RE: OBAMA LIED!!!

RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Well that's the preamble, not the rules entire. But its sufficient to show that a $5.15 change in copays - in any area - will cause an insurance plan to lose grandfather status. WRONG! quote: On the other hand, fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements (such as copayments and deductibles) do not take into account medical inflation. Therefore, changes to fixed-amount cost- sharing requirements (for example, moving from a $35 copayment to a $40 copayment for outpatient doctor visits) may be reasonable to keep up with the rising cost of medical items and services. The rule actually states that the copay can increase by the rate of medical inflation plus 15%. So if $5.15 is below that threshold it is allowed. If it is more than that it is clearly gouging the consumer which is bad. Wrong yourself. You quoted the wrong section. Here's the correction line: For fixed-amount copayments, a plan or health insurance coverage ceases to be a grandfathered health plan if there is an increase since March 23, 2010 in the copayment that exceeds the greater of (A) the maximum percentage increase or (B) five dollars increased by medical inflation. Since medical inflation is under 2%, (google it) increasing the copay for an ambulance ride $5.15 loses grandfathered status. How can you even argue this - 14 million people are losing insurance. So a plan loses grandfather status if it attempts to gouge the customer. What's wrong with that? Why are you in favor of insurance companies ripping off customers?

DesideriScuri -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So there were no regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? None? The ACA explains what is defined as being grandfathered into the law. I'm not going to try to repost it here, since its a serious amount of material. Just using a search for 'grandfathered' in the document doesn't help. Since one has to understand the section first, before understanding how things are grandfathered. An there are A LOT of sections in the ACA. That said, the regulations only come into effect.....IF......the owner of the insurance plan (i.e. an insurance company) makes changes to the plan that would place it outside of the definition of 'grandfathered'. The ACA pointed out that some (and I'm paraphrasing here) 40-67% of plans (created/maintain before March 31,2010) would not be able to be grandfathered. Well, the actual number seems to be along the lines of 80%. Still that maybe more due to the insurance company simply updating their plans under the law, then the law itself removing their grandfathered status from them. Were there any regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? And, if Obamacare pointed out that 40-67% of plans wouldn't be grandfathered, how is it that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" true?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:15:44 PM)
FR... I tell ya.... The President Obama Collarme Protection Axis is really going overtime on this one.

joether -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So there were no regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? None? The ACA explains what is defined as being grandfathered into the law. I'm not going to try to repost it here, since its a serious amount of material. Just using a search for 'grandfathered' in the document doesn't help. Since one has to understand the section first, before understanding how things are grandfathered. An there are A LOT of sections in the ACA. That said, the regulations only come into effect.....IF......the owner of the insurance plan (i.e. an insurance company) makes changes to the plan that would place it outside of the definition of 'grandfathered'. The ACA pointed out that some (and I'm paraphrasing here) 40-67% of plans (created/maintain before March 31,2010) would not be able to be grandfathered. Well, the actual number seems to be along the lines of 80%. Still that maybe more due to the insurance company simply updating their plans under the law, then the law itself removing their grandfathered status from them. You can't repost the material the regulations "since its a serious amount of material" that causes a policy to lose grandfather status. An WHAT DID I STATE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, Phydeaux? I even placed it in BOLD PRINT, so you can follow along. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And then you think that insurance companies are cancelling the policies for other reasons. An insurance company can cancel a plan for any number of reasons....BEFORE...the Affordable Care Act was even published in its infancy with President Obama back in 2009. An if you had actually READ THE ACA, you would understand what the insurance companies can and can not do with the newest set of laws. But you didn't, so your speaking in ignorance. If I had to take an educated guess, it could be the insurance companies are cancelling the policies so that there is no hic-cups later on. Since when such an insurance hic-cup takes place, it goes to court. And that takes money out of the bottom line. So 'yes', insurance companies cancel the policies in a pro-active move to save them long term costs. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sure, you know. Insurance companies routinely make money by not selling a product. Makes sense - in the world where we have to pay a tax for not using it. Actually they do. Remember in Sales 101, you only have to sell the customer once on a plan. Every year after that, its renewed. So the insurance company makes money without needing to sell the product the following year(s) afterward.

mnottertail -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:19:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... I tell ya.... The President Obama Collarme Protection Axis is really going overtime on this one. Well the stupidity of the nutsacker minneapolis airport bathroom caucus has been in overtime since the first election on getting out lies and propaganda. What else can you do but disparage and show their lies?

Hillwilliam -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 1:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Name one politician in the history of mankind who did not lie. Lieing is why they became politicians. No POTUS in history has lied about so many things as the current one. PERIOD! Care to document that or is that just more partisan bullshit?

joether -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 2:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Name one politician in the history of mankind who did not lie. Lieing is why they became politicians. No POTUS in history has lied about so many things as the current one. PERIOD! Care to document that or is that just more partisan bullshit? I like to know exactly how many times the first seven Presidents lied, RJ. You know, day-to-day conversations, creating or managing of ideas, making diplomatic transactions with other entities. Yes, just supply us with the accurate information when you finally build that time machine, ok?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 2:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Were there any regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? And, if Obamacare pointed out that 40-67% of plans wouldn't be grandfathered, how is it that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" true? Maybe because it wasn't said as a completely open blanket statement? Most political statements have a quantifiable exclusion and I'm sure there was probably one that accompanies this statement also but is mysteriously omitted. Much like the urban myth "beam me up Scottie" was never actually said. It would appear that the second part of your post proves the point... "if Obamacare pointed out that 40-67% of plans wouldn't be grandfathered..." seems to be telling me that for whatever reason, a percentage of policies do not qualify but the rest would. I would surmise that the statement "if you like your plan, you can keep it" would be further qualified with something like "...if it meets ACA requirements" or words to that effect. I think this is a common pitfall of many quotations that only quote the bits they want to hear and not the other bits that impose the limitations. And just a comment for Desi... Why are things nearly always so all-or-nothing with you? Just as an example: your comment of "Were there any regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans?". Of course there were! The world isn't so black and white. But the important thing is that it didn't apply to every single plan on the US planet. A good proportion it seems, are able to fit in and qualify given the legislation of 2010. If even one such plan is able to fit, it means the President didn't lie if my assuption of the qualifier exists. Can you show me where it is specifically stated that all policies would fail with the advent of ACA legislation?

DesideriScuri -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 2:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Were there any regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? And, if Obamacare pointed out that 40-67% of plans wouldn't be grandfathered, how is it that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" true? Maybe because it wasn't said as a completely open blanket statement? Most political statements have a quantifiable exclusion and I'm sure there was probably one that accompanies this statement also but is mysteriously omitted. Much like the urban myth "beam me up Scottie" was never actually said. It would appear that the second part of your post proves the point... "if Obamacare pointed out that 40-67% of plans wouldn't be grandfathered..." seems to be telling me that for whatever reason, a percentage of policies do not qualify but the rest would. I would surmise that the statement "if you like your plan, you can keep it" would be further qualified with something like "...if it meets ACA requirements" or words to that effect. I think this is a common pitfall of many quotations that only quote the bits they want to hear and not the other bits that impose the limitations. And just a comment for Desi... Why are things nearly always so all-or-nothing with you? Just as an example: your comment of "Were there any regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans?". Of course there were! The world isn't so black and white. But the important thing is that it didn't apply to every single plan on the US planet. A good proportion it seems, are able to fit in and qualify given the legislation of 2010. If even one such plan is able to fit, it means the President didn't lie if my assuption of the qualifier exists. Can you show me where it is specifically stated that all policies would fail with the advent of ACA legislation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E Please note that in the US, the use of the word, "period" implies there are no qualifiers. "If you like your Dr./plan, you can keep your Dr./plan. Period." That is not an indefinite statement. It's a definite statement. Why are things black and white with me? They aren't. Perhaps on some political topics, they are, but, by and large, things are not black and white. Part of your "data acquisition" is tainted because we are, generally, talking politics, and I do tend to think things are more black and white, or at least they should be. I don't, generally, get into the religion discussions here anymore because there are too many things that are black and white and there isn't any proof either is true. Either there is an all-powerful force or there isn't. Can you prove there is one? No. Can you prove there isn't one? No. Politics, though, is very different. Most of it is cerebral, as we can't truly test the other side of the coin. "If McCain had beaten Obama life would be (________)," is purely conjecture. We can't go, make that change and see what life would be like. As it pertains to the US Constitution, either it's allowed, or it's not. If it takes lawyerese to spin something into being Constitutional, I'm not likely to agree, because it's a changing of the interpretation of the Constitution. There is a way to change the Constitution, and altering the definition of a word isn't it. When it comes to the US Federal Government, either it's Constitution, or it isn't. If it isn't, it ought not be done. Period. If it's a "feel-good" thing, it probably shouldn't be done, either. "Feel-good" stuff can be done by State or local governments, or by individuals. Government is not here to make us "feel good." It'e here to secure our inalienable rights.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 4:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E Please note that in the US, the use of the word, "period" implies there are no qualifiers. "If you like your Dr./plan, you can keep your Dr./plan. Period." That is not an indefinite statement. It's a definite statement. I watched the vid - but it's very edited to portray what you are saying. There's an awful lot of cut/join splicing and it looked like PR video for the anti-obama pundits. I did, however, go and look at several other youtube vids and it seems to me that obamacare is nothing more than another twist to boost the profits of insurance companies at the expense of ordinary Americans. It seems to try the approach of nationally-funded single-payer systems (which are on the whole quite sucessful and cheap) and then completely drop the ball to shoe-horn it into a private healthcare system. No wonder it looks to be a failure right from the get go and also why obama couldn't keep to what he appeared to have promised. The ACA seems to try to cover what we take for granted in our NHS but only goes halfway. Maggie Thatcher tried that here in the 80's and it was a dismal failure. The whole notion of a completely private healthcare system just doesn't cut the mustard when you're dealing with pre-existing conditions and keeping the costs down to a sensible level for Joe Average. It was forecast way back then, over 3 decades ago, that a private healthcare system would be unaffordable for the majority of the country in later years. As an example, some of the premium costs of your private healthcare insurance would be greater than the total income of a good proportion of us Brits. And that is why our NHS, although creaky at times, is by far the better way to deliver personal healthcare for everyone. I think the whole idea of private (and very expensive) healthcare, as it is in the US, absolutely stinks. Like a lot of things in the US, doing something half-heartedly by applying a sticking plaster over a hole won't stop the building from falling down with dry rot. Sometimes you need to rip the whole thing apart and completely rebuild it into something better for the future. Obamacare is fine for some that could never afford it. But for a large majority, it's a peacemeal patch and still expensive for no real gains. So I still say he didn't actually lie, but the truth is somewhat thin and basically a hog-wash.

cloudboy -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 5:54:36 PM)
Here's another one for you that fits this thread and your ilk like a glove: [image]local://upfiles/210115/5FEE3E96FCCC4A4CA5AC5F60B2C87238.jpg[/image]

cloudboy -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (10/31/2013 5:58:07 PM)
Here's a chart to help support what you've been saying: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/30/us/why-some-people-cant-keep-their-insurance-plans.html?src=me&_r=0

joether -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 3:54:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why are things black and white with me? They aren't. Perhaps on some political topics, they are, but, by and large, things are not black and white. Part of your "data acquisition" is tainted because we are, generally, talking politics, and I do tend to think things are more black and white, or at least they should be. I hate to express this DS, but you do at many times look at things in absolutes. Before you go defending yourself, its not because of you. Its how the conservative philosophy has evolved that is the real issue. One or two people displaying a 'black and white' view is one thing. When its the norm for most conservatives, something else is going on. One element that might explain this, is the few number of conservatives that use their brains for something besides a paper weight! What I mean by this, is conservatives have for reasons that are a mystery to myself, allowed themselves to be dumbed down to the point of ignorance. When a person handles information at that point, its on a 'yes' or 'no' basis. The ability to handle the grey matter is so simply lost on them, that they do not realize it even exists. Many conservatives I've discussed very complex stuff with, behave like they are in junior high school rather than being adults. Both in mannerisms and understanding of concepts. So its not you specifically, but by use of the philosophy, your unwittingly I fear, tapping into this stuff. I'm not saying you should become a liberal, but to understand that stuff for what it is. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri As it pertains to the US Constitution, either it's allowed, or it's not. If it takes lawyerese to spin something into being Constitutional, I'm not likely to agree, because it's a changing of the interpretation of the Constitution. There is a way to change the Constitution, and altering the definition of a word isn't it. Oh, I'm curious what your view on the 'Heller verse District of Columbia' view would be in that case! Since the US Supreme Court in my opinion 'rewrote' the 2nd Amendment without stating it in bold letters. There are only two ways an amendment can be rewritten or redefined. Neither of them have anything to do with the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When it comes to the US Federal Government, either it's Constitution, or it isn't. If it isn't, it ought not be done. Period. If it's a "feel-good" thing, it probably shouldn't be done, either. "Feel-good" stuff can be done by State or local governments, or by individuals. Government is not here to make us "feel good." It'e here to secure our inalienable rights. BUT....when it comes right down to it, DS. When the government secures our inalienable rights, as you stated, doesn't that make us 'feel good'? In which case, shouldn't you be against that, since that would be logical? :P

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 4:18:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Well that's the preamble, not the rules entire. But its sufficient to show that a $5.15 change in copays - in any area - will cause an insurance plan to lose grandfather status. WRONG! quote: On the other hand, fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements (such as copayments and deductibles) do not take into account medical inflation. Therefore, changes to fixed-amount cost- sharing requirements (for example, moving from a $35 copayment to a $40 copayment for outpatient doctor visits) may be reasonable to keep up with the rising cost of medical items and services. The rule actually states that the copay can increase by the rate of medical inflation plus 15%. So if $5.15 is below that threshold it is allowed. If it is more than that it is clearly gouging the consumer which is bad. Wrong yourself. You quoted the wrong section. Here's the correction line: For fixed-amount copayments, a plan or health insurance coverage ceases to be a grandfathered health plan if there is an increase since March 23, 2010 in the copayment that exceeds the greater of (A) the maximum percentage increase or (B) five dollars increased by medical inflation. Since medical inflation is under 2%, (google it) increasing the copay for an ambulance ride $5.15 loses grandfathered status. How can you even argue this - 14 million people are losing insurance. So a plan loses grandfather status if it attempts to gouge the customer. What's wrong with that? Why are you in favor of insurance companies ripping off customers? LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL What do you call the 99% increase in rates for Obamacare? Returning back to the subject of grandfathered, again. Take the following circumstance Plan 3/2010. 3/2013 Primary Copay 30 0 Specialist Copay 50 60 In this case, even tho the vast majority of consumers will benefit, the plan still loses grandfather status. See these kind of silly rules demonstrate that the obama administration doesn't realy care a bout protecting consumers - it only cares about protecting its signature achievement.

mnottertail -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 4:21:42 AM)
Not a silly rule. They need to up their premiums, that will not lose their status the ACA for grandfathering, if the copays are killing them. As long as they stay 80/20 (btw, many of these guys had to give money back to their insured, because they were gouging, been in all the papers). Ridiculous asswipe.

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 4:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So there were no regulations put in place under Obamacare that impacted grandfathered plans? None? The ACA explains what is defined as being grandfathered into the law. I'm not going to try to repost it here, since its a serious amount of material. Just using a search for 'grandfathered' in the document doesn't help. Since one has to understand the section first, before understanding how things are grandfathered. An there are A LOT of sections in the ACA. That said, the regulations only come into effect.....IF......the owner of the insurance plan (i.e. an insurance company) makes changes to the plan that would place it outside of the definition of 'grandfathered'. The ACA pointed out that some (and I'm paraphrasing here) 40-67% of plans (created/maintain before March 31,2010) would not be able to be grandfathered. Well, the actual number seems to be along the lines of 80%. Still that maybe more due to the insurance company simply updating their plans under the law, then the law itself removing their grandfathered status from them. You can't repost the material the regulations "since its a serious amount of material" that causes a policy to lose grandfather status. An WHAT DID I STATE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, Phydeaux? I even placed it in BOLD PRINT, so you can follow along. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And then you think that insurance companies are cancelling the policies for other reasons. An insurance company can cancel a plan for any number of reasons....BEFORE...the Affordable Care Act was even published in its infancy with President Obama back in 2009. An if you had actually READ THE ACA, you would understand what the insurance companies can and can not do with the newest set of laws. But you didn't, so your speaking in ignorance. If I had to take an educated guess, it could be the insurance companies are cancelling the policies so that there is no hic-cups later on. Since when such an insurance hic-cup takes place, it goes to court. And that takes money out of the bottom line. So 'yes', insurance companies cancel the policies in a pro-active move to save them long term costs. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sure, you know. Insurance companies routinely make money by not selling a product. Makes sense - in the world where we have to pay a tax for not using it. Actually they do. Remember in Sales 101, you only have to sell the customer once on a plan. Every year after that, its renewed. So the insurance company makes money without needing to sell the product the following year(s) afterward. What an idiotic post. I presume you work for the government. An autorenewed policy is still a sale. I'm not talking about customer retention - I'm talking about the wholesale losses in subscribers to private insurance. As you stated - 80% of individual insurance plans are being cancelled. That number is hogwash, but lets go with it. An insurance company that isn't selling insurance selling its product - is losing a sales opportunity. So while profit margins will rise (as they dump sicker patients into obamacare)... doesn't change the fact that you will have many many fewer subscribers. And by the way. You keep making the assumption that I haven't read the ACA. Keep speaking from ignorance. I bloody know what the insurance companies can and can't do better than you. Just for curiousity - have you every owned a business? Because your prattle reminds me of when the annointed one famously said that business should be able to borrow money to meet payroll.......

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 4:36:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not a silly rule. They need to up their premiums, that will not lose their status the ACA for grandfathering, if the copays are killing them. As long as they stay 80/20 (btw, many of these guys had to give money back to their insured, because they were gouging, been in all the papers). Ridiculous asswipe. Yeah. "And if you like your insurance you can keep it. Period." Ridiculous blathering without substantiation, evidence, experience or proof. the rule has been quoted for you. Why don't you go to the obamacare website, and read the rules, and the interpretations of the rules, and then the clarifying examples. You will find an example almost verbatim what I just gave saying, that yes, indeed, the program (insurance) loses grandfathered status.

mnottertail -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 4:37:36 AM)
quote: I'm not talking about customer retention - I'm talking about the wholesale losses in subscribers to private insurance. And insurance companies are not worried about customer retention. They are wholesale dumping subscribers to private insurance, and not because of necessity due to the ACA law.

thishereboi -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 5:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... I tell ya.... The President Obama Collarme Protection Axis is really going overtime on this one. I must say it is amusing to watch the heads spin.

mnottertail -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 5:59:36 AM)
I have got to say, it is amusing, the drool is strong with this one; the nustackers on parade.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875