RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 11:18:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Back to topic.... You also cannot keep your doctor:
You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

And you'll also notice that none of us in a single-payer system, including Australia (which is a mix of both but with state imposed limits on profiteering), that many in the US are screaming against, are not having these troubles. [:D]


Who is screaming against your systems? lol

It is you who are screaming against the US system. In many ways, you're not wrong, but it's a vastly different situation here than it is there.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 12:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Back to topic.... You also cannot keep your doctor:
You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

And you'll also notice that none of us in a single-payer system, including Australia (which is a mix of both but with state imposed limits on profiteering), that many in the US are screaming against, are not having these troubles. [:D]


Who is screaming against your systems? lol

It is you who are screaming against the US system. In many ways, you're not wrong, but it's a vastly different situation here than it is there.


There are many in the US that cannot (or will not) see how the benefits of a single-payer system works.
Many are whining about expensive healthcare costs.
Many are saying they don't have healthcare because they can't afford it.
Now the ACA seem to be trying to force overall healthcare to be half-decent, many are saying their plans can't be grandfathered in.
Now, it appears, you can't keep your own doctor for similar reasons.

It is this set of reasons why we over here and Australia and Canada opted for a single-payer system.
We could see this sort of problem long before it arrived.
There is no way on earth that any profit-driven system is going to benefit the general populace when it comes to something like national healthcare.
And yet we see people saying they don't want to change it (coz they don't want to be dictated to by off-worlders), can't see why certain things should be paid for if they themselves don't benefit from it (blinkered viewpoint) and at the same time complain about the cost of it compared to everywhere else in the world.

We aren't screaming against your system - we haven't got it and, quite frankly, don't ever want it.
What we are trying to do (unsuccessfully) is to open your eyes to an alternative way of doing things that by-and-large appear to work better, have more going for it, provide more for a good deal less cost and benefits the people in much greater ways than the system you are currently defending.

People can see the benefits of a nationally-funded (and governed) Army, Air force, Navy etc, even if they don't like the budgets afforded to them.
You don't see individual bases having an independant procurement budget do you?
You don't see ships or submarines applying different salaries do you?
No, it's done at the national level with national policies and budgets.
It's for the general good of the country.... isn't it??

So why oh why is healthcare treated so differently?
The same can be said for little things like driving licenses and a lot of state laws and governance.
It should be financed and controlled at a national level, not locally.




DesideriScuri -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 12:45:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Back to topic.... You also cannot keep your doctor:
You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

And you'll also notice that none of us in a single-payer system, including Australia (which is a mix of both but with state imposed limits on profiteering), that many in the US are screaming against, are not having these troubles. [:D]

Who is screaming against your systems? lol
It is you who are screaming against the US system. In many ways, you're not wrong, but it's a vastly different situation here than it is there.

There are many in the US that cannot (or will not) see how the benefits of a single-payer system works.
Many are whining about expensive healthcare costs.
Many are saying they don't have healthcare because they can't afford it.
Now the ACA seem to be trying to force overall healthcare to be half-decent, many are saying their plans can't be grandfathered in.
Now, it appears, you can't keep your own doctor for similar reasons.


So, no one is screaming against your system. Obamacare is a sop to the insurance industry (which is why it isn't doing anything but shifting the cost of insurance onto others).

quote:

It is this set of reasons why we over here and Australia and Canada opted for a single-payer system.
We could see this sort of problem long before it arrived.
There is no way on earth that any profit-driven system is going to benefit the general populace when it comes to something like national healthcare.
And yet we see people saying they don't want to change it (coz they don't want to be dictated to by off-worlders), can't see why certain things should be paid for if they themselves don't benefit from it (blinkered viewpoint) and at the same time complain about the cost of it compared to everywhere else in the world.


1. Does "blinkered viewpoint" correspond with the idea of "having blinders on?" The first few times I've seen it, I thought it was a simple typo, but it seems to be a recurring word.

2. Where has it been shown that shifting to a national health care system would bring the costs of procedures and services down? I have asked, in an honest manner, for anyone to show me where initiating a national health care system has lowered costs, but no one has stepped up to the plate, except to dismiss the question. I acknowledge that costs in national systems are lower (which is a statement on the facts). Is it simply because the increase in costs is lower, and that the costs in the US rise faster? If all moving to a national health care model is going to do is reduce the cost increases, the US will always be spending more than anyone else. That doesn't solve the problem of higher costs, does it?

quote:

We aren't screaming against your system - we haven't got it and, quite frankly, don't ever want it.
What we are trying to do (unsuccessfully) is to open your eyes to an alternative way of doing things that by-and-large appear to work better, have more going for it, provide more for a good deal less cost and benefits the people in much greater ways than the system you are currently defending.


Yet, no one shows that moving to a national care system will reduce cost.

Do they appear to work better? In some ways, absolutely.

People can see the benefits of a nationally-funded (and governed) Army, Air force, Navy etc, even if they don't like the budgets afforded to them.
You don't see individual bases having an independant procurement budget do you?
You don't see ships or submarines applying different salaries do you?
No, it's done at the national level with national policies and budgets.
It's for the general good of the country.... isn't it??

The Armed Forces don't provide anything for any one individual specifically, but for every Citizen at the same time. And, the military is, conspiracy theories aside, aimed at external "things." National Health Care isn't the same for every citizen at the same time, nor is it aimed at external "things." Health care is very individual and internal (as it pertains to a Nation), which is why I don't see any problem with the idea of Romneycare (though that hasn't moved Massachusett's from the top spot in cost of care among the 50 States). The State governments were to be focused on things within the Citizen's daily, individual and personal lives, leaving dealings with external things to the Federal government. Social welfare programs should, according to this, be State-level programs, and not Federal programs.

quote:

So why oh why is healthcare treated so differently?
The same can be said for little things like driving licenses and a lot of state laws and governance.
It should be financed and controlled at a national level, not locally.


Health care is different because it's not an enumerated authority granted to the Federal Government.

There would be zero Constitutional argument if there was an amendment to the US Constitution granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide health care, health insurance, etc. Zero. Yet, this is not the mode of operation. The mode of operation is redefining terms to get your way. That is, changing the US Constitution from it's original intent without doing so via the only Constitutional method allowed.

This may be a minor little thing to you, but it's majorly important here. The US doesn't face the same sets of circumstances that Australia faces. It doesn't face the same sets of circumstances that the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc. face.




RacerJim -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:08:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Back to topic.... You also cannot keep your doctor:

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor


And you'll also notice that none of us in a single-payer system, including Australia (which is a mix of both but with state imposed limits on profiteering), that many in the US are screaming against, are not having these troubles. [:D]

Good for you. You are welcome to have/keep what you want. But if you've been paying attention you would have noticed that well over 60% of us in a free market system here in America have wanted to keep what we've had from day one of our Democratic Republic...until Obama, Pelosi and Reid conspired to force Obamacare on us.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:28:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
1. Does "blinkered viewpoint" correspond with the idea of "having blinders on?" The first few times I've seen it, I thought it was a simple typo, but it seems to be a recurring word.

Yep.
We call it blinkered, you call it wearing blinders.
It means to have your viewing angle restricted to such a degree that you can only see what is directly under your nose and nowhere else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
2. Where has it been shown that shifting to a national health care system would bring the costs of procedures and services down? I have asked, in an honest manner, for anyone to show me where initiating a national health care system has lowered costs, but no one has stepped up to the plate, except to dismiss the question. I acknowledge that costs in national systems are lower (which is a statement on the facts). Is it simply because the increase in costs is lower, and that the costs in the US rise faster? If all moving to a national health care model is going to do is reduce the cost increases, the US will always be spending more than anyone else. That doesn't solve the problem of higher costs, does it?

I've tried to explain that and with several examples.
That last link I gave you also explains how a single-payer system drives down the cost of everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yet, no one shows that moving to a national care system will reduce cost.

I've done that several times in various threads.
Your own blinkered PoV (there's that word again!) and narrow-minded approach seems to be preventing you from seeing what we see as blindingly obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do they appear to work better? In some ways, absolutely.

It appears, from our (single-payer people) PoV, to work better in most ways, not just a few.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Armed Forces don't provide anything for any one individual specifically, but for every Citizen at the same time. And, the military is, conspiracy theories aside, aimed at external "things." National Health Care isn't the same for every citizen at the same time, nor is it aimed at external "things." Health care is very individual and internal (as it pertains to a Nation), which is why I don't see any problem with the idea of Romneycare (though that hasn't moved Massachusett's from the top spot in cost of care among the 50 States). The State governments were to be focused on things within the Citizen's daily, individual and personal lives, leaving dealings with external things to the Federal government. Social welfare programs should, according to this, be State-level programs, and not Federal programs.

And maybe that is why you just can't see it.
Healthcare should be available to everyone, across the country, regardless.
In just the same way that the armed forces protect everyone. Even the fucking criminals!
With the same sort of logic you spouted about healthcare (paying for maternity when you'll never ever need it as a man); why should you pay your armed forces to protect life-time fellons rotting in jail??
Same philosophy. Same man, different hat.
Healthcare isn't individual.... it's national.
That's where our cultural differences are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

So why oh why is healthcare treated so differently?
The same can be said for little things like driving licenses and a lot of state laws and governance.
It should be financed and controlled at a national level, not locally.


Health care is different because it's not an enumerated authority granted to the Federal Government.

Then perhaps it should be.
We were much the same in the 40's until our NHS was defined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There would be zero Constitutional argument if there was an amendment to the US Constitution granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide health care, health insurance, etc. Zero. Yet, this is not the mode of operation. The mode of operation is redefining terms to get your way. That is, changing the US Constitution from it's original intent without doing so via the only Constitutional method allowed.

This may be a minor little thing to you, but it's majorly important here. The US doesn't face the same sets of circumstances that Australia faces. It doesn't face the same sets of circumstances that the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc. face.

What sort of different circumstances??
People get sick - all over the world.
People have the same medical problems - all over the world.
The difference is, first-world countries try to provide for the sick and injured.
The difference between the USA and UK/Canada/Australia is that the US opted for a system that is driven by profits by private enteprise. The rest of us opted for a single-payer system where everyone pays into the pot and everyone gets an equal pick from it when circumstance dictates that we need it.


I'm not saying there isn't any room for a private system as there clearly is for some people.
The Australian system is proof of that, and to a limited extent, also here in the UK.
But in a system where the government get to dictate the prices of everything from equipment to cost of drugs and even salaries for doctors and other health professionals, that's where huge savings are made all down the line and eventually to the end-user (the patient).
Government budgets for healthcare don't have to factor-in massive salaries, profits, or shareholder dividends. That in itself saves a small fortune.

I would suggest having a read of that last link I gave you even if it's just the first handful of pages.
It clearly shows where the US system is drifting seriously awry from single-payer systems and why it is so expensive.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:33:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
Good for you. You are welcome to have/keep what you want. But if you've been paying attention you would have noticed that well over 60% of us in a free market system here in America have wanted to keep what we've had from day one of our Democratic Republic...until Obama, Pelosi and Reid conspired to force Obamacare on us.

Great.
You keep paying shitloads of $$'s for something that doesn't cover half of what we have.
And when you can't afford it, be told you might have to die because you can't have the proper healthcare.
We'll stick with what we have and enjoy all the benefits of it.

That's tantamount to cutting your nose off.... yada yada yada.




mnottertail -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:34:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Back to topic.... You also cannot keep your doctor:

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor


And you'll also notice that none of us in a single-payer system, including Australia (which is a mix of both but with state imposed limits on profiteering), that many in the US are screaming against, are not having these troubles. [:D]

Good for you. You are welcome to have/keep what you want. But if you've been paying attention you would have noticed that well over 60% of us in a free market system here in America have wanted to keep what we've had from day one of our Democratic Republic...until Obama, Pelosi and Reid conspired to force Obamacare on us.


We (as well as the rest of the entire world), never have had, do not now have, and never will have a free market system.  That is a fantasy created by theorists, for theoretical navel gazing, and ALL economic thought that includes a free market system is useless blathering; all of it. 




papassion -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:41:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

Yup, the fine print, coporations are out to fuck Americans.  Everyone should read that.


Ya' mean his old policy was cancelled because didn't cover breast lactation services or didn't cover any work he might need to regulate HIS periods?




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:45:58 PM)

Anyone would think you thought that maternity benefits were the only differences. but I ask you, how can you take anyone seriously with that outlook.
PS women do not spontaneously get pregnant.




Moonhead -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 1:55:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Anyone would think you thought that maternity benefits were the only differences. but I ask you, how can you take anyone seriously with that outlook.
PS women do not spontaneously get pregnant.


No, they need a guy with a scrip for viagra and an addiction to prescription painkillers to manage that.
(Either that or they reproduce parthogenically like aphids, but I think that's just the lesbian separatists...)




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:04:36 PM)

DOnt be sayin that too loud Moon, there is enough bullshit being accepted as truth already:)




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:06:08 PM)

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309240089&nclick_check=1

The Kentucky Department of Insurance has fined Humana $65,430 because it offered policyholders an unapproved opportunity to amend their insurance as part of a letter that regulators have called “misleading.”

The department investigated letters sent in August to 6,543 individual plan policyholders in Kentucky. The letters said they needed to renew their plans for 2014 within 30 days or choose a more expensive option that complies with the Affordable Care Act.

But regulators last month called the letters misleading, arguing they did not make sufficiently clear that policyholders could compare and choose competing plans on the state’s health insurance exchanges, which open on Oct. 1, and for which they could be eligible for federal subsidies.

Humana's letter mentioned the exchange enrollment period, but only in a footnote. It also said a customer can get the cheaper premium option by agreeing to changes that hadn’t been approved by the state insurance department.

While the investigation continues into whether the letter was intentionally misleading, state officials said, the department fined Humana on Sept 10 for the unapproved amendment that “caused confusion” among policyholders. An estimated 2,200 returned signed amendments, it said.

“The Department of Insurance fined Humana for providing members with a policy amendment form that was not approved. This was a clear-cut violation of Kentucky’s insurance code,” said Sharon Clark, Insurance Department commissioner.

“The Department has other concerns with the letter and with Humana’s actions. We have met with Humana and continue our investigation. We will take additional administrative action, if appropriate,” she said.

Clark has previously said she considered the letter “misleading intentionally.”

Humana spokeswoman Kate Marx said Tuesday that the company “is working in concert with the state Department of Insurance. Humana does not plan to appeal the decision.”

State insurance officials say that Humana has told them they would send a clarification to those who had gotten the letter in question.

Kentucky regulators also reviewed a letter by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield asking people to "call now" to lock in "today's affordable rates,” targeting people who buy insurance on their own and who will soon be able to compare plans on the state insurance exchange.

However, a spokeswoman said the insurance department determined that the letter was marketing that appeared to go to potential customers and thus did not violate the insurance code. Humana’s letter, by contrast, went to current policyholders.




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:09:46 PM)

Health Insurers Scramble to Keep Healthy Customers
As New Exchanges Roll Out, Regulators Accuse Humana, Aetna of Misleading Policyholders

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-335721/

Health insurers are making a big push to hang onto their policyholders ahead of new government-run exchanges expected to roll out next week, but state regulators have accused some of misleading those customers in the process.

By Timothy W. Martin

Health insurers are making a big push to hang onto their policyholders ahead of new government-run exchanges expected to roll out next week, but state regulators have accused some of misleading those customers in the process.

Several insurers, including Humana Inc. and some Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, have recently warned customers of big rate hikes if they don’t immediately renew their policies for 2014.

But some of those customers may be able to find cheaper policies on the insurance exchanges launching under the new federal health law. In some cases, the regulators say, insurers aren’t making it clear to consumers that they may switch carriers or shop on the new exchanges.

At issue is a battle for healthy policyholders. Each company wants as many healthy people as possible on its books in hopes that their premiums will help offset an increase in costs from an expected wave of new customers who—with the help of the new health law—will be gaining insurance for the first time and may have health conditions to address.

“This is really about a panic in the insurance industry,” said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates LLC, a health insurer consultant. “What they’re gravely worried about is they won’t get enough healthy people to pay for the costs of the sick people.”

The appeals from insurers are coming mostly in letters that they are required to send to existing holders of individual policies, telling them how their plans will change under the new health law. The health law requires a wider range of benefits be provided by insurers, such as maternity care or mental health treatments.

Some insurers are also using advertisements to urge consumers to stick with them or win new customers from rival carriers. About 19 million Americans are individually insured with plans they buy on their own. Many are self-employed, early retirees or younger adults in between jobs.

The Kentucky Department of Insurance fined Humana earlier this month for instructing existing individual policyholders to renew their current plans for 2014 within 30 days of receiving the letter in late August or be switched to a pricier policy. Humana’s letter to 6,500 policyholders in Kentucky was “misleading,” the insurance department said.

Humana disclosed only in a footnote that policyholders have the option to enroll in rival plans on the exchanges, and it didn’t mention that some policyholders might be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase coverage on the exchanges, the regulator found.

“This letter was preying on people’s lack of knowledge about their consumer protections, their rights,” said Sharon P. Clark, Kentucky’s insurance department commissioner. The regulator fined Louisville-based Humana $65,000.

Similarly, spokesmen for state insurance regulators in Colorado and Missouri said they are looking into complaints from consumers who received letters from Humana.

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said the company’s “aim is to be transparent with our customers.” He added that the insurer was working closely with Kentucky state officials “to ensure that communications to our customers continue to be clear and interpreted as intended.” Mr. Noland said Humana was also working with other states but declined to specify which ones.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Department of Insurance rejected Aetna Inc.’s request to distribute an advertising brochure in the state touting a “one-time opportunity” for savings. The ad read: “Health Care Reform is here. Higher rates can wait.”

In a letter to the carrier, the department said the advertisement contained “several misleading and possibly untruthful statements.”

An Aetna spokesman said it ended up using previously-approved materials from an earlier campaign as advertising in Arizona.

In letters to current policyholders, two insurers based in Washington state neglected to tell members they could switch carriers or shop on the consumer marketplaces, according to the state’s insurance commissioner.

Instead, Premera Blue Cross and its affiliate, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington, only suggested their own 2014 coverage as an option. “If you’re happy with this plan, do nothing,” the letters state. The letters say some people may be eligible for a “health premium tax credit,” but don’t mention the exchanges at all.

In response, Mike Kreidler, Washington’s insurance commissioner, issued a consumer alert last week after dozens of people complained. “Don’t just take what your insurance company says—make sure you shop around,” Mr. Kreidler said.

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, which sells insurance in Maryland, mailed postcards earlier this month that pitched monthly rates as low as $56. Insurance sold on the exchanges could very well be more expensive “than rates available to you today,” reads the CareFirst postcard.

A spokesman for Premera and LifeWise said most customers “are already well aware that there are other options…without us having to spend time reminding them of that basic fact.”

A CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield spokesman said the postcard “is part of our continuing efforts to make sure consumers understand and explore their options.”

Heather Braden, a 30-year-old part-time nurse from Louisville, Ky., said she currently has her family of four on a bare-bones, high-deductible plan with Humana with a monthly premium of $300.

In a letter dated Aug. 21, Ms. Braden said, Humana told her she had 30 days to renew her current plan at the same price, meaning she would have to decide and sign up before she had a chance to see her options when the state insurance exchange opens Oct. 1. If she failed to meet that deadline, she said Humana said in the letter, she would have to pay $719.88 a month for a Humana plan that is compliant with the new health law.

Ms. Braden said her family couldn’t afford that premium on its household annual income of around $80,000. The language in the letter suggests “that it’s more affordable to opt out of the exchanges,” said Ms. Braden, whose current plan doesn’t cover maternity care or her husband’s sleep-apnea treatments.

Since she now realizes she doesn’t have to comply with the 30-day deadline, Ms. Braden said she plans first to see how much of a subsidy her family qualifies for on the state’s insurance exchange. If it isn’t much, she said, she will stick with her current Humana plan or look at a medical-sharing plan for people who have religious objections to some provisions of the federal law, she said.

In most states, carriers are tailoring their messages based on the age and potential subsidy eligibility of their policyholders. Letters to younger, healthier members play up expected rate increases to discourage them from shopping on the exchanges. But in some cases insurers say they are encouraging older people to look at their options on the exchanges, where they might find lower rates. Pricing rules under the new health law restrict how much insurers can charge older consumers, in order to spread the risk of costly medical bills across an entire population.

Cigna Corp. says it plans to offer an online guide that determines the best plan for a policyholder in five minutes, based on location, income, expected use of care and preferred payment methods. The best plan might be one offered by the competition, said Raymond Smithberger, Cigna’s general manager for individual and family plans.”

In some situations, “we know we won’t be the best choice for that individual,” said Mr. Smithberger. “We’re hoping to align the individual to the plan that suits them.”




Moonhead -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:25:57 PM)

But of course, a single payer system would be so expensive it would bankrupt the government and still fail to provide adequete medical care.




Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:26:06 PM)

The insurers are trying to get the insured to renew their grandfathered plans.

Whats your beef? Making americans pay more when they don't have to?

Oh I know. You don't really want americans that like their healthcare to keep it.. do you...




KYsissy -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:26:52 PM)

The company I work for has gone with a self insureance model. Banded together with about 30 other small companies they joined something called a "captive". Basically all the companies pay several hundred thousand dollars to join, The plan is through Aetna. As I understand it, the pool of money pays forrun of the mill type claims and only in the event if a major major claim, there is a very high deductable catastrophic type policy with Aetna.




Moonhead -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:28:06 PM)

I think it's more schadenfreude: she lives in a country where they have a medical system that doesn't make dogs laugh, so she enjoys pointing and mocking.




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:31:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The insurers are trying to get the insured to renew their grandfathered plans.

Whats your beef? Making americans pay more when they don't have to?

Oh I know. You don't really want americans that like their healthcare to keep it.. do you...

If their plans dont fit the guidelines, they cannot be grandfathered.
My Beef, Lying assholes, especially insurance companies
No you DONT know




KYsissy -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:40:33 PM)

And personally, i LOVE my high deductable HSA plan. I pay for everything 100% until i hit the out of pocket limit, then I pay nothing. So for regular doctor visits, the occasionap injury or illness. i pay. But in the event of something major, the most i am on the hook for is $3000 per year. Why this type of plan is disparaged i cannot understand. If you do the math, it is a good deal in most cases. Problem is, many dont do the math. One gal in our insurance meeting was saying no way to the HSA because she has a prescription that costs her $130 per month if she had to buy it outright. Doing the math, she would save $50/month on the HSA versus a plan with prescription copays. I wonder what a subsidized HSA plan would do for the poor?

I think obamacare is a train wreck. But i also do not like a society where uncle Jim and Aunt Sally have to lose everything because one of them got sick.
I don't have all the answers, nobody does. This law was rammed through at a time becuse they could ram it through. Is it better than nothing? I guess time will tell.




Lucylastic -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/4/2013 2:47:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I think it's more schadenfreude: she lives in a country where they have a medical system that doesn't make dogs laugh, so she enjoys pointing and mocking.

unreservedly!!!!




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875