:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
I'll give the Obama administration credit for one thing; they are the best at rewording things to make them sound better than they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Printable View
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
I'll give the Obama administration credit for one thing; they are the best at rewording things to make them sound better than they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You better be careful or you'll be getting an IRS audit... I mean a patriot appreciation visit!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm still amused by the fellow declaring he evaded taxes on a board that an IRS agent reads. Or he's not telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Me? That's "evading", present tense. Come and get me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You're purposefully misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
1. Nobody said racist. Congressional Republicans opposed the plan because of the party of who brought it.
2. Therefore, Obama (or a Congressional Democrat) proposing PRP would meet with exactly the same opposition.You like me! You really, really like me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I'm not Kembal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Kembal: Good morning sir.. I have a suspected tax evader I would like to investigate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Boss: Certainly.. what's his name?
K: He posts under the name of "Wrathbringer" on an old text based roleplaying game forum.
B: Wut?
K: He's already admitted to evading taxes in the past and I believe he is still prone to doing so.
B: You are kidding me with this, right?
K: No sir! I want him prosecuted and then once that is done, I will get on and brag about his capture under my super secret pseudo-name "Kembal"
B: Wut?
K: Please!? I really want to do this.
B: Do you have any other information on this guy?
K: He's a libertarian and he..
B: GOOD ENOUGH! Let's get that son of a bitch terrorist!!
That's "son of a very nice woman who has very strong different political opinions of the US."Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I might be a bit more worried in the face of all the surveillance they talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Did they forget that the word "opportunity" imply having a choice or say in the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...unningPlan.jpg
Another Obamacare Deadline Blunder Is Worrying Democrats
That's the kind of convictions I like to see from my elected officials. It's sad that politicians know their voters so well that they know if they fuck up after they are reelected but keep their noses clean a month before the next election that they will get elected again.Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats facing reelection next year aren't just fretting about a balky website and President Barack Obama's misleading campaign statements on health care. Now they've begun worrying about another deadline a year away.
According to an Affordable Care Act timetable established by administration officials, early next October insurance companies will announce their new menu of health care plans for the ACA marketplaces -- plans that may be more varied and numerous than those offered this year, but that almost certainly will come with higher prices.
The likely price hikes will hit the individual and small-business insurance markets only weeks before Election Day on Nov. 4, 2014.
"What genius came up with that timetable?" asked one key Democrat, who declined to be quoted by name because he is involved in private White House talks.
Democratic senators and their political advisers have been lobbying the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to push back the next "open season" date until after the election, to no avail.
The concern about the 2014 timetable highlights a fundamental political reality of Obamacare: The success or failure of the program depends largely on the kindness of strangers -- the insurance companies -- and whatever happens in the marketplace, for good or ill, will be ascribed to President Obama and the Democrats, since Republicans refused to vote for the law or cooperate in efforts to make it work.
The president's job approval rating is already down to 42 percent in the new NBC poll, the lowest of his presidency in that survey.
What other job does one only have to worry about what their boss thinks one month out of six years.
It will get changed because the Democrats will call the Republicans a name and they will cave as normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Doesn't make him any better than any of the moochers he speaks against all the time. Hypocrisy at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He may as well be an illegal alien.
(CNN) -- White House officials have pressured insurance industry executives to keep quiet amid mounting criticism over Obamacare's rollout, insurance industry sources told CNN.
After insurance officials publicly criticized the implementation, White House staffers contacted insurers to express their displeasure, industry insiders said. Multiple sources declined to speak publicly about the push back because they fear retribution.
But Bob Laszewski, who heads a consulting firm for big insurance companies, did talk on the record.
"The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet," he said.
Laszewski, who's been a vocal critic of Obamacare, said he's been asked by insurance executives to speak out because they feel defenseless against an administration that is regulating their business -- and a big customer.
Government-backed plans accounted for about half of health care policies last year, a number that is expected to grow over the years.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the idea that administration officials are trying to silence insurance industry insiders is "preposterous and inaccurate." He added that Laszewski has been a vocal critic of health care reform for two decades.
"Plus, it ignores the fact that every day insurance companies are out talking about the law -- in large part because they are trying to reach millions of new customers who will now have new affordable insurance options available from providers through the new Market Places," Carney said.
Obama and his top advisers have acknowledged problems with the health care website.
On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was the latest administration official to apologize for the bungled rollout.
Yet she and other officials continue to argue that once they are fully up and running, the insurance exchanges will benefit Americans.
But Obama also has been accused of breaking his promise that people who like their current plans can keep them. Insurers have begun discontinuing policies that don't meet Obamacare's beefed up coverage requirements.
Laszewski said insurance company officials are embarrassed that they have to cancel plans and force people into more robust, and possibly more expensive, coverage.
Insurers, he said, warned the White House that the regulations would lead to discontinued policies.
"One of the things I think is clear here is the Obama administration has no trust in anything the health insurance industry is telling them about how to run a health plan," Laszewski said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politi...ouse-pressure/
Chicago style politics...
I'm sure the first Obama has heard about this was reading it in the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
And I bet no one is more outraged than he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's quite telling that you honestly believe that piece was just facts and didn't want to mold public opinion either way. If the propaganda was that blatant and you still don't get that you are being directed down the cattle shoot [sic], I'm not sure what you want to discuss.
I'm sure they are straight shooting, unbiased people who have no axes to grind....
Well, there you go. Since it's in the Internet from a very unbiased source, it must be true!!
This is what Back and WB has taught us tho. Oh, and ClydeR too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
You'd have made a very incisive and important point if only it were true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Give Atlanteax a break, all he did was forget to say "Except for OMG FAUX NEWS!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I would direct you to Heritage Foundation's own response to those like yourself who attempt to mislead with partial truths:
"Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids)"
I ask you again...can you directly quote which parts of the ACA are directly from the Heritage Foundation's proposal? Since it's such a huge part of it, according to you, it shouldn't be difficult.
If you actually had read the article or the quotes you wouldn't have made this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
That quote is from your posted article, so...try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's funny how you talk about partial truths and neglect oh, 99.9% of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Here's a refresher. As a hint since you didn't really read the article (except for quote picking for some reductive nonsense), Stuart wrote Heritage's proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
EDIT:Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
Added note. All I claimed was that the individual mandate originated with them. The rest? You're spinning hard. It's funny for a libertarian "defender of the truth".
I didn't read the article, yet I linked you a quote directly from the article I didn't read. Makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
EDIT:
Added note. All I claimed was that the individual mandate originated with them. The rest? You're spinning hard. It's funny for a libertarian "defender of the truth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Sooo...these quotes from you in this thread, you were talking about ONLY the individual mandate portion of Obamacare, you weren't saying that the majority of the ACA was stolen from the Heritage Foundation? Only the Individual Mandate for Catastrophic Coverage, which is not even in Obamacare...but regardless, you were talking about ONLY the idea of an individual mandate, without reference to why? Huh. An odd point to harp on about so much, but hey...if that was your intention, I'm sorry I misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
<sigh> If only men were angels then we wouldn't need a government run by these same men who are not angels. When will you learn, Thondalar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Apparently WB refuses to admit that he dug himself a hole.
Heh...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...how/?hpt=hp_t2
This made me laugh:Quote:
Internal notes show paltry initial enrollment in Obamacare
Washington (CNN) - Six people.
That's how many Americans had successfully enrolled in the federal health care exchange by the morning of October 2, according to documents provided to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/smal...html?hpt=hp_t2
Figures that prostitutes would gain the most from Obamacare...Quote:
The risqué performance was part of an Obamacare registration drive last week in San Francisco, dubbed the "Healthy Ho's Party."
Organized by "Siouxsie Q," a Bay Area sex worker, the event was meant to encourage other sex workers to enroll in the new insurance exchanges. It was a rousing success: Nearly 40 men and women attended and almost all of them filed enrollment paperwork.
Maybe this is why it is a "special interests" legislation?
Right up there with you being obsessed with me and trying desperately to pretend the Heritage Foundation didn't make the individual mandate that you QQ about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
You're intellectually dishonest. I get it. I used to think more of the University of Michigan.
lolololQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I do think that when I see a PB bot post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm not QQ-ing about the mandate ... I'm QQ-ing about the entire stinking mess that is ACA/ObamacareQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
*You* are the one that is desperately clutching to a flimsy straw of suggesting that the Heritage Foundation's individual mandate was *precisely replicated* in ACA ... which is absolutely not the case.
One of these days, you will open your eyes and uncover your ears, and stop yelling "la-la-la-la".
It's cool how you have to make up words to have a discussion with me. I feel like you're talking to the invisible WB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
What words did he make up in that post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Precisely replicated.
Which is apparently what WB believes to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Holy shit.. it's like I'm on the Twilight Zone and the show is about irony and hypocrisy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
http://i.imgur.com/JTdRanv.gif
But...those two words have existed for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
YOU'RE PULLING ANOTHER LATRIN, AREN'T YOU, LATRIN?!?!??
PB bot with an insult and an image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
This guy WB...he's a funny guy.
So I heard yesterday that the Website generated a whopping 6 whole people enrolled in insurance the first day.
You got to wonder tho, if 5 of those 6 were medicaid.
First they said that the SHEER VOLUME of people trying was indication that people wanted the insurance. Now they say that they knew all along that the numbers the first month were going to be very low. Even without web problems.
What's next, Obama saying that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? But then come out and say that they knew all along that most of the people in the individual marketplace would lose their plan?
Oh wait... that already happened.
You know.. when I look back on Obama's recent speeches about it, I think he told the truth for once. When he said Thousands of people signed up for healthcare.
Hi. I'll be filling in for WB today...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Provide a source for that. And a source for your source, and a source for that source too, all of which must be sources that I personally approve of, otherwise you're just making it up or repeating talk radio.
Or you're an Ayn Rand Bot who supports the Heritage Foundation creating Obamacare during the Iraq War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
www.foxnews.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I thought up a great analogy. I know you are all surprised that it took me this long, but everyone has off days.
Heritage Foundation is the seed.
Obamacare is the tree.
"But Latrinsorm," I hear you cry, "a seed does not have branches, or leaves, or bark!"
And yet, trees grow from seeds.
You were in on this, weren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
http://youtu.be/I9lmvX00TLY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZwhNFOn4ikQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I gave up, can I get that redhead's number though?
Do you have a fetish for chicks with black Spaghetti O's falling out of their cunts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
1) You say that like it's a bad thing.
2) She's clearly a brunette.
3) I was talking about the redhead behind Ryan from the Office's right shoulder.
I missed that pic, so I'll assume you're talking about Meredith...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What the motherfucking motherfuck was that. Fucking fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Oh so what, now pooping in a paper shredder is a weird fetish? Could you be any more of a prude?
eta: @ Methais
I can't get the visuals out of my head. FUCK!
It's not even that the chick featured was strange...it was the crowd (non)reaction during the "show" and their applause afterward that was odd to me. They are all freaks.
YEEEAAAHHH ART!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisket
If it makes you feel any better, these people received death threats over that clip.
I guess it's too "artsy" for me to understand and I am ok with that. I guess I missed the point though maybe had I been able to actually force myself to watch every last second of it. I want my time back damnit.
You CLEARLY don't understand performance art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisket
I thought it was a wedding video?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Is healthcare.gov working for you now? I was able to use it the week it first opened, but it seems to be a lot quicker now.
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446
I'd like to see a liberal spin on that one.
"He's lived a long enough life, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The He is actually a She and of course she is not going to die because of this. She will be treated by different doctors but that's about it.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You're basing this on all of that time you spent being a soldier right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Source for your certainty please?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Frankly, there will be a number of similar cases, as a number of hospitals and Dr's are refusing to take the insurance plans provided on the exchanges.
The cheapest plan in my state and for my area (because yes, they are broken down THAT far), which arguably will be the most purchased by people, apparently only has access to one hospital out of the 7 that are within 20 miles of my home. This hospital, while not a slum, is certainly not the best, or even what I would consider good. They have a very fast turn over rate for the ER, but that is because their goal is to get you out quickly. I had a friend that went there for back pain, they did an MRI, and found a kidney stone that was 9 mm big. They gave her some prescriptions and told her it should pass in 3-4 weeks.
Now.. when I had my kidney stone, I was told anything over 5 mm usually had to be broken up cause it wouldn't be able to fit thru your tubes.
So.. 6 months later.. she still has the stone. Her family is just about at the point where they plan to kidnap her and take her to a real hospital.
It's funny.. "you get what you pay for" used to mean something. Apparently America thinks it can pay practically nothing, and get the worlds best medical attention.
Yes.. because if I were facing this cancer, the first thing I would want is a new doctor and new insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What happened to “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.” - Barack Obama
“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. 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.” - Barack Obama
“Bottom line: of the 189 million Americans with private health insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014,” he said in an email. ”But of these, ‘only’ the 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.” - Christopher Conover. Conover is a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
ETA: Yes, I realize the AEI is a conservative leaning think tank. We will see how this unfolds in a year.
That would be a no. Definitely a good job of putting words in my mouth though. It's not about the individual anecdote. It's the rough equivalent of suggesting that all soldiers are bad because one innocent person got shot in Iraq. Y'all are buying a Cindy Sheehan style argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
The response to this story is all the stories you won't hear carefully trimmed by conservative media.
And it's quite obvious that American conservatives and the conservative media are attempting to scare people away from the system to make it fail.
I didn't put words in your mouth at all and you made it an individual anecdote by your very question towards that very specific individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Of course it's conservatives using stories like this to garner support, just like these stories aren't being discussed through liberal media outlets because it might make their cause look bad.
I guess I'm confused where you're coming from with this. If this person were your mother would you want the story told? I've already given a factual, personal (obviously anecdotal) account of how my brother and his family will not be able to afford health care under the ACA. They can't budget for cost that is the equivalent of more than they are paying in housing. They can't all be feel good stories, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be told does it?
Didn't you hear? He misspoke all those times he was saying that....Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/op...=opinion&_r=2&Quote:
That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.
Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies....
I agree. It does seem that ACA was oversold and underdelivered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Source for her gender or that she has to change doctors? As far as the gender goes, you can google her name, as for changing doctors...that's one of the points she's making in her piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
She could very well be the reason that her insurance provider is using ACA as a chance to dump the policy she's on. They've paid out 1.2 million $ just for her treatment. I wonder how many healthy enrollees a plan needs to cover 1.2 million for just one person.
Source for she's not going to die as a result and the only thing she's going to have to change is doctors (treatment will remain exactly the same, facilities will remain the same, etc).
Don't be retarded. Edie could die any day. She's been in and out of remission and is considered an outlier because she has lived so far beyond the normal for her type of cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
In her own words, she takes to chemo like a duck to water. Will changing Doctors kill her? Doubtful. Her cancer is going to kill her and probably sooner than later.
Quote:
For over four years, regardless of what is put into me, or taken out of me, my blood immunity markers are almost always in the normal range. My body can deal with strong chemotherapy, infection and inflammation. Maybe it’s because I spent the first 10 years of my life on an Oklahoma cotton farm, outdoors and mostly barefoot, absorbing bacteria and germs and strengthening my immune system. Maybe not.
She won't die because of this.
Will this kill her? Doubtful.
At this rate you're four posts from saying this change will kill her.
Why will ACA kill her? Why? She takes chemo like a champ and you can get chemo anywhere. She's been in treatment for years, is knowledgeable about her disease and options. She's not going to lapse in coverage and will be treated by qualified Doctor's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
Her piece is short on fact and long on feeling and you are eating it up as if it came out of a burning bush.
It sucks that her insurance company dropped her. I wish they hadn't but they're losing $$$ on her life and they are in business to make money. ACA provides a great opportunity for insurance companies to re-vamp their offerings and drop the loser policies. It's definitely and ugly side of things but that's capitalism. Obama did gloss over the ugly parts of ACA and promoted the positive aspects. If you want to be outraged about that, fine. Be outraged. To believe that Edie has now been sentenced to death because of ACA is fear mongering at it's worst.
It was the only way to sell it. November 2014 should be very interesting, if the Republicans just let this thing eat itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's probably their best strategy. They run the risk that it goes well and people are happy but I expect there will still be some heartburn out there about it and it won't be hard to exploit this with their base. It's a risky strategy though and looking at how they are preparing to in-fight each other before they start fighting the Democratic opponents it's not looking good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They'll find a way to fuck it up. It's what they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Was United Healthcare's decision to leave California related to Obamacare? The article somehow failed to say.
Here's what they say about the change:Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Quote:
UnitedHealthcare announced it will no longer offer individual insurance plans after the end of the year. It will focus instead on its core business of group plans for large and small employers.
"Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state," the company said in a statement. "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California."
No, you're wrong about that. We're going to shut down the government again in January. That will put an end to Obamacare once and for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
If United Healthcare's departure from California was really unrelated to Obamacare, then what would have happened to this person if Obama had not imposed Obamacare on the whole country? Would one of the other insurance companies still in California have taken over the coverage? I think they would have, becuase in the absence of oppressive government regulation, insurance companies usually do the right thing for sick people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Here's some good news on ACA. According to Jonathan Gruber http://economics.mit.edu/faculty/gruberj who worked on Romneycare and Obamacare, the idea that people are losing their insurance is overblown.
Quote:
Gruber broke down the A.C.A. “winners” and “losers” for me. About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.
But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”
The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.
Is it that the Republicans fail to capitalize or that the Democrats aren't such screw-ups after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
This is good stuff. Keep it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
We've been over this before, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it propaganda.
While I appreciate your point, the MSNBC article I posted is not baseless progoganda. They are using an interview done by Jonathan Capehart to tell the story of how the right's mouthpieces spread misinformation. If you'll notice, they used the idiotic remarks from Mr. Jackson as the starting point, then traced those points of view back to Congressmen like Bachmann, Gohmert; and talking heads/entertainers like Mark Levin, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Jones, Nugent and Hank Williams Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If the premise of the article was something like "All Republicans are stupid" and they used this one guy as an example to prove that, then I'd agree with your assessment that it's just baseless propoganda. Obviously that's not what the article is reporting, and is in fact doing the work to show the connections and the genesis for these idiotic theories.
Unfortunately it went right over the heads of some of our PC members.
Please tell us all how you're better than us cwolff.
http://beyondthemarquee.com/wp-conte...6/thaaanks.jpg
It has an aim. The aim is to destroy the coverage of lots more people than just one. Just like that cwolff piece is really an attempt to push Democratic control of Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
"I'm right and you're all just wrong and stupid!"Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Do you actually believe this stuff you post?
Right from that "article":
She then went on to explain how Jackson arrived at this opinion of his. Really? You're really going to ask someone for their opinion then mock them and claim this guy is just brainwashed by the right's "mouthpieces"?Quote:
Capehart asked Jackson if he thought Obama loved the country.
“Not at all,” he responded. “Not one bit. Not one breath that comes out of his body.”
I was hoping you just posted that article as a joke but now watching you actually defend the article is even more absurd than the article itself.
Being an armchair general has to count for something.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
The clue TG, is in the headline: Where anti-Obama fanatics get their ‘facts’. Why does this offend you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Do you think facts is in quotes to actually mean they are talking about opinions?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Dude, if you have something to say, just say it. I'm not sure where you're trying to lead this conversation but it's annoying. Just spit it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
LOL that's the second time cwolff has used the "I'm wrong so I'm just digging in my heels and not answering questions but I'll say YOU SAY IT!!!!"
You're adorable.
I asked TG to clarify the point he's trying to make so that I'm not working with baseless assumptions about what I think he may or may not be attempting to express. Why that would upset you is beyond comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
Because when you're asked a question you don't want to answer you say "Dude I don't understand just spit it out" right after calling everyone else retarded. It doesn't make me upset it makes me laugh (notice that LOL at the start of my post you quoted).Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Sorry I don't see the confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Does Obama hate America? This is an opinion question, it is not a factual question. It's not like saying does 2 plus 2 equal 4. The only person who knows if Obama hates America is Obama. You can look at his actions and words and say it's more likely than not that he doesn't hate American but it's still an opinion question. Why are they asking this man an opinion question then mocking his answer and claiming he got his "facts" from right wing radio? As if they are somehow proving this man got his opinion from right wing radio and this man is now claiming it as fact because he heard it on the radio.
Everyone should be mocking that article because if it was quoted without being sourced I bet most people would assume it's from The Onion.
I did say that the article I posted went right over the heads of some of our PC posters, and I called you retarded earlier. Is that where this is coming from? Are your feelings hurt?Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
It's not that I do not want to answer TG's question it's that I don't understand what point he is attempting to make. A cursory glance of the sentence he wrote would leave me to believe that he has some question about the quotation marks used around the word facts in the headline I copied though I do not believe that this actually has him stumped which is why I asked him for greater detail.
Again, why is this upsetting you? Actually it doesn't even matter and feel free to respond or don't. I won't be paying attention.
Psssst. Guess what Genius. Just about every single private plan will be dumped. Almost NO private plans covered kids (HA!) till they were 26, which is now required by the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I would say it's MUCH more likely that her plan is dumping her NOW, because the plan itself isn't up to the ACA's idea of "good enough". After all, if they were going to dump her cause she was sick, they would have done it years ago, and SAVED 1.2 million.
I'm sorry TG, but you're trying to make an argument that is irrelevant here. Journalists constantly report on people's opinions. You may want to argue that they should not do this or that they should not show people in a less than flattering light, but that's a WHOLE 'NOTHER THREAD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Dude, they gave her 1.2 million dollars! This is not one of the "not good enough" plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
True. What they usually don't do is use words like "facts" in the very same article. They also don't usually ask someone's opinion then later on try to trace the "roots" of the person's opinion when there is zero evidence that the person arrived at this opinion of theirs through facts ("facts") presented to them from right wing radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Here's another quote from the article which is what I'm talking about:
How can anyone sit there and say an opinion of his is "astonishingly inaccurate" and they are going to somehow prove this by tracing his opinion back to some of the "biggest names in right-wing media."Quote:
Many of the claims Jackson made were almost astonishing in their inaccuracy, but in almost all cases, they can be traced back to some of the biggest names in the right-wing media sphere.
Aww someone got called out correctly and now he's going play ground for responses. You're not good at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
My Opinion is Cwolff is a fucking moron and likely never attended school due to not meeting the IQ threshold. Apparently his mother was to ugly for the principle to want to fuck.
Since this is my opinion, It is now fact.
Now we can all ignore Cwolff.
Wait wait now, let's see if we can trace your opinion back to right-wing radio so we can prove your opinions are 100% inaccurate. After all if someone on right-wing radio says it it has to be untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Do to? (I stopped after that but there's more) You're just like cwolff on that whole calling people retarded while being retarded thing. I'm guessing it's a takes one to know one scenario (or takes won two now won scenario if that's more your comfort and speed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Ya, this is definitely not Woodward and Bernstein tackling Watergate. They used this idiot to attack other right wing idiots. This is not surprising since it's on MSNBC and written by a Politics Nation staffer. It's sensational and a bit over the top, doesn't mean they don't have a point, nor does it mean that they did not support their conclusions with quotes and references. Feel free to agree or disagree (and I totally get that this is a somewhat inflammatory article) and you do have a point that they haven't created ironclad connections from Rush et. al. to Mr. Jackson. I'd suggest that you are working around the actual subject matter and not attacking the heart of their point, which is that some people blame the President for things that never happened and these points of view are advanced by other media members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Well, you would know about retarded actually, look at the names you come up with for people.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
I blame Obama for the extinction of the Dinosaurs, I heard that it may have been possible he caused this from Rush.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Let me get this straight. Jarvan says the woman got dumped because she had a plan that wasn't good enough for ACA. I responded by saying she got 1.2 million so this isn't one of those plans. Then Jarvan's response is to attack my IQ as being insufficient in some way while misspelling principal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
It'd be funny if it weren't true.
As a moderator you really shouldn't be such a troll. Have some decorum. It's not like we can ignore you and I would if I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
They are carefully hand crafted using all available information. You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
You can't?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If it makes you feel better I don't get to ignore anyone.
I'm pretty sure Anitcor can be ignored with the forum ignore function.
Why should his moderator status have anything at all to do with his posting style? Kranar doesn't and shouldn't care if he calls everyone a shithead.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Way to ignore the actual reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I think Anticor does a fine job. He's one of a very few people about who have reasons for (almost) all of what they post. I can understand your gut level instincts as you haven't been here long but he's actually damn good at his job (such that it is).Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Spam is an issue with this board, and Anticor does a good job of cleaning it up. I'm not changing my signature block though, until my title gets changed back :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You never requested a title change to anything else. BOOYAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Spam is a very minor issue, most of it is thread clean up, title changes, banning a few people and bots.
People aren't agreeing with me YOU SHOULD CHANGE HOW YOU DO WHAT YOU DO!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Good one cwolff.
Anticor is pretty moderate politically and is a phenomenal admin... especially when you factor in his pay...Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/One...29_3552229.jpghttp://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/...7424585573.jpg
If your opinion is that President Bush was born in Kenya, that opinion is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If your opinion further happens to be that President Bush was born in a particular village of Kenya, and aside from a claim made by a popular radio host that village is obscure, it stands to reason that that's where your opinion came from, and "someone else said it" is a poor reason for believing something.
I will never understand why people use the "it's just my opinion!!!" defense.
That's just your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Surely you know the difference between opinion and fact, ClydeR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/...inion_man.jpegQuote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
Just to make sure I wasn't going crazy I even looked it up in the thesaurus and it turns out fact and opinion are antonyms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So, what exactly was the point of the opinion piece? You are talking in circles again.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Sen. Barrasso of Wyoming just told the story from California on the Senate floor. He said the opinion piece stated that United Healthcare left California because of Obamacare. I still don't see that anywhere in the article.
http://www.thegloss.com/wp-content/u...kidding-me.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Man up, cupcake. It'll be ok.
Haven't you figured it out yet? The neat thing about politics is that there are no "facts." It's all opinion, and some opinions are a lot better than others. Even if you manage to find an undisputed "fact," the fact won't be very important by itself. What is important is how people respond to perceived facts. For anything as complicated as politics, those responses are determined by opinions. Therefore, opinions are greater than facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Well I've said it two times. The first time I said to TG that the clue about the point of the article is in the title then I explained it in greater detail in the quote that you captured and specifically in the last sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I bet if that vote was held now, we would have a different presidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Good for KY. They are way ahead of where MA was at this point with Romneycare. It's going to make McConnell's race even more interesting.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23856739/g...in-first-month
In the same way that you know the difference between "not completely certain" and "astonishingly inaccurate", ClydeR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You and me are going to be resorting to fisticuffs pretty soon, Tgo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Do it at the boulder!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Stay out of this, Anticor!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You would need lightning reflexes to fit a hook in past my hands-moving-around-in-a-slapping-motion-jitsu, lol, or what? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
lol
This is true of pretty much every second term President.Quote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
I bet you if the exact same law was passed in late 2008, and named Bushcare, Democrats would be crying for repeal. More and more they seem to cling to it more out of pride or some irrational fear of admitting failure than any logical positive reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
There is nothing wrong with the idea of providing subsidized healthcare to the poor, this is absolutely the worst possible system anyone could have designed to accomplish that.
I think Washington needs to operate on a "He cuts, you choose" mentality. One party defines the goal, the other party needs to decide how to get there. Democrats can say "Universal healthcare" republicans then get to pick how to get there. Republicans can say "Return to 2006 spending levels" democrats can decide how we get there. Everyone who has ever shared a brownie knows how this rule works.
I'm just glad we spent all this money so that on day 1 6 uninsured people could get health insurance. RTCF sold more tickets on day 1 than Obamacare did.
Oh, crb.Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
Democrats say "go to war with Germany", Republicans say "ok you can draft 1000 soldiers, because George Washington".Quote:
I think Washington needs to operate on a "He cuts, you choose" mentality. One party defines the goal, the other party needs to decide how to get there. Democrats can say "Universal healthcare" republicans then get to pick how to get there. Republicans can say "Return to 2006 spending levels" democrats can decide how we get there. Everyone who has ever shared a brownie knows how this rule works.
Republicans say "civil rights act", Democrats say "ok but it has to be enforced by state LEOs with no federal interference, because Constitution."
http://eofdreams.com/data_images/dre...r/razor-02.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by crb
33x more at that.Quote:
RTCF sold more tickets on day 1 than Obamacare did.
We already have Government healthcare for the poor and elderly, it's called Medicaid and Medicare. What does the ACA do, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
Why do you hate poor people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Edit: More seriously, as a direct result of the ACA, our pediatrician no longer accepts our insurance and we'll have to change plans/providers if we wish to continue to have them care for our children. Thanks, Obama. Good to know if we liked our doctors/insurance, no one would take them from us. What a cluster. "We, government, are going to get all up in your behind involved in this, but don't worry, nothing will change if you don't want it to..." Riiight. never does, right?
Glad you asked! And the answer is that it does a lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
1) Creates health insurance exchanges
2) Subsidizes insurance for the poor who make too much to be on medicaid/medicare
3) Makes it possible to get coverage with a pre-existing condition
I'm sure it does more, those are just three things it does that a majority of republicans like.
Oh, they also like the employer mandate. The used to like the individual mandate too, but now they don't.
Could be that people like itQuote:
Originally Posted by crb
Did you read the article about Kentucky? They had something like 35,000 people sign up in it's first month. IN KENTUCKY!Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
Personally I don't dislike someone because they are poor. But if you are poor and lazy, now I have a problem with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I dont like rich and lazy all that much either, but rich people don't tend to need welfare, free healthcare, and so forth.
What about poor and an asshole?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
You do understand there are a lot more requirements for healthcare plans then JUST a lifetime max, right? Besides, How do you know her lifetime max on this plan wasn't 2 million? or 10? Do you know to what age it covered kids? Or if it covered maternity care? Maybe the plan did NOT cover preexisting conditions. Do not claim that her current plan was ACA compliant, you have no fucking clue that it was. On the other hand, you can be almost certain it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
When I worked for Aetna, there was ZERO plans that covered kids till 26. best plan I saw was the UN, which covered kids till 24, no matter what. Most covered till 21 but they had to be in school. Private plans usually are much stricter on that particular front. For example.
Btw.. here is the Kids thing from healthcare.gov... feel free to explain how most of these points make any sense at all.
If a plan covers children, they can be added or kept on the health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old.
Children can join or remain on a plan even if they are:
married
not living with their parents
attending school
not financially dependent on their parents
eligible to enroll in their employer’s plan
So a Kid that CAN enroll in a plan from their job, can instead refuse to and be covered by their parents.
A kid that makes 250k a year as an Actor can still be covered under their parents plan...
A woman that is married to someone and living with her husband ( who has his own insurance) can stay on her parents plan till 26...
What is the definition of "dependent" as it applies to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act)?
A group health plan or insurer may base eligibility for dependent child coverage only in terms of the relationship between a child and participant, and may not deny or restrict coverage based on factors such as financial dependency, residency, student status, employment or marital status. The health reform regulations do not provide a definition of "child" for these purposes.
These make sense in WHAT universe?
Granted, the cild part is not likely the reason they are dropping her, I am just pointing out possibilities. You on the other hand automatically think , Oh evil company is getting rid of someone that cost them money.
ACA says that people can get medicaid up to 134% of the poverty level, and also now it is available to men and women, and single people, and people without kids. Previously, it was mostly for children and pregnant women, or families.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Do we know how many of those 35k signed up for Medicaid?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's Kentucky so probably 35k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Are you saying that she probably had a high risk catastrophic coverage plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
We don't know how this will play out. If it's terrible, it can be changed. Didn't they just add a means testing component to ACA? No reason they can't tweak it further and definitely no reason in our history to suggest that it won't be modified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
BTW, I'm not one of the guys saying anything about those evil insurance companies. You have me confused with another. I did say that right now is a great time for insurers to dump policies that are losing money.
About 2/3'rds are medicaid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Nope, it's higher than that:
32,485 enrolled in new health coverage, including Medicaid and private insurance
‣ 27,854 have enrolled in Medicaid and 4,631 have enrolled in a qualified health plan.
Why did we need the ACA to do that? It would have already happened on it's own if not for the previous system of government-muddled healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If there was a gap in Medicaid coverage I'm sure we could have solved that by overhauling Medicaid, not introducing another thousand pages of idiotic bureaucracy.Quote:
2) Subsidizes insurance for the poor who make too much to be on medicaid/medicare
Why is this a good thing? If you bring a car into a dealership to trade, and it has a blown engine, will they give you full value for it? Whether you like it or not, the fact is Insurance Companies are businesses. They exist to make money (which, by the way, has some really stupid side-effects, like giving people jobs and driving economies). In order to make up for the fact that they're going to lose a shit ton of money on people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to have to raise the rates on the rest of us.Quote:
3) Makes it possible to get coverage with a pre-existing condition
:deadhorse: The individual mandate proposed by the Heritage Foundation was ONLY for catastrophic coverage, and even that wasn't readily accepted by the Republican rank-and-file.Quote:
I'm sure it does more, those are just three things it does that a majority of republicans like.
Oh, they also like the employer mandate. The used to like the individual mandate too, but now they don't.
Nobody I know.Quote:
Could be that people like it!
To be fair, people in Kentucky all have to share one computer, vastly reducing the server load.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Because being unhealthy impinges on our first and most precious right: the right to life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The reduction in our ability to pursue happiness (in the form of hookers and blow) is noted, but as our third most important right it is of course less important than our first. This is how society works. Why do you think we haven't had any revolutions in the past 100 some odd years? We treat people right, and everybody is rich.Quote:
In order to make up for the fact that they're going to lose a shit ton of money on people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to have to raise the rates on the rest of us.
Would have but.... means it didn't happen until Obama and ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Could have but....we didn't until Obama and ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Well people aren't machines...yet! Insurance companies do not have to participate in the exchanges. They can stay out of them completely if they don't think they make money. They are being exposed to millions of people who are going to have to buy their product now though and they are competing for these new customers. Obama just expanded their market, a lot. Ya, the rates may go up for you and me. If you don't like this, then keep fighting it. Maybe this side of the argument will get enough support that it's possible to repeal the pre-existing coverage. Right now in the USA though, there is no will for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Yup, I think that's correct. They wanted to close the "free rider" loophole. It's interesting the guy who wrote this also answers your question about why we should cover pre-existing conditions better than I can:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Quote:
...it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…
Nobody yet, but you will, and to be fair you probably do. They are just in the closet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
My opinion of assholes is not influenced by how much money the asshole has. An asshole is an asshole is an asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Someone obviously did a nickel in chino for stealing hubcaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
When I was 8 I thought the phrase "tire iron" referred to hubcaps and could not figure out why the criminals in the novelization of Knightfall were wailing on people with hubcaps, they seemed totally unwieldy even for a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Congratulations Mr. P... you may not have told as many whoppers of lies as other former Presidents but you will definitely go down in history as a liar who lies about his lies.Quote:
Lying About Lies: Why Credibility Matters to Obama
The president is trying to reinvent the history of his you-can-keep-it promise on health care.
It might not seem possible that President Obama could do more harm to his credibility and the public's faith in government than misleading Americans about health insurance reform. But he can. The president is now misleading the public about his deception.
In a speech Monday night to his political team, Obama said: "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
No, no, no, no, no--that's not what the Obama administration said. What it said was:
"That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. 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." – President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009, during the debate over health insurance reform.
"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future." – Obama, remarks in Portland, Ore., April 1, 2010, after the bill was signed into law.
These quotes are courtesy of Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who gave Obama four Pinocchios for the you-can-keep-it whopper, repeated countless times by Obama. "The president's statements were sweeping and unequivocal—and made both before and after the bill became law," Kessler wrote. "The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency."
What Obama told supporters Monday is what he should have told the public all along. "So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you're grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they've got to change it to a higher standard. They've got to make it better, they've got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling," Obama said at an Organizing for Action event. "That's part of the promise that we made too. That's why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering."
"If we had allowed these old plans to be downgraded, or sold to new enrollees once the law had already passed, then we would have broken an even more important promise--making sure Americans gain access to health care that doesn't leave them one illness away from financial ruin," Obama said Monday. "The bottom line is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody and that's the right thing to do."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white...obama-20131105
Politicians suck.
That would be President Obama
I figured it out... I thought you were calling me Mr. P.
We were about to throw down!!!
Half the country voted for him, I was not one of them either. People once they get the entitlements they don't want to give them up. Like the person said, "if I took a full time job, I would be taking a pay cut." With that type of mentality its no wonder we are in this position.
Look at the heat Germany is taking for having a trade surplus, that is what makes a country strong. But in this world we all need to be the same.
Yeah but if the person took a full time job, he/she could have some self-respect. But such things seem to be out-of-style with a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regallis
I'm not against welfare per se as a temporary measure (I realize things can happen in life), but for many people there needs to be a time limit.
Speaking in Virginia on behalf of gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the Virginia governor race is a referendum on Obamacare. And right now Cuccinelli is ahead!
Quote:
"This is the first election in America since the full impact of ObamaCare has been felt," said Rubio, who is weighing a presidential bid in 2016. “The whole country is waiting for your choice."
More...
NBC has called it for McAuliffe, CNN is holding out, and FOX is talking about the Presidents job approval rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
And CNN has now called it for MaCauliffe with Fox bitching about textbooks that apparently explain Islam but don't give Christianity equal time. Did FOX get out of the election business after screwing up 2012 so badly?
I think you might have to adjust your TV.. or have an adult help you find Fox News. They already called MaCauliffe. In fact, they called if for MaCauliffe when Cuccinelle was winning by 10K votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Or do you believe they should watch CNN and when they announce a winner, they should immediately call a winner as well?
from 45 minutes ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Virginia governor's race too close to call
The polls are now closed in Virginia, and Fox News can report that Democrat Terry McAulliffe has a slight lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli, although it is too early to call the race
Fox, NBC Call Virginia Governor's Race for McAuliffe | The Weekly ...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.../fo...-race-mcauliff...
29 mins ago - Fox, NBC Call Virginia Governor's Race for McAuliffe ... Terry McAuliffe will win his bid for governor Virginia, both Fox News and NBC News are ...
I'm sorry for your loss. My Condolences.
I live in Florida.. how exactly is that a "loss" for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Fox News called the race with 96% of the precincts in and Cuccinelle winning with a 10,000 vote lead. I'm so sorry they didn't call it fast enough for you.. it's obviously caused you so much pain and anguish that you felt the need to come here and complain about it.
Nice try though.. really...
No, really......
Honestly tho, this is why a Third party system, at this time, would never work.
Dems don't run against Dems in the general election. Generally.
Charlie is befuddled at how wrong you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Polit...1208_wblog.jpg
Weren't most of Sarvis's big donors McAuliffe supporters and Donors? They were the ones that wanted him to stay in, to split the republican vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
In modern elections the only one I can think of is Nader. But then again, the 2000 election is pretty unique I think.
That's what I figured too. That without Sarvis, Cuccinelli wins, but that's not the case according to exit polls. MaCauliffe would have won by less but still same outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tonigh...043907551.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Quote:
In the last days of his campaign for governor, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) ran around the state saying his race was a "referendum on Obamacare."
The results are in. Cuccinelli has lost. And Obamacare, therefore, has won.
...Even in an election that the Republican candidate was deeming to be a "referendum on Obamacare," in a state where Obamacare is not popular, against a Democratic nominee whose key career accomplishment is unusual success at influence peddling, the Republican nominee lost.
As Marco Rubio and Ken Cuccinelli himself said, the vote was a referendum on Obamacare. It just shows that Republicans have not been vocal enough in telling people about how it's all death panels, socialism, government takeovers and free money. If only Republicans weren't so polite and timid, then people would know the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Indeed, Mr. Cuccinelli was the first attorney general in the country to sue over the law after it was passed in March 2010, and has gone all in recently on highlighting the botched roll-out and issues with healthcare.gov as a key difference between he and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.
“This is a referendum on Obamacare, and to help us clarify that point, the president is coming tomorrow,” he told a crowd outside of a GOP office in Prince William, drawing scattered boos.
“No, no - no, no; I’m very glad to have him here,” he continued. “I wish he was here today, too. Let’s not let there be any lack of clarity as we close this out for three more days, [four] hours, and three minutes until the polls close. But who’s counting?”
More...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...zed/?hpt=hp_t1Quote:
Documents show first days of Obamacare rollout worse than initially realized
Phone trouble continued into the next week. "Our call center reps can't see their screens," wrote an unnamed consultant on October 7.
According to the war room notes: On day one, October 1, the system mistakenly rejected 90% of Medicaid applicants. The next day, estimates counted 40,000 people in the HealthCare.gov waiting room, while just 100 people had enrolled. By day three, it was clear that insurers were not getting the data for people who had signed up for their plans.
What a clusterfark!! Just *scrap* the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
That was a clusterfuck. It's not getting scrapped though. For one thing, it's getting better, and for another, most people want it. They may not want "obamacare" or they may want to make some changes but the basics are common ground.Quote:
Issues continued, but after the first week, the trend turned more positive.
On October 9, the war room update for the morning says, "About 60% of applicants are getting into HealthCare.gov without sitting in the waiting room." That left 40% who still had to wait. But the number was a vast improvement from the 90% to 95% percent the week before.
From here on out it's going to be a battle of making tweaks and adjustments.
Most people do not want it. That's the problem. They may want aspects of it, but you can say that about just about anything. I am sure most Americans would like aspects of socialized medicine, that doesn't mean they want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Also, 60% getting thru the website doesn't mean dick, it doesn't say how many actually signed up.
That was the wisest thing said on the internet today.Quote:
"In politics, when you have to eat XXXX, you don't nibble," said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis.
For Kofinis, the colorful metaphor is universal, meaning it applies to all political catastrophes. In this particular case, Kofinis and other Democrats believe Obama would be wise to admit his like-your-plan-keep-your-plan dodge was a mistake and apologize immediately and conspicuously.
More...
That just shows how biased surveycraft can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
You could ask someone "Do you like that your kids are able to be on your insurance for free until they're 27?" They'll say yes. You can then ask someone "Do you think it is right for a poor unmarried childless 18 year old working in construction to pay a higher health insurance premium so that someone else's children, who likely are in graduate school and on the cusp of earning above average incomes, can get free insurance?" They'll say no. You can then ask someone "Do you like that your health insurance now provides free prenatal care?" They'll say yes. You then ask "Should a 62 year old male be forced to buy insurance that provides free prenatal care?" They'll say no.
Surveys are bullshit, how the questions are phrased entirely dictates the responses of the average citizen who does not have the brain power, or simply time, to think through it when they're talking on the phone while trying to get dinner cooked and the kids are screaming in the background etc.
ROFL. This law is NEVER going to work, it is fundamentally mathematically flawed. It already is experiencing adverse selection which is going to skew the risk pools to the unhealthy which will result in higher premiums which will further create adverse selection, until it kills itself. This is a fact of nature because they created a mandate with no teeth. Meanwhile, every single year this law is in effect premiums will go up, which will be major national news. It will go over budget because as premiums grow, so do subsidies, that will result in constant budget negotiations in DC, which will be major national news. This is not going to fade into background noise once the website is fixed. This is a perpetual trainwreck.Quote:
Why do you think the Republicans devoted everything they had into taking it down during the shutdown? Because once Americans realize what the law actually does, and that they agree with it, repealing it is an impossibility. The website issues are a huge give-away to the GOP's noise machine, but ultimately, people will forget about technical issues once they get it working.
ROFL. Obamacare didn't fix any actual problem. It doesn't even get rid of the problem of uninsured people, the most recent Whitehouse estimates are something like 20% of previous uninsured will get covered (And most of that through medicaid, which should hardly be considered insurance). You've really drunk the koolaid.Quote:
Also funny how technical issues with a website somehow translate into "We should repeal the whole thing! Oh. Our idea about fixing the numerous problems the healthcare system had before the law? Uhhhhhhh.. Uhhhhh.... Uhhhhhhhhhh!.. Vouchers? Free market? Herpderp? Crickets?"
The actual problem is not that people were uninsured, the problem was medical cost inflation causing people to be priced out of the insurance market. Medical care exhibits higher inflation than any other area of our economy (except perhaps higher education, those two are both fucked), for a variety of complex economic reasons. The biggest problem is the third party payment system removes normal pricing signals from the market which results in no normal market controls on price. Additionally there are other problems such as the biased favored tax status for employer provided coverage to the detriment of the individual market. The issue of people over consuming more healthcare than they need, as well as issues with defensive medicine and providers maximizing against payment formulas, but the big underlying cause is the third party payment system. The obvious comparison is to plastic surgery which doesn't result in third party payments. What medical procedure is cheaper than it was 20 years ago? Breast implants, laser eye surgery, liposuction. Meanwhile, what has happened to the cost of a stent? X-Ray? Physical therapy? This is not a coincidence.
Does Obamacare fix any of that? No, it doesn't. Obamacare is hooking up a blood bags to a guy who slit his wrists while not bothering to sew up his incisions, he is just going to keep on bleeding, and you can keep wasting blood by hooking up more bags, but the smart thing would be to sew up his cuts.
Providing universal subsidized healthcare is not an inherently bad idea, it is a noble goal. Obamacare is probably the worst possible way to try to achieve that. Republicans need not do anything and it will die, they should have not bothered with the shutdown (though it was telling that when they pared back all demands EXCEPT the one that congress would also need to go into the exchanges, the Democrats still said no. The only reason the shutdown lasted as long as it did was that Obamacare was so great Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to sign up). The thing is going to die by itself. Maybe then we'll no longer have a peacock in the whitehouse and pride will stop getting in the way of real reforms and solutions to actually fix the underlying problem.
This stupid ass argument again? So if you ask people if they like all of the good things about a law then ask if they like the law as a whole (good AND bad) we're supposed to be surprised that the numbers don't match up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
That's like me asking:
"Do you want to see more police officers on the streets?" 99% of people said yes.
"Do you want potholes fixed faster?" 95% of people said yes.
"Do you want access to more public transportation?" 89% of people said yes.
"Do you support a law that does all of that but also increases your taxes by 10%?" 45% of people said yes. WAIT WHAT?! That's because they're all racists!
Is that actually how it works? I thought you still have to pay for their insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
I'm completely unsurprised that Republicans want to replace any and all effort with doing nothing of significance.
It's not even a GOP vs. DEM issue. Politicians have been talking about this since Nixon. Both sides have plans for this. All the plans have good and bad aspects (even Ryans, even Romney's). The hysteria right now is strictly partisan fear mongering. That doesn't mean that ACA is going to be the best legislation since the constitution, but it is going to go forward and it's going to work and when it does it will be as important to the american voter as Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Part D (which, like Romneycare, was also a clusterfuck of a rollout).
Good read, it touches on a lot of that 4 letter word the Obamacare proponents struggle with (math):
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/a-woman-m...-of-obamacare/
Incentives matter, incentives are what is wrong with healthcare, and Obamacare doesn't fix those bad incentives, it just adds a whole new layer of bad incentives. It is a bad law. It would have been better to do nothing than pass this, 15% of people might be uninsured (often by choice) vs only what, 12% under obamacare? But you wouldn't have fucked with the care for the rest of the 85% of us.Quote:
For the past 20 years I have been trying to convince my colleagues in the health policy community that managed competition contains perverse economic incentives. These incentives do more than misallocate resources. They create ominous risks for the health and safety of patients with serious medical conditions.
Consider the editorial in Monday’s Wall Street Journal. If you are inclined to believe Barack Obama’s claim that people losing their insurance are giving up skimpy coverage for much better benefits, read the editorial again, and again, and again.
The patient in question has a rare form of cancer that is almost always fatal. Yet she is alive, thanks to the efforts of doctors in San Diego, at Stanford University and in Texas. Over the past year, UnitedHealthcare has spent $1.2 million on this woman’s medical expenses. But she has just been informed that her insurance is being cancelled. And in the new California exchange, the only plan that will allow her to continue seeing her San Diego doctors will not pay for the doctors at Stanford or in Texas. There is no reimbursement for out-of-network services.
Here is my prediction: the kind of coverage this woman had will never again be seen in the individual market in this country.
You don’t need to be an economist to understand why. Think of a game of musical chairs. The health insurers are the chairs. And not a single one of them wants a patient who will spend $1.2 million of their money.
The circumstance under which insurance companies will find it in their self-interest to offer the kind of coverage UnitedHealthcare offered is a market that is free to price risk. Only if people are free to pay actuarially fair premiums can insurers offer the kind of coverage that will pay enormous sums of money to deal with illnesses that have a very low probability of occurring. In a community rated system, plans that are appealing to the sick will attract the sick, who will inevitably be paying premiums that are far below the cost of their care.
Under managed competition, health plans are free to select any premium they choose. But they must charge every entrant the same (community rated) premium, regardless of health status and they must accept all comers. Under these conditions, the plans will make a profit on the relatively healthy and incur losses on the reactively sick. Accordingly, they have an incentive to attract the healthy and avoid the sick.
As noted in a previous post, most insurers believe that the young and the healthy tend to buy on price, while older and sicker prospects tend to look more closely at which doctors and hospitals are included in the health plan’s network. Accordingly, competitors in the newly created health insurance exchanges are choosing to keep their premiums down by offering very narrow networks. The result is a race to the bottom. The price of a lower premium is less access to care.
After enrollment, these perverse incentives do not go away. The health plans have an incentive to overprovide to the healthy (to keep the ones they have and attract more of them) and underprovide to the sick (to encourage the exodus of the ones they have and discouraged the enrollment of any more of them).
I don’t know why this isn’t obvious to other health economists. Nothing involved here is more complicated than Economics 101. Here is a very clear presentation.
To be fair to others, however, the theoretical predictions we were making were always much more extreme than anything we observed in real world examples of managed competition ― the federal employee health benefits program, similar programs for state employees and state university systems, and systems in such places as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Israel. But remember, most insurance companies have traditionally operated more like Blue Cross look-a-likes rather than dog-eat-dog competitors.
Until now.
In competitive markets competition tends to cause the price to change until it equals average cost. Thus, to the extent that price is a measure of the value consumers place on a good or service, the marginal benefit people receive tends to equal the cost of producing that benefit.
The same tendencies exist under managed competition. Because of community rating, premiums are not allowed to adjust to reflect each enrollee’s expected health care costs, the way they would in a normal insurance market. As a result, community rating is similar to a price control. At the community rated premium, some enrollees will be overcharged and some will be undercharged. And since price cannot vary to match expected costs, competition will cause costs to change until they tend to equal the premium.
Take those patients who have above-average health care costs and who are therefore “unprofitable.” If premiums are free to rise for those people, insurers will compete them up to the level of the cost of their care. But if the premiums are artificially constrained at a lower level, insurers will tend to compete the cost of their care down to the level of the artificial premium. The reverse pressures exist for those people who have below-average health care costs and who are therefore “profitable.” If the artificial premiums cannot be competed down to the level of average cost, the tendency will be to compete cost up to the level of the artificial premium.
These conclusions follow from well-known principles of the economics of regulation. In the United States, we have had decades of experience with regulated markets. For example, under regulations imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) for most of the post-World War II period, the government dictated airline fares. Unable to compete on price, the airlines competed by offering more flights, flights at more convenient times, more spacious seating and other amenities. Price regulation imposed by the CAB was similar to cartel pricing and had the potential to allow the airlines to earn supra-normal profits. However, these profits were competed away as airlines increased their costs by making passenger-pleasing adjustments.
The reverse tendency emerges when prices are kept artificially low. Under rent control laws, landlords are prohibited from raising their rents to the level of average cost. Since rents cannot rise, quality tends to fall. Landlords tend to allow housing quality to deteriorate until housing costs equal the government-controlled rent.
A different way of appreciating this result is to consider it in terms of a basic principle taught in all introductory economics courses: when firms are maximizing profits, marginal revenue must equal marginal cost. Under managed competition, marginal revenue (the amount of premium each enrollee brings to a plan) must be the same for every enrollee. That means that marginal cost (the amount the plan spends on health care) will also tend to be the same for every enrollee.
- See more at: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/a-woman-m...-of-obamacare/
We need adults in Washington to agree it needs fixing (and by fixing I mean getting rid of and replacing it with something simple, better, and bipartisan that takes how people respond to incentives into account), and stop clinging to it out of partisanship.
How many times does Nate Silver have to go 50 for 50 before people stop dismissing surveys/polls?Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...der-obamacare/
(insert clapping .gif)Quote:
WILMINGTON, Del. – More than a month after the launch of Delaware's health insurance exchange, officials report only four Delawareans enrolled for insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
Four community organizations were hired to provide marketplace guides, using a $4 million federal grant.
Can you imagine paying $1 million per each DMV employee?
Blatant wasteful spending was inevitable... =(
What a couple of racists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Obama wants less married Americans
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/07/news...html?hpt=hp_t2
Why must Obama wage war on America?!?Quote:
The marriage penalty results largely from the fact that the combined salaries of couples can push them out of the range of eligibility faster than if they were unmarried and their paychecks were treated separately.
This got me thinking, how do welfare type benefits get applied to multiple income households? And not just a traditional household but where you've got people sharing living space without actually being a family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Due to executive order 13642 they get given to blacks and gays but not real Americans.
Did anyone else listen to Obama "apologize" about the "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" line during his interview.. and think of a husband telling his wife why he had to hit her, and that she deserved it, and it was for her own good?
I actually heard a Dem say that since he said that on a campaign trail (which btw he was already elected, so WHY was he campaigning?) it doesn't really matter, and can not be considered a lie.
Just got to wonder how this will play out next year.. will people still be talking about Obamacare.. or will there be other issues more important. Also, lets not forget. Business Mandate starts 2015... I expect to see a lot of businesses drop insurance near the end of the year.
Obama has lied so many times and nothing has happened it boggles the mind. Now millions are losing their health insurance on both sides and the Dems are scared that might amount to a GOP congress. If you voted for the bonehead and you lost your insurance it serves you right. If you didn't vote for him and lost it I feel sorry for you. If you want to do something about it put a bumper sticker on your car, hang a flag outside, call or email your representative, or whatever you want to let others know your fed up with the BS.
This needs to be emphasized.Quote:
Originally Posted by vasplieon
WAIT!? A campaign promise didn't come to fruition completely?? String that banana eating mother fucker up! String up every person who has ever run a campaign ever! FUCKING LIAR! Why has nothing happened to him? It boggles the mind!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
There. Emphasis.
Want real action? Put it on a bumper sticker.Quote:
Originally Posted by vasplieon
Attachment 5860