- This topic has 110 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM #767490November 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM #767491
SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Realtor] The administration knew it 3 years ago and to blame insurance companies for cancelling the policies and label policies that are less comprehensive “substandard” is pretty lame.
[/quote]
Not only did the administration know it 3 years ago. They said so. Repeatedly.
November 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM #767492Participant[quote=joec]Long term, like other’s have said, I think companies will start removing health care from their benefits since the Obama plans are probably actually BETTER than a lot of corporate coverage as well.
I think this is a good thing as insurance costs have been inflated since someone else has been paying the bill forever, and companies can focus on their business rather than health care…[/quote]
Employers won’t start that now. That bus left more than a decade ago. Over the decade preceding the law being signed, 15 million people lost employer sponsored coverage.
November 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM #767493SD Realtor
ParticipantIf they did then I never heard it. What I heard, over and over and over again, was if you like your policy you will be able to keep it. I heard this again, and again, and again.
Sorry, not a single time did I ever, ever hear, that if you like your policy but if it considered substandard by the standards set out in this legislation, and it changes at all, it will need to be cancelled because it cannot be offered under the new legislation.
Sorry that was never ever said.
November 2, 2013 at 8:48 PM #767495Participant[quote=SD Realtor]If they did then I never heard it. What I heard, over and over and over again, was if you like your policy you will be able to keep it. I heard this again, and again, and again.
Sorry, not a single time did I ever, ever hear, that if you like your policy but if it considered substandard by the standards set out in this legislation, and it changes at all, it will need to be cancelled because it cannot be offered under the new legislation.
Sorry that was never ever said.[/quote]
Not the substandard policies part. But that people would lose their coverage? Absolutely. He said it on national television. And when he said that nobody would lose their coverage, he made it clear he was saying that nothing in the law would require people to change policies. And nothing does. Because the government isn’t issuing the policies, private insurers are. This same discussion was had immediately after the law was passed. There’s no surprises now. This is exactly what was expected.
November 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM #767497mike92104
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]If they did then I never heard it. What I heard, over and over and over again, was if you like your policy you will be able to keep it. I heard this again, and again, and again.
Sorry, not a single time did I ever, ever hear, that if you like your policy but if it considered substandard by the standards set out in this legislation, and it changes at all, it will need to be cancelled because it cannot be offered under the new legislation.
Sorry that was never ever said.[/quote]
Not the substandard policies part. But that people would lose their coverage? Absolutely. He said it on national television. And when he said that nobody would lose their coverage, he made it clear he was saying that nothing in the law would require people to change policies. And nothing does. Because the government isn’t issuing the policies, private insurers are. This same discussion was had immediately after the law was passed. There’s no surprises now. This is exactly what was expected.[/quote]
Bullshit! The constant barrage of talking points passed from liberal to liberal to liberal was that no one would lose their coverage or be forced to change their policy. The only people saying it were those opposed to the law, and we were accused of fear mongering.
November 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM #767498Participant[quote=mike92104]
Bullshit! The constant barrage of talking points passed from liberal to liberal to liberal was that no one would lose their coverage or be forced to change their policy. The only people saying it were those opposed to the law, and we were accused of fear mongering.[/quote]No it wasn’t.
From an article almost 3 years ago:
But throughout the explosive health care debate in 2009, Obama made clear time and again that when he said, “nobody is talking about taking that away from you,” the President was referring to the government. His was an obvious – and understandable – effort to debunk a Republican talking point dating back to the demise of the Clinton health care debacle.
For example, at a June 23, 2009 press conference, President Obama left no doubt about the meaning of his message:
“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, … or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
November 2, 2013 at 10:00 PM #767501ParticipantYes that is exactly what he said. Let us see it again:
“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, … or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
Here is what he did not say:
“However the legislation does set new minimum standards for coverage that many plans in effect today do not meet. Now if those plans are altered at all, for any reason, even if the premium changes by 2 cents, those plans will not be considered legal and by LAW must not be offered by your carrier. SO IF YOU LIKED THAT PLAN YOU WILL NOT GET IT BECAUSE YOUR CARRIER CANCELLED IT BECAUSE THIS LEGISLATION MANDATED IT.”
That is what was not said ever. Yet that is what is happening and he knew it would happen because if he would have said it, there would have been problems.
November 3, 2013 at 7:20 AM #767518Jazzman
Participant[quote=EconProf]I’m surprised so many people on this site want to go whole hog into single payer. I guess the government has done such a good job rolling out Obamacare, they should now take over 100% of health care.[/quote]
Government run health care systems are unwieldy, bureaucratic, inefficient, and burden to the tax payer. Privately run health care is ruthless, discriminatory, and financially ruinous. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to put up with government bureaucracy, than be turfed out onto the street completely destitute.November 3, 2013 at 7:27 AM #767519spdrun
ParticipantPrivate insurance companies are also EXTREMELY bureaucratic as well — and the problem is that each doctor has to deal with QUITE A FEW of them, each with their own brand of bureaucratic stupidity.
November 3, 2013 at 8:00 AM #767520Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Yes that is exactly what he said. Let us see it again:
“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, … or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
Here is what he did not say:
“However the legislation does set new minimum standards for coverage that many plans in effect today do not meet. Now if those plans are altered at all, for any reason, even if the premium changes by 2 cents, those plans will not be considered legal and by LAW must not be offered by your carrier. SO IF YOU LIKED THAT PLAN YOU WILL NOT GET IT BECAUSE YOUR CARRIER CANCELLED IT BECAUSE THIS LEGISLATION MANDATED IT.”
That is what was not said ever. Yet that is what is happening and he knew it would happen because if he would have said it, there would have been problems.[/quote]
It was made very clear what the legal obligations on carriers would be. That many of them are unable to function within the new legal framework is no surprise and highlights the flaws in the current system. It is true that Obama did not advertise this consequence while promising policy holders could keep their policies. It was, no doubt, a politically expedient decision.
Many effected by this think the right to choose is now being denied them, and that they have been lied to. Many others who have been dropped by carriers or are unable to find cover think that health care has been denied them, and that they were also lied to. I would rather be fed the lie that is underpinned by noble intentions, than one that is underpinned by a conflict of interest.
November 3, 2013 at 8:03 AM #767521Participant[quote=spdrun]Private insurance companies are also EXTREMELY bureaucratic as well — and the problem is that each doctor has to deal with QUITE A FEW of them, each with their own brand of bureaucratic stupidity.[/quote]
The old saying goes that if the person who answers the phone can’t answer your question, it’s a bureaucracy. My comparisons are for illustrative purposes.November 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM #767524ParticipantSorry Jazzman, the mantra was very simply stated, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That was what was very clear. Over and over and over again.
I never said I was lied to because I knew the consequences. However to say that the new law did not deny me choices is incorrect. The new law effectively eliminates the coverage I wanted.
The popular argument about noble intentions, and everyone being dropped by carriers if they had preexisting conditions to justify the elimination of other types of coverage is not sufficient because it presupposes there was no other solutions.
That is incorrect.
Just because you would rather be fed a lie doesn’t mean others would.
November 3, 2013 at 9:51 AM #767527FlyerInHi
GuestI don’t see a big deal. You can keep your plan if it’s lawful. But if the law changes, then of course the plan will change.
That’s what life is about. Nothing is grandfathered in forever.
November 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM #767541Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Sorry Jazzman, the mantra was very simply stated, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That was what was very clear. Over and over and over again.
I never said I was lied to because I knew the consequences. However to say that the new law did not deny me choices is incorrect. The new law effectively eliminates the coverage I wanted.
The popular argument about noble intentions, and everyone being dropped by carriers if they had preexisting conditions to justify the elimination of other types of coverage is not sufficient because it presupposes there was no other solutions.
That is incorrect.
Just because you would rather be fed a lie doesn’t mean others would.[/quote]
The law effectively eliminated the cover you wanted because your insurer was legally able to discriminate against you. If you fell ill and they withdrew your cover, would you still think it was the cover you wanted? I think it is a worthwhile compromise to sacrifice elements of cover (if indeed that would happen), to be given a cast iron guarantee of affordable cover come what may.
The argument you hear on the video about the young not subsidizing the program is wishy-washy. Most are smart enough to realize that each generation will look to the next to contribute.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.