Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantHarvey I don’t quite agree with your assessment. For several years my family had a very high deductible plan and we had a very good understanding of that plan. For many of those years we never reached the point where the plan paid for anything but in one of those years we did and everything actually worked out okay.
So your implication is that basically most people understand the plan that they are paying premiums for?
ParticipantSorry 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.
ParticipantYes 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.
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.
Participantjoec you proved my point in perfect fashion. I don’t need to be told what is good for me. Nore do I need anyone to tell me the what if’s about my life and what I get covered. Furthermore I think that the people who have purchased the bare bones plans are much more aware of what they are buying and the limitations. Furthermore I do not believe it is valid to point out how many companies have dropped healthcare in the last 10 years. I think it is more valid to say how many companies dropped healthcare before 2009 as that is much more pertinent. It would be interesting to see the source of the data.
ParticipantSK the last line of what you said is the administrations cowbell.
“What is different now, is that everyone who loses employer sponsored coverage will have more and better access to continued coverage.”
The issue that I have is the complete elimination of what the administration calls substandard plans. You may argue they are not eliminated however the if they change a single iota then they will be eliminated. So in reality they are eliminated because the nature of policies are that they are fluid and change annually. 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.
Why should any plans be considered substandard?
Why do I have to be told I will be given something better when what I had worked fine for me? I don’t want something different, or better. I don’t need to be told what is better and what is worse because I can differentiate and make my own decision.
So what should really be said is that you will have access to more comprehensive coverage that will be more expensive and you will not be able to purchase plans that were less comprehensive and less expensive.
All I ask is that the administration and those towing the line for it say things like they really are.
ParticipantAlso there is a solution with is to control the population. Less people, less strain on the system. People without the means to support kids really shouldn’t be having kids. Those with the means to support them, should have a limit on the number they can have.
Honesty sucks I know that.
ParticipantI would agree 110% scaredy. Definitely on 10/31
ParticipantThe fact lost on everyone is the randomness of nature. Life is a crapshoot and for the vast percentage of humans, animals, insects, amoebas, etc… life will be a struggle. In nature nothing is provided for. For a precious few (% wise) it is good because they happened to be born into a opportunistic situation. There is and never has been a situation where life is made easy because organisms are provided for. The issue at hand is resources are finite and at some point the number of organisms competing for them results in a typical order within societies.
It has always been that way and will always be that way. Automation and expansion of technology will benefit those who are in the higher orders more.
You can paint me as heartless or racist or whatever you want but I know that I am not. There is no “solution”. Solutions offered on this board are not going to happen. Furthermore they are not universal, they are applied to one country. Thus they are hypocritical in nature because they ignore 100’s of millions of others on the planet. That is because there is not any way to make it work given the sheer numbers of humans on the planet. Other countries that have more socialized systems also have substantially smaller populations, as well as rich natural resources as a ratio of that population.
ParticipantThe two things I like best are the reference to the “substandard” plans and the fact that the administration knew that standards set in the legislature would eventually result in the loss of these plans for the past few years.
Our “substandard” plan was perfect for our family. We got what we wanted at the price we wanted. However we were informed it would be cancelled. So that lie about if you like your plan you get to keep your plan was a direct lie but we knew it was anyway.
The fact that most of the employer offered insurance plans will suffer the same fate is not yet realized, but it will happen over the next 2 years.
ParticipantNot just candy. Society owes them health care, education, and a 6 figure job.
ParticipantAbrams should have been killed long ago. Look into the reasons why it was not. Pretty easy to figure out. Hint, it was not Army officials. I understand what you are saying about big contracts. Kind of like CGI a Canadian firm being selected for the technical development of the Obamacare website…. Interesting relationships there.
ParticipantI understand what you are saying.
Silly me thinking this would be an exception.
Actually this behavior is in completely in line with this and other events we have witnessed within the past several years. Yet another sterling performance by a department within the admimistration followed up by transparency, complete responsibility, and a thorough well understood explanation of what has gone on.
I am completely satisfied with the performance of the administration, department heads, and public spokespeople.
ParticipantYes the website was an essential part.
It would have been nice if Carney said, “you know what, we screwed up, didn’t manage it well, didn’t benchmark it well, probably didn’t listen to the technical and project management who more then likely said it wasn’t ready for the rollout, and it is our fault.”
Rather then walking out on the press conference.
-
AuthorPosts