Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2013, 09:22 PM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
I was going to post a reply, in fact I had it all typed out, but then I re-read your red herring stating that Chas and I were similar to Holocaust deniers and I realized that you are no longer rational in this debate. To insinuate that my conflicting idea of what you believe is correct is equivalent of denying 3.1 million people being murdered is simply disgusting.

Have fun with the conservative Tea-Baggers and your theocracy, I'd prefer Obama any day of the year.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Likos02's post
07-11-2013, 11:38 PM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(07-11-2013 09:22 PM)Likos02 Wrote:  I was going to post a reply, in fact I had it all typed out, but then I re-read your red herring stating that Chas and I were similar to Holocaust deniers and I realized that you are no longer rational in this debate. To insinuate that my conflicting idea of what you believe is correct is equivalent of denying 3.1 million people being murdered is simply disgusting.

Have fun with the conservative Tea-Baggers and your theocracy, I'd prefer Obama any day of the year.

It shows how little you understand me or the classic liberal position. From our vantage point we're actually the opposite of the Tea-Baggers, and you guys are actually on the same side as them.

Regardless, today Obama apologized and regarding his earlier pledge: “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” He finally said "I'm sorry" and conceded that it wasn't true. link

Of course, I doubt that will stop you and Chas from continuing to insist that Obama's pledge really was true all along. And you'll probably miss the comedy of seeing Obama say "I'm sorry", while his loyal defenders insist he had nothing to apologize for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 04:47 AM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(07-11-2013 11:38 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Regardless, today Obama apologized and regarding his earlier pledge: “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” He finally said "I'm sorry" and conceded that it wasn't true.

Do you accept the apology?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 08:31 AM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
Related:
I read this article today, and I tend to agree with it. It's not necessarily the ACA, but insurance companies trying to make more money from people. (Though I do concede that the ACA has flaws and the President fluffed it up too much)

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/...care-scam/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(08-11-2013 04:47 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Do you accept the apology?

@GirlyMan, it's not up to me to accept it. As I said, this isn't about me, because Obamacare doesn't materially hurt me. My fury is over the other people that get royally fucked over. The only reason I kept bringing up my personal example is because Chas kept saying:

(05-11-2013 04:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Any insurance plan offered prior to the passage of the ACA was grandfathered. It is the insurance company's choice whether or not to continue to offer a plan.

And I knew from my own case that Chas was flat out wrong, and he was choosing to ignore the fact that there were pages of new regulations added which start with 'cease to be grandfathered' and attach all sorts of conditions under which plans are no longer grandfathered. Even after posting the actual law, linking to fact checkers, etc., Chas to this day has still never retracted his statement that "Any insurance plan offered prior to the passage of the ACA was grandfathered." Obama was willing to do a “my bad” and admit he was wrong, Chas will not.

Understand I'm in my 40's already. And since I was 18 I've been saving and investing the money I've been saving by NOT buying one of these comprehensive health maintenance plans. As a result, I'm in very good shape. Way ahead of that spreadsheet I sent since I've been lucky and never had any medical issues; remember that spreadsheet was, imo, a 'bad case' scenario that you would ONLY end up with $3.5 million assuming you had lots of medical problems your whole life. The only reason I even had any health insurance at all is because if, when I happen to be in the US, I get hit by a bus and am taken to a hospital unconscious, I know they will check my wallet for an insurance card and if they determine I have no insurance, they won't know that I can afford to pay for any care they feel I should have, so I will get only the shitty 'life-saving' bare-minimum and then get thrown into a county hospital to rot. In 20+ years, I've never once filed an insurance claim, and expect that, knock on wood, I never would. I saw it as paying $50/month for a card in the very unlikely event I was incapacitated. Now with Obamacare, instead of throwing away $50/month for that card, I have to throw away $250. No biggie, I can handle it. It's annoying because IF I was going to throw away an extra $200/month to "do my part" I'd rather give it to a charity that provides free care for the poor, or even pay it in taxes and build schools. Instead Obamacare forces me to chip in and send it to some greedy, evil insurance company that will use it to pay for their CEO's private jet fuel.

The REAL reason I'm so furious is because young kids starting out now will no longer have the same opportunity I had to obtain 'health care freedom', which will lead to millions in retirement and financial independence, and are instead forced to be beholden their whole life to these companies that are just going to rip them off and then when they're old and sick, cancel their coverage and leave them to die. They're the ones who need to accept Obama's apology. Sadly in a few years, everybody will have forgotten this, and they'll be complaining about their financial woes and lack of healthcare, and nobody will remember the major impact this law had. By that time there'll be somebody new to blame it on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
I quoted the law and the regulation which grandfather existing plans.

Please show us the regulation that overrides this.

Otherwise, admit that it is the insurers who are doing this, not the ACA.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted the law and the regulation which grandfather existing plans.

I can't believe you're still going there. Your statement was: "Any insurance plan offered prior to the passage of the ACA was grandfathered" You did NOT attach any caveats. You didn't say 'any plan where the copayment never alters by $5'. You did not say 'any plan where the benefits limit doesn't change'. You said 'any plan PERIOD'. That statement was wrong because it was an unconditional statement, and there are LOTS of conditions that must be met for a plan to be grandfathered.

A separate issue is if the conditions were reasonable and if the insurance company could have complied with the conditions. Even _IF_ that were the case, that doesn't change the fact that your unconditional statement was erroneous for overlooking the omissions.

(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please show us the regulation that overrides this.

Jeez, this selective amnesia you guys have is SO fucking irritating. Look at that very long post I made yesterday. Why is it so long? Because it's a copy and paste of the regulations from the Federal Register that overrides this. You don't like it, so somehow your mind tricks you into thinking it's not there. I've posted it, quoted it, linked to it, copied/pasted it, and you still keep asking me to show it you.

(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Otherwise, admit that it is the insurers who are doing this, not the ACA.

That's a loaded question, like "have you stopped beating your wife."

So the regulations state that _IF_ the insurer makes virtually any change to the policy, then the plan loses it's grandfathered status. However, that sets a bar that cannot possibly be reached. For 20 years my policy goes through changes every year. Every year I get a 'notice of changes', and most of the time, those changes would have resulted in losing grandfathered status anyway. Therefore, so, it does seem that if technically the insurance company froze the existing plans and never made any changes at all and didn't change the premiums, the coverage, the copayments, etc., then theoretically the plan could be grandfathered. But since insurance companies have been around for hundreds of years and have never been able to indefinitely freeze plans with no changes, it's impossible for them to comply. The ACA is telling insurance companies they have to do something that is impossible in order to grandfather plans. So saying this is because the insurance companies cannot comply is disingenuous.

Please answer this:
Do you concede that were it not for the ACA, these millions of Americans would never have received cancellation notices?

If you answer yes, it's absurd to keep arguing that the ACA didn't cause this.

Now, where you and I do agree, is that the insurance companies ARE and WILL CONTINUE to use the ACA as an excuse to completely rape the public and drive health care costs even higher, and that they will continue to blame the ACA for it. So I am _NOT_ defending the insurance companies. They are evil mother fuckers. This is WHY they wanted the ACA so bad and jizzed their pants when it passed. It now gives them a free pass to rape and plunder and say "we have no choice, the ACA made us do it." But this isn't unique to the ACA. This always happens when you intertwine government and private enterprise. Government, as the one entity that can use lethal force and which we can never escape no matter how bad they are and which has a permanent, perpetual monopoly and can pick winners and losers and redistribute wealth, is in incredibly valuable tool to private enterprise. So when you mix the two together, OF COURSE private enterprise is going to take advantage of the power that government has given them. I've repeatedly challenged everyone to name one monopoly, besides DeBeers, that didn't get its abusive position through government action (be it patents or what not). To date, nobody has been able to produce one name.

Bottom line: My position is that mixing government and private enterprise is BAD because the private enterprise will always leverage the omnipotent powers of government to gain an unfair advantage. Your position seems to be that you like mixing government and private enterprise, and when it turns out like I warned it would, you insist it's private enterprises' fault. And I counter by saying that when government lays out a tempting and irresistible treat in front of private enterprise, it's silly to say the problem lies with private enterprise for accepting it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
P.S. If you think we libertarians are not as quick to condemn the greedy private sector companies as you are, it's, imo, just a matter of humility. I have a small software business. What if the NSA made me the same offer they made to Booz Allen; I can head the NSA and give my company billions in dollars in contracts, and then go back to my company when I'm done, and I can read everyone's email, listen to everyone's phone calls, and that I will be above the law. I can testify under oath before Congress and blatantly lie, even admit that I committed felony perjury, and I will have complete immunity from prosecution.

I like to think that I'm a decent, moral person who would refuse such an offer, and that I'm morally superior to the Booz Allen scumbags like NSA director James Clapper that accepted the offer. However, I have to concede I've never been put in that situation, and I can't say for 100% certainty that I would have the strength of character to walk away. So, for me, it's best to avoid the temptation and stay as far away from the government as possible, and when I hear people talking about how government and private enterprise need to work closer together, I just think it's playing with fire, and even decent, moral people can get corrupted under those circumstances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(08-11-2013 12:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted the law and the regulation which grandfather existing plans.

I can't believe you're still going there. Your statement was: "Any insurance plan offered prior to the passage of the ACA was grandfathered" You did NOT attach any caveats. You didn't say 'any plan where the copayment never alters by $5'. You did not say 'any plan where the benefits limit doesn't change'. You said 'any plan PERIOD'. That statement was wrong because it was an unconditional statement, and there are LOTS of conditions that must be met for a plan to be grandfathered.

Are you serious? For anything to be grandfathered, it is the thing at the defined time. If it changes, it's not the same plan. They actually allowed some change to the plan.

Quote:A separate issue is if the conditions were reasonable and if the insurance company could have complied with the conditions. Even _IF_ that were the case, that doesn't change the fact that your unconditional statement was erroneous for overlooking the omissions.

I stand by that statement - you do not understand what 'grandfathering' is.

Quote:
(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please show us the regulation that overrides this.

Jeez, this selective amnesia you guys have is SO fucking irritating. Look at that very long post I made yesterday. Why is it so long? Because it's a copy and paste of the regulations from the Federal Register that overrides this. You don't like it, so somehow your mind tricks you into thinking it's not there. I've posted it, quoted it, linked to it, copied/pasted it, and you still keep asking me to show it you.

(08-11-2013 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Otherwise, admit that it is the insurers who are doing this, not the ACA.

That's a loaded question, like "have you stopped beating your wife."

So the regulations state that _IF_ the insurer makes virtually any change to the policy, then the plan loses it's grandfathered status. However, that sets a bar that cannot possibly be reached. For 20 years my policy goes through changes every year. Every year I get a 'notice of changes', and most of the time, those changes would have resulted in losing grandfathered status anyway. Therefore, so, it does seem that if technically the insurance company froze the existing plans and never made any changes at all and didn't change the premiums, the coverage, the copayments, etc., then theoretically the plan could be grandfathered. But since insurance companies have been around for hundreds of years and have never been able to indefinitely freeze plans with no changes, it's impossible for them to comply. The ACA is telling insurance companies they have to do something that is impossible in order to grandfather plans. So saying this is because the insurance companies cannot comply is disingenuous.

Changes were allowed, and the insurers could comply. Many have chosen not to.
Do you think this law was made in a vacuum? The insurers were in on it, so either they were willing to go along or they never planned to.

Quote:Please answer this:
Do you concede that were it not for the ACA, these millions of Americans would never have received cancellation notices?

If you answer yes, it's absurd to keep arguing that the ACA didn't cause this.

Now, where you and I do agree, is that the insurance companies ARE and WILL CONTINUE to use the ACA as an excuse to completely rape the public and drive health care costs even higher, and that they will continue to blame the ACA for it. So I am _NOT_ defending the insurance companies. They are evil mother fuckers. This is WHY they wanted the ACA so bad and jizzed their pants when it passed. It now gives them a free pass to rape and plunder and say "we have no choice, the ACA made us do it." But this isn't unique to the ACA. This always happens when you intertwine government and private enterprise. Government, as the one entity that can use lethal force and which we can never escape no matter how bad they are and which has a permanent, perpetual monopoly and can pick winners and losers and redistribute wealth, is in incredibly valuable tool to private enterprise. So when you mix the two together, OF COURSE private enterprise is going to take advantage of the power that government has given them. I've repeatedly challenged everyone to name one monopoly, besides DeBeers, that didn't get its abusive position through government action (be it patents or what not). To date, nobody has been able to produce one name.

Bottom line: My position is that mixing government and private enterprise is BAD because the private enterprise will always leverage the omnipotent powers of government to gain an unfair advantage. Your position seems to be that you like mixing government and private enterprise, and when it turns out like I warned it would, you insist it's private enterprises' fault. And I counter by saying that when government lays out a tempting and irresistible treat in front of private enterprise, it's silly to say the problem lies with private enterprise for accepting it.

The insurance companies will take as much money as they can; we are all agreed on that. They were not surprised by this law and helped to draft it, so any cancellation is directly on them and the ignorance of lawmakers.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 01:17 PM by Chas.)
RE: Millions LOSE insurance because of Obamacare. Around 1,000 get insurance
(08-11-2013 01:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  P.S. If you think we libertarians are not as quick to condemn the greedy private sector companies as you are, it's, imo, just a matter of humility. I have a small software business. What if the NSA made me the same offer they made to Booz Allen; I can head the NSA and give my company billions in dollars in contracts, and then go back to my company when I'm done, and I can read everyone's email, listen to everyone's phone calls, and that I will be above the law. I can testify under oath before Congress and blatantly lie, even admit that I committed felony perjury, and I will have complete immunity from prosecution.

I like to think that I'm a decent, moral person who would refuse such an offer, and that I'm morally superior to the Booz Allen scumbags like NSA director James Clapper that accepted the offer. However, I have to concede I've never been put in that situation, and I can't say for 100% certainty that I would have the strength of character to walk away. So, for me, it's best to avoid the temptation and stay as far away from the government as possible, and when I hear people talking about how government and private enterprise need to work closer together, I just think it's playing with fire, and even decent, moral people can get corrupted under those circumstances.

There's something we can agree on 100%. Thumbsup

And I mean that it goes for me, as well. No snark.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: