartman51 said. If you are in the military, you cannot keep a child over 21 (23 if a student) on your policy. As he said, and as your link says, you can purchase an additional policy for that child under Tricare. But that child is no longer on your policy, so an ObamaCare benefit is denied to the military.

DJofSD

11-12-2013, 01:30 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?awesm=freedo.mw_f0t&v=BUsUWFANPS8

DJofSD

11-12-2013, 01:45 PM

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2013/11/12/batting-333-aca-isnt-baseball/

While a Democrat-controlled House and Senate created the income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and a Republican-controlled House and Senate finally granted Women’s suffrage under the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, neither Party’s accomplishment measures up to the unique character and impact of the ACA. That is because those Amendments were subject to the standards imposed by Article V of the Constitution, which required a sufficient building of consensus to secure ratification by three-fourths of the States.

Conversely, the ACA made sweeping reforms to a sector that represents one-sixth of the United States economy while only passing the House by a vote of 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. The passage of a bill of this magnitude, without any cross-over support, is unparalleled in the annals of our nation’s history.

GaryG

11-12-2013, 02:07 PM

Some advice from Bill Clinton who, in retrospect, was not that bad.

http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/bill-clinton-presses-obama-to-keep-promise-on-health-coverage.html

Tom

11-12-2013, 02:25 PM

Someone define for me what is a substandard plan?

DJofSD

11-12-2013, 02:27 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewspeakSomeone define for me what is a substandard plan?

ArlJim78

11-12-2013, 02:30 PM

Bill Clinton is a hack. September he was bad mouthing Republicans who didn't like Obamacare now he's advising Obama to live up to his promise of letting people keep their plan if they want. Excuse me, but that is what Republicans objected to. He knows damn well that is impossible under Obamacare. Those plans are gone with the wind.

Clocker

11-12-2013, 02:34 PM

Someone define for me what is a substandard plan?

Under ObamaCare, everyone has to have a QHP (qualified healthcare plan) that includes the EHBs (essential health benefits). The EHBs are:
Essential Health Benefit Categories

Ambulatory Services such as Doctor Visits
Hospitalization
Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Services, Including Behavioral Health
Rehabilitative and Habilitative Services and Devices
Laboratory Services
Emergency Services
Maternity and Newborn Care
Prescription Drugs
Preventative and Wellness Services and Chronic Disease Management
Pediatric Services, including oral care, offered as part of a QHP package or as a stand-alone plan

QHPs must also meet certain financial standards, such as no rate discrimination based on gender, limits on cost-sharing and out-of-pocket costs, and no cap on life time benefit pay outs.

Tom

11-12-2013, 02:41 PM

Oh, I see - a plan that contains a bunch of BS services that may people do not need and will never need.

I see.

mostpost

11-12-2013, 10:04 PM

The link you posted confirms what dartman51 said. If you are in the military, you cannot keep a child over 21 (23 if a student) on your policy. As he said, and as your link says, you can purchase an additional policy for that child under Tricare. But that child is no longer on your policy, so an ObamaCare benefit is denied to the military.
Good grief. Are you never embarrassed to be wrong all the time. From my link;
Tricare coverage generally ends for adult children at age 21 (or 23 for full-time students). But the new rules let you extend that coverage until the child reaches age 26.
How can that be any clearer? "The new rules let you extend that coverage until the child reaches age 26. Not new coverage-extend the old.

Unlike the standard health insurance rules, there is a monthly premium specifically for Tricare Young Adult coverage -- $186 per month in 2011.
I'm sure that you think the above quote means military families have to pay $186 a month to extend the coverage to children up to age 26. You would be wrong. Previous to the change military families paid $186 a month to have their children up to age 21 (23 for full time students) on their policies. Now that $186 a month covers children up to 26.

People with standard insurance pay extra for their children. People with Tricare pay extra for their children. The difference is that in one case the cost is included in the premium. In the other it is a separate charge.

Clocker

11-12-2013, 11:38 PM

Good grief. Are you never embarrassed to be wrong all the time. From my link;

How can that be any clearer? "The new rules let you extend that coverage until the child reaches age 26. Not new coverage-extend the old.

You are nitpicking this to death. The original issue was that under ObamaCare children up to 26 can be on their parents plan, under Tricare, they can't. That is a correct statement. They cannot be covered under the parents Tricare policy.

The article you quote above is wrong. It, and you, say "extend the coverage". Tricare says no. A child can remain on his parents Tricare plan up to 21, or 23 if a student. At that point, the child is no longer eligible for Tricare. He or she "ages out". According to Tricare (http://www.tricare.mil/Welcome/Eligibility/DEERS/Children.aspx),

When your child "ages out" of TRICARE he or she may qualify to purchase TRICARE Young Adult (http://www.tricare.mil/Welcome/Plans/TYA.aspx).

"May qualify" to purchase a separate, different policy, not "can extend the current coverage" under the same policy. The policy benefits can vary, as can the premium. Those have no relation to the parents policy.

mostpost

11-13-2013, 10:36 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?awesm=freedo.mw_f0t&v=BUsUWFANPS8
1. O'keefe is a scumbag.
2. It has been proven that he selectively edits tape and the unedited tape shows something different from the edited tape.
3. The three navigators he quoted were still in training and he knew they were in training.
4. They did explain to him that he should have reported the income.
5. The woman who told him to lie about smoking was a receptionist, not a navigator.
6. This is all another example of trying to denigrate Obamacare, by pointing out isolated flaws not related to the program itself.
Problems with the website are not flaws with the overall program.
An employee of another organization-a trainee-giving out questionable advice is not a flaw in Obamacare. Especially since we don't know what qualifying remarks or other advice was given.
Insurance companies sending out cancellation notices with less than complete options for new policies is not a flaw with Obamacare.

The Dallas Urban League has suspended the three navigators in question, but it also made it clear that it does not trust O'Keefe and that it is seeking the full tapes.

I think O'Keefe will make them available, because he knows that his low information audience will never bother to investigate further.

Clocker

11-13-2013, 10:49 AM

An employee of another organization-a trainee-giving out questionable advice is not a flaw in Obamacare.

Yes it is. The government is spending tax money to have people give out advice under government sponsorship without any safe guards in place to insure proper training, proper understanding of the program, or background checks on people who will be handling person financial information of citizens. Those citizens think that they are getting government approved information about ObamaCare. This makes no more sense than the government hiring private contractors to do tax audits without supervision.

We have seen this movie before. It was called ACORN.

tucker6

11-13-2013, 10:57 AM

You are nitpicking this to death. The original issue was that under ObamaCare children up to 26 can be on their parents plan, under Tricare, they can't. That is a correct statement. They cannot be covered under the parents Tricare policy.

The article you quote above is wrong. It, and you, say "extend the coverage". Tricare says no. A child can remain on his parents Tricare plan up to 21, or 23 if a student. At that point, the child is no longer eligible for Tricare. He or she "ages out". According to Tricare (http://www.tricare.mil/Welcome/Eligibility/DEERS/Children.aspx),

"May qualify" to purchase a separate, different policy, not "can extend the current coverage" under the same policy. The policy benefits can vary, as can the premium. Those have no relation to the parents policy.
Was Mostie's retort to this embarrassingly wrong post deleted, because I can't find it? :rolleyes:

Come on Mostie, you can do it.

mostpost

11-13-2013, 11:40 AM

Was Mostie's retort to this embarrassingly wrong post deleted, because I can't find it? :rolleyes:

Come on Mostie, you can do it.Why is it embarrassingly wrong. The article said that military kids now have coverage to age 26. Dartman said they don't. Even more important is the fact that Tricare is a separate system for military families. Therefore Obamacare did not exclude them from this benefit, because they were never a part of the civilian system to begin with.

Tom

11-13-2013, 01:00 PM

Clinton's comments were spot on.
Live up to your commitment, Barry.

The Hillary machine is revving up.

Clocker

11-13-2013, 01:14 PM

Clinton's comments were spot on.
Live up to your commitment, Barry.

The Hillary machine is revving up.

Bill Clinton is still one of the most politically astute people in the game. He sees how toxic ObamaCare is, so he is distancing her from the mess, without blaming the Dems who supported it.

So the Clintons help elect pro-Hillary Dems in 2014, then Hillary is positioned as the only one who can clean up the ObamaCare mess in 2016.

DJofSD

11-13-2013, 02:12 PM

1. O'keefe is a scumbag.

You make it tough to read the rest of your post when you start out with ad hominen attacks.

I suspect you meant to use another word but chickened out.

LottaKash

11-13-2013, 02:23 PM

Yes it is. The government is spending tax money to have people give out advice under government sponsorship without any safe guards in place to insure proper training, proper understanding of the program, or background checks on people who will be handling person financial information of citizens. Those citizens think that they are getting government approved information about ObamaCare. This makes no more sense than the government hiring private contractors to do tax audits without supervision.

We have seen this movie before. It was called ACORN.

One could add this, as well, to the "security issue worries":....:eek:

excerpt:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a Senate panel Wednesday that there are no safeguards in place that would prevent convicted felons from becoming "navigators" for the new health care law implementation.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/health-care-law-allows-hiring-convicted-felons-as-obamacare-navigators/article/2538612

LottaKash

11-13-2013, 02:35 PM

One could add this, as well, to the "security issue worries":....:eek:

excerpt:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a Senate panel Wednesday that there are no safeguards in place that would prevent convicted felons from becoming "navigators" for the new health care law implementation.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/health-care-law-allows-hiring-convicted-felons-as-obamacare-navigators/article/2538612

Even more to the story:...

excerpt:http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sebelius-it-is-possible-your-obamacare-navigator-could-be-a-convicted-felon

Navigators are counselors who are supposed to assist consumers signing up for plans through the new health care system. To facilitate the process, navigators will have access to the federal data hub, a vast database that connects the HHS to records compiled by the IRS, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Peace Corps.

But the federal government outsourced its hiring to 105 organizations receiving $67 million in federal grants.

Sebelius added these contractors are in charge of the employee screening process.

Among them are three Planned Parenthood affiliates, which received $655,000 to participate in the navigator program (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-to-receive-more-than-655000-as-navigators-for-obama), in Iowa, Montana, and New Hampshire: Planned Parenthood of the Heartland ($214,427), Intermountain Planned Parenthood, Inc.($295,604), and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England ($145,161).

DJofSD

11-15-2013, 03:02 PM

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/11/14/bowie-state-university-cancels-student-health-plans-as-premiums-jump-almost-1500-percent/

I guess that makes government health care look cheap.

ElKabong

11-16-2013, 01:01 AM

Problems with the website are not flaws with the overall program.

Mr Magoo does it again....The system is flawed to the core, dude
"If you liked the website, you'll love the healthcare"

ACA > Affordable Cancellation Care.....More and more are finding out Obama lied about keeping your doctor & healthcare plan if you liked it. Period.

Obama's shining moment (nObamacare) as a politician is his downfall and you lemmings can't stand it.....Delicious! Keep the rounds coming

pandy

11-16-2013, 09:30 AM

riskman

11-16-2013, 10:20 AM

This is what happened to my Mom, her doctor was dropped from her plan. The Democrats said this wouldn't happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/unitedhealth-drops-thousands-doctors-insurance-plans-wsj-030014903--finance.html

Is your mother insured through the AARP plan or does she have an Advantage Plan direct with United Health?

pandy

11-16-2013, 10:27 AM

She was with HIP-EMBLEM, but since they dropped her doctor she switched, I believe to United Health care, which was $40 more a month but had her doctor.

tucker6

11-16-2013, 12:29 PM

where is HCAP with a fancy graph to explain matters in greater detail? I miss the days when he used to post in the Obamacare threads. Been a while ...

DJofSD

11-16-2013, 12:44 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/16/msnbc-alec-baldwin-changes-story

Joins the panoply of famous liars.

Maybe he can go to work for Obama to support the ACA. Or maybe Bengazhi (sp).

JustRalph

11-16-2013, 01:07 PM

She was with HIP-EMBLEM, but since they dropped her doctor she switched, I believe to United Health care, which was $40 more a month but had her doctor.

She paid more to keep her Doc. Somebody on this board said that wouldn't happen, it wasn't an issue? I wonder who it was?

DJofSD

11-16-2013, 01:09 PM

She paid more to keep her Doc. Somebody on this board said that wouldn't happen, it wasn't an issue? I wonder who it was?
Smells like a protection racket. Or a pimp.

pandy

11-16-2013, 01:11 PM

People my Mom's age (87) shouldn't have to put up with this bull. Taking billions from Medicare, which adversely effects the people who use the health care system the most, was so dumb.

DJofSD

11-16-2013, 01:31 PM

Remind me: what demographic usually has the highest percentage voting participation?

What ever happened to the Gray Panthers?

Saratoga_Mike

11-16-2013, 01:32 PM

People my Mom's age (87) shouldn't have to put up with this bull. Taking billions from Medicare, which adversely effects the people who use the health care system the most, was so dumb.

She should just re-join the traditional Medicare-fee-for-service program. I would bet you a lot of money her doc participates.

nijinski

11-16-2013, 01:57 PM

She should just re-join the traditional Medicare-fee-for-service program. I would bet you a lot of money her doc participates.

That's exactly what I 've been saying .

Saratoga_Mike

11-16-2013, 01:59 PM

That's exactly what I 've been saying .

Obvious solution. From memory, the change needs to be made very soon. Actually, did the enrollment period end yesterday?

pandy

11-16-2013, 02:00 PM

She should just re-join the traditional Medicare-fee-for-service program. I would bet you a lot of money her doc participates.

I have to get more involved. My mom is very cautious. She got hit with a $3,000 bill last year when she was just paying the Medigap, or whatever you call it, so she immediately signed up for a more comprehensive, expensive, plan. So she went from paying $60 a month to $300. She even has rehab covered, which she claims she needs. I don't know, this stuff is confusing.

pandy

11-16-2013, 02:01 PM

Obvious solution. From memory, the change needs to be made very soon. Actually, did the enrollment period end yesterday?

I thought it was Dec. 7.

Saratoga_Mike

11-16-2013, 02:03 PM

I have to get more involved. My mom is very cautious. She got hit with a $3,000 bill last year when she was just paying the Medigap, or whatever you call it, so she immediately signed up for a more comprehensive, expensive, plan. So she went from paying $60 a month to $300. She even has rehab covered, which she claims she needs. I don't know, this stuff is confusing.

You need to get to work on it ASAP. The switch needs to be made soon. There will be trade-offs if she decides to go back into the traditional FFS program, but I'm very confident her existing doctor participates. If not, he has a very high-end patient base.

Saratoga_Mike

11-16-2013, 02:04 PM

I thought it was Dec. 7.

You're probably right - I'm working from memory from four of five yrs ago when I was up to speed on MA. Good luck.

nijinski

11-16-2013, 02:10 PM

She was with HIP-EMBLEM, but since they dropped her doctor she switched, I believe to United Health care, which was $40 more a month but had her doctor.

Hip Emblem is constantly going through transition .

They are the worst payers of almost all the insurers out there .They also
have very poor customer service .

Now that you mentioned her former plan , I'm not surprised it was dropped .
They have record complaints . I feel bad she lost her doctor , none of this
is her fault and it's I'm sure very difficult for her .

I've got to tell you though , a medical office or facility would have to quickly shut down if all insurance paid as poorly or as slowly as they do .

There CEO's have no complaints though.