RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare

RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (Full Version)

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

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/7/2013 2:31:56 PM)
The conservative man-crush on the President continues....[:D]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/7/2013 8:20:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Lets see just a tad of "balance" to the OP... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/06/obama-biden-meet-with-senate-democrats/ And yet... There still is this from your link: "A congressional source with knowledge of a meeting between Obama and the group of Democratic Senators told CNN concerns about the impact of Obamacare on next year's mid-term elections were a part of the reason for the gathering at the White House. "There would not have been this meeting if you didn't have this group of Senators up in 2014," the Democratic staffer with knowledge of the meeting told CNN."

jlf1961 -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/7/2013 8:38:17 PM)
Look, the Affordable Care Act is a FUBARed clusterfuck. The public mandate sucks, the part that would have let people keep their present plans was screwed up, otherwise insurance companies would not be dropping people, and some of the "subsidized" plans are still too expensive for people at or below the poverty line. The Affordable Care Act was designed in a committee that took just about every idea that has ever been floated for health care reform and tried to put it in one law. This is the same process that would have made this committee when told to design a horse would come up with a camel, or heffalump or woozles. (okay I have been reading winnie the pooh to my great nephew. When a 21 month old brings you a book and says "read pease" you read, even if you have read the same book six times in the day already.)

TheHeretic -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/7/2013 9:08:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What's your idea to lower US healthcare costs to make it more accessible for individuals and more affordable for businesses? I'd say, with all sincerity, repeal Obamacare. [:D] If, and I stress the IF, we are going to make universal healthcare the job of the government, then I think it would need to be a full nationalization of care from pre-natal, right up through (an adjusted) retirement age, with entitlement benefits sliding off rapidly for the elderly. Beyond a certain age, the government wouldn't be providing much more than check-ups, prescription meds, and 'generous with the morphine' hospice care. Advanced support for geriatrics would need to come from private insurance, or creative financing. Now, with that out of the way, Cloudboy, let's move past your chant of denial, and see if you'll answer the question of the thread. Why are the Democrats, who are solely responsible for forcing this hideously bad law into existence, now running like hell from it?

Politesub53 -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 3:32:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Lets see just a tad of "balance" to the OP... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/06/obama-biden-meet-with-senate-democrats/ But wait........ They are "running for the hills" ( I didnt believe that crap either)

Lucylastic -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 3:41:47 AM)
An over abundance of exaggeration is all that can be managed:)

farglebargle -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 4:34:29 AM)
All 40+ attempts to "repeal obamacare" have failed, 100%. What else do you have that's not -- as the definition of insanity tells us -- repeating the same rejected strategy over and over? May I suggest you advocate for "Universal Medicare", given that the systems that support that work just fine. Oh, and while we're at it, insist on everyone using the VA's computer system, VistA. We already paid for it, and again, it works just fine ( if not better than the commercial alternatives )

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 6:18:04 AM)
Then why are they afraid???

mnottertail -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 6:32:44 AM)
The historic debt and borrow and spend that the nutsackers have created is not the top of their talking points, why do you suppose that is? Their 42 repeal attempts is not a nutsacker running on that august accomplishment. Why are they running and hiding and shitting their pants?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 6:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The historic debt and borrow and spend that the nutsackers have created is not the top of their talking points, why do you suppose that is? Their 42 repeal attempts is not a nutsacker running on that august accomplishment. Why are they running and hiding and shitting their pants? "A congressional source with knowledge of a meeting between Obama and the group of Democratic Senators told CNN concerns about the impact of Obamacare on next year's mid-term elections were a part of the reason for the gathering at the White House. "There would not have been this meeting if you didn't have this group of Senators up in 2014," the Democratic staffer with knowledge of the meeting told CNN." What are they afraid of?

mnottertail -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 6:43:20 AM)
They are not afraid, it is nutsackers afraid, look at how many have and are in hiding since Ws time. The Obamacare signup isn't going smoothly, and they are asking well, why not extend the time to cover the time it hasnt worked so they get a full measure of time to sign up? That dont look scared to me, it was public. Nobody hid anything they made public what they talked about. Scared is Cheney in a private meeting with Oil Companies, because that would have jailed them all, that is shitting your pants right there, Fats.

farglebargle -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 1:29:32 PM)
At the end of the day, "Obamacare" has millions of people who now have insurance coverage who had been dropped before for pre-existing conditions. That's a good thing. NOT ONE PERSON who was sold a policy with MINIMUM STANDARD BENEFITS has been dropped by their carrier. That's a good thing. MANY PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANDARD, INSUFFICIENT POLICIES ( perhaps fraudulently marketed and sold ) ARE GETTING REAL COVERAGE. They can actually go see a doctor now. That's a good thing.

Yachtie -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 1:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle At the end of the day, "Obamacare" has millions of people who now have insurance coverage who had been dropped before for pre-existing conditions. That's a good thing. NOT ONE PERSON who was sold a policy with MINIMUM STANDARD BENEFITS has been dropped by their carrier. That's a good thing. MANY PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANDARD, INSUFFICIENT POLICIES ( perhaps fraudulently marketed and sold ) ARE GETTING REAL COVERAGE. They can actually go see a doctor now. That's a good thing. What unsubstantiated horseshit.

Lucylastic -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 1:53:02 PM)
In a move aimed at boosting mental health treatment, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday announced new rules that will put teeth in a 2008 mental health equity law. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, signed by President George W. Bush, requires doctors and insurers to treat mental illness the same as physical illness. Sebelius made the announcement to applause at the Rosalynn Carter Symposium on Mental Health Policy in Atlanta. The move "finally puts mental health and behavioral health on equal footing," Sebelius said. On paper, the law made mental health more accessible, but there has been virtually no enforcement of it, said Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, president of the American Psychiatric Association and a Columbia University psychiatrist. "Up to now, the law has not been complied with," Lieberman said. "Companies have only sort of adhered to it." Insurance companies often cover mental illness in a more limited fashion than physical illness. "Many private insurers gave nothing. Some provided benefits, but they were limited and inadequate," Lieberman said. The law, the new rules and provisions of Obamacare combined will ensure mental and physical illness would be covered similarly. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/health/hhs-mental-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Its a shame the people who need it most wont use it

Phydeaux -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 3:47:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle At the end of the day, "Obamacare" has millions of people who now have insurance coverage who had been dropped before for pre-existing conditions. That's a good thing. NOT ONE PERSON who was sold a policy with MINIMUM STANDARD BENEFITS has been dropped by their carrier. That's a good thing. MANY PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANDARD, INSUFFICIENT POLICIES ( perhaps fraudulently marketed and sold ) ARE GETTING REAL COVERAGE. They can actually go see a doctor now. That's a good thing. Oh yes. The current quote is 52 million people will lose insurance they like. Some fraction of them (much less than 52 million) will pick up insurance. The net effect will be we will have more people without insurance. The second net effect is we will be paying a LOT more money. Face it - obamacare was sold on the premise that giving people healthcare was cheaper than treating them at the emergency room. But - there is no evidence to suppose that these people are going to stop going to the emergency room.

farglebargle -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/8/2013 11:51:40 PM)
Explain to me why people 'like' insurance that will be cancelled if they use it, and that once it's cancelled they can't obtain any more due to their pre-existing condition. I'm having trouble understanding why people are having problems understanding that an INSURANCE COMPANIES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW is not Barack Obama's fault. The "Individual Mandate" is how we keep FREELOADERS from TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM. Don't like it? There's always Universal Coverage/Single Payer. Let's try that instead. We take all the line-items for 'health-insurance' on payroll checks and deposit it in the Medicare account at the treasury. Problem solved. No more individual mandate. NO MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES SUCKING DOLLARS AWAY FROM PATIENT TREATMENT. Win, Win.

Phydeaux -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/9/2013 12:08:20 AM)
Obviously because thats not most people's experience of insurance fargle. And no matter how much you guys try to spin it - Obamacare is still unpopular. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Explain to me why people 'like' insurance that will be cancelled if they use it, and that once it's cancelled they can't obtain any more due to their pre-existing condition. I'm having trouble understanding why people are having problems understanding that an INSURANCE COMPANIES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW is not Barack Obama's fault. The "Individual Mandate" is how we keep FREELOADERS from TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM. Don't like it? There's always Universal Coverage/Single Payer. Let's try that instead. We take all the line-items for 'health-insurance' on payroll checks and deposit it in the Medicare account at the treasury. Problem solved. No more individual mandate. NO MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES SUCKING DOLLARS AWAY FROM PATIENT TREATMENT. Win, Win.

farglebargle -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/9/2013 1:55:04 AM)
Obamacare is unpopular? If only because it's not UNIVERSAL MEDICARE like it should have been. People LOVED the policies they were fraudulently induced so much to buy, they're SUING THEIR HEALTH INSURERS. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-plan-canceled-20131105,0,2399615.story#axzz2k5VSgQ00 quote: Anthem Blue Cross is sued over policy cancellations Two California residents are suing insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross, alleging they were misled into giving up previous coverage that had been grandfathered in with respect to Obamacare.

Phydeaux -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/9/2013 4:32:30 AM)
From Propublica First, President Obama’s now-infamous pledge that those who liked their health plan could keep it applied only to people enrolled in those plans as of the day the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, March 23, 2010. That became known as the “grandfather” clause. Hammack, a San Francisco architect, and Brothers have been members of Kaiser Permanente since 1995, but they’ve only been enrolled in this particular plan since January 2011. So they do not qualify for the grandfather protection. (Even if they did, Politifact has labeled the pledge “pants on fire.”) Next, and more importantly, the benefits their plan offered didn’t fully comply with the Affordable Care Act. It did not cover dependents in the manner set out by the law, and it did not cover pediatric dental and vision services, as well as “habilitative services,” which includes speech, occupational therapy and physical therapy. “We did not cover these services in 2013,” Kaiser spokesman Chris Stenrud wrote in an email. “Pediatric dental and vision obviously do not apply to this couple, but it is one benefit package, regardless of age.” . Help ProPublica Cover the Affordable Care Act Share Your Story These seemed like pretty minor points. Is this really enough to tank this plan? I asked Ken Wood, senior adviser for products, marketing and health plan relations for Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace. “Any tiny point tanks the plan,” he told me last night. “If it was just the pediatric dental, that alone would say it’s a noncompliant plan.” There was a bigger issue, too. The plan was medically underwritten, meaning that it carefully chose members based on their health status. The Affordable Care Act eliminates such screening and requires that insurers take all comers. “Because their current insurance pool is comprised of healthier people who use fewer medical services, the premium level needed to pay for those services is also less,” Stenrud wrote.

Phydeaux -> RE: Democrat Senators Running for the Hills on Obamacare (11/9/2013 5:05:24 AM)
Interesting that there are no credible evidence of misdoing. "We were mislead by the evil insurance companies". How. I don't know. They even state that part of their motivation for filing is to pin some of the blame for the cancellations on the insurance companies instead of obamacare. If the insurance companies mislead.. I guest that means Obama just flat out lied. You know "if you like your insurance you can keep it".

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875