Obama Admin knew millions could not keep their health ins.

  • Thread starter Thread starter MJE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Was this statement true or false:

**“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, June 15, 2010
**

It was a flat out lie.

I would also like to know who defines what is “junk”. If a 50 year old man lost his health insurance because it didn’t cover pediatric dental care and maternity coverage does that mean his policy was" junk".

Because you are covered by your employer the new law has had little or no effect on you-yet. The hammer comes down on employer provided policies next year. I can tell you from personal experience the ACA has been a nightmare for the self-employed and small buisnesses
Click to expand...
What leads you to assume that I’m not purchasing my own health insurance? I am self employed and insurance has always been a nightmare…so what else is new?

As for your comments about pediatric dental care - that only is required on a plan if there is a child covered. So no, a 50 yr old man covering only himself would not have to buy a plan with pediatric dental coverage.

The maternity thing: I don’t see how that would be a problem for those who value life. If the unborn are so important, why would including them and their moms in the insurance pool be a burden? Are women exempted from paying into the pool to cover prostate surgery or male sexual enhancement pills?
 
qui_est_ce said:
Not sure what you consider “junk insurance.” My sister is self-employed. She has a policy with high deductibles and no co-pays. Since she is in her sixties, this keeps her monthly payments to less than $300.00. She puts money tax free into an HSA.

Do you think my sister is too stupid to figure out what’s best for her?
Click to expand...
Junk insurance is not = high deductibles or no co-pays. Junk insurance = no coverage for hospitalization, policies that dump people when they become sick, or policies (like limited indemnity ones) which only meet a small portion of the cost of care (leading to default/bankruptcy and making us all foot the unpaid bills).

Figuring out insurance has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with a very opaque industry that thrives by keeping people in the dark.

Don’t get me wrong, I have very serious reservations about Obamacare, but because I am aware how much information I do not have access to, my concern is not with how high or how low premiums are. My concern is that it is impossible at this stage for the average consumer to calculate what their out-of-pocket costs are going to be like. What’s the point of low premiums if the out-of-pocket costs are sky high?

Come to think of it, that should be the definition of junk insurance, policies which, when the consumer becomes sick, leaves him/her holding the bag for health care costs of such magnitude that they simply cannot pay.
 
From CBS Denver:
Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan
(snip)

Cathy Wagner says she isn’t political and has never written a lawmaker, much less the president, but with Obamacare she felt compelled.

“I really just wanted him to know … I was so hopeful that this plan was going to move us forward, but in fact I think it’s moving us backward,” Wagner said.

Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.

“I was really shocked … all of my hopes were sort of dashed,” Wagner said. “’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “

She was shocked further to learn that for the same coverage she would pay 35 percent more and have a higher deductible.

“Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said.
*
(snip)*
The question for me is if these people actually recognize that they were in error for supporting Obamacare or if their regrets are that somebody else isn’t paying for them?
 
seekerz said:
Junk insurance is not = high deductibles or no co-pays. Junk insurance = no coverage for hospitalization, policies that dump people when they become sick, or policies (like limited indemnity ones) which only meet a small portion of the cost of care (leading to default/bankruptcy and making us all foot the unpaid bills).

Figuring out insurance has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with a very opaque industry that thrives by keeping people in the dark.

Don’t get me wrong, I have very serious reservations about Obamacare, but because I am aware how much information I do not have access to, my concern is not with how high or how low premiums are. My concern is that it is impossible at this stage for the average consumer to calculate what their out-of-pocket costs are going to be like. What’s the point of low premiums if the out-of-pocket costs are sky high?

Come to think of it, that should be the definition of junk insurance, policies which, when the consumer becomes sick, leaves him/her holding the bag for health care costs of such magnitude that they simply cannot pay.
Click to expand...
It is *not *“just” junk insurance that is being lost: in California, a woman whose insurance covered her both at home and in the cancer center which has so far saved her life has paid out $1.2M for her care. This is not a “junk” insurance which Californans are losing.

She can’t find coverage as good as what she had, and she’s expected to pay more…
 
St_Francis said:
It is *not *“just” junk insurance that is being lost: in California, a woman whose insurance covered her both at home and in the cancer center which has so far saved her life has paid out $1.2M for her care. This is not a “junk” insurance which Californans are losing.

She can’t find coverage as good as what she had, and she’s expected to pay more…
Click to expand...
Or like the OFA-supporting couple in San Francisco who lost their Kaiser coverage they were happy with (see post #296) or the Colorado woman, a champion for Obamacare, who ended up with the same result (see post #320).
 
markomalley said:
From CBS Denver:
Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan
(snip)

Cathy Wagner says she isn’t political and has never written a lawmaker, much less the president, but with Obamacare she felt compelled.

“I really just wanted him to know … I was so hopeful that this plan was going to move us forward, but in fact I think it’s moving us backward,” Wagner said.

Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.

“I was really shocked … all of my hopes were sort of dashed,” Wagner said. “’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “

She was shocked further to learn that for the same coverage she would pay 35 percent more and have a higher deductible.

“Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said.
*
(snip)*
The question for me is if these people actually recognize that they were in error for supporting Obamacare or if their regrets are that somebody else isn’t paying for them?
Click to expand...
I don’t think they had thought this through clearly, but I also think that because of Obama’s descriptions, that they had a totally erroneous idea of what Obamacare would be like.

Since they were continually and vehemently told that the ACA would be designed in a way which would allow them to keep their coverage and doctors, I believe they though that the ACA would be limited to those who had no or inadequate insurance.

Exchanges would be created which would make large groups of uninsured/underinsured; the exchanges would sort of take the place of employers providing insurance. This the rates would not be terribly high for these new purchasers of health insurance.

“Those liked their insurance” would be unaffected–who could blame them for thinking they would be unaffected, since they were repeatedly *told *they would be unaffected?

But the changes made by the ACA did not stop at providing something for those who had nothing or next to nothing. *That *is the problem.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Has anybody wondered just a little why the government-sponsored Obamacare sites claim 80% of people will be on employment-based insurance and therefore “not affected” when only about 50% of Americans are employed?
Click to expand...
This does seem rather high, considering that of those 50 million, only a part get insurance through their employment, but employment-based insurance does cover families, so there could be 20% of working people receiving insurance through their employer covering their famiies of 4, which would result in 80%.
And does nobody wonder about the cost of employment-based insurance when all the mandates get added to the cost?
Click to expand...
I thought from the beginning that this would be a problem…
 
seekerz said:
Why is it confusing? Waiting until one is sick to purchase insurance is tantamount to cheating, IMO. To benefit from the contributions of others, one must also be willing to share the risk.
Click to expand...
😃 The confusing part is all of the different information that is out there. Seems to be lots of speculation about what is and isn’t required…if there is a waiting period, if there isn’t a waiting period. I’ve also seen several different reports on how the fine will be calculated. Hard to make decisions on what to do if you don’t have accurate information. 🤷

If waiting until you’re sick to get insurance is cheating, then I’ve been cheating since before birth. 😛 I do think it’s rather sleezy though to wait until you have major health issues to bother with insurance. However, everyone does contribute, whether it’s paying premiums or paying the fine. No one is let off scott free (except the poor & the native americans & the amish & non-citizens & anyone who falls into one of the other exempt categories)
 
seekerz said:
Come to think of it, that should be the definition of junk insurance, policies which, when the consumer becomes sick, leaves him/her holding the bag for health care costs of such magnitude that they simply cannot pay.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Obamacare. High premiums, high deductibles & high out-of-pocket costs. Junk insurance just about describes it. The people who can least afford the high premiums get stuck with higher out of pocket costs. Does it really matter if they have insurance at all if they can’t afford the deductible and out of pocket costs?
 
markomalley said:
The question for me is if these people actually recognize that they were in error for supporting Obamacare or if their regrets are that somebody else isn’t paying for them?
Click to expand...
Seems the problem is that Obamacare did not fully educate the public. Not that anyone was a master of insurance beforehand.

As I understand it, the policies in existence before March, 2010 were grandfathered and protected, though they were still liable for increasing premiums. I’ll bet a lot thought that keeping one’s insurance meant keeping the same premium forever.

New policies issued after March, 2010 were considered transitional with no guarantee of sustenance after 2013. They’re calling them “junk” now but that’s after the fact.

But then I’m sure they’ll find some cases that grandfathered policies are being discontinued which then makes Obama’s credibility even worse even among his supporters.
 
ProVobis said:
Seems the problem is that Obamacare did not fully educate the public. Not that anyone was a master of insurance beforehand.

As I understand it, the policies in existence before March, 2010 were grandfathered and protected, though they were still liable for increasing premiums. I’ll bet a lot thought that keeping one’s insurance meant keeping the same premium forever.

New policies issued after March, 2010 were considered transitional with no guarantee of sustenance after 2013. They’re calling them “junk” now but that’s after the fact.

But then I’m sure they’ll find some cases that grandfathered policies are being discontinued which then makes Obama’s credibility even worse even among his supporters.
Click to expand...
Here’s a good piece in the Washington Post (can’t believe I’m refering somebody to the WaPo, but, hey…). The one thing that I don’t see discussed is that grandfathered policies will, over a matter of time, start shrinking to the point where the risk pool is no longer viable. But, otherwise, I think it’s a pretty balanced piece (again, can’t believe I’m using the term “balance” with “wapo”, but,…)
 
ProVobis said:
Seems the problem is that Obamacare did not fully educate the public. Not that anyone was a master of insurance beforehand.

As I understand it, the policies in existence before March, 2010 were grandfathered and protected, though they were still liable for increasing premiums. I’ll bet a lot thought that keeping one’s insurance meant keeping the same premium forever.

New policies issued after March, 2010 were considered transitional with no guarantee of sustenance after 2013. They’re calling them “junk” now but that’s after the fact.

But then I’m sure they’ll find some cases that grandfathered policies are being discontinued which then makes Obama’s credibility even worse even among his supporters.
Click to expand...
The problem is they flat out lied to the American people.
 
Dawnia said:
😃 The confusing part is all of the different information that is out there. Seems to be lots of speculation about what is and isn’t required…if there is a waiting period, if there isn’t a waiting period. I’ve also seen several different reports on how the fine will be calculated. Hard to make decisions on what to do if you don’t have accurate information. 🤷

If waiting until you’re sick to get insurance is cheating, then I’ve been cheating since before birth. 😛 I do think it’s rather sleezy though to wait until you have major health issues to bother with insurance. However, everyone does contribute, whether it’s paying premiums or paying the fine. No one is let off scott free (except the poor & the native americans & the amish & non-citizens & anyone who falls into one of the other exempt categories)
Click to expand...
The whole idea of insurance is the spreading of financial risk among as large a pool as possible. Everyone pays for the unpaid bills of the under-insured or uninsured…I assume that even Native Americans, the Amish and non-citizens pay taxes. And as for the poor, well the inflation of costs that results from unpaid bills, puts costs even further out of their reach making them more dependent on some form of assistance. Everybody pays - that’s why I never got the outrage over being “forced” to pay for other people’s “free” healthcare.
 
ProVobis said:
Seems the problem is that Obamacare did not fully educate the public. Not that anyone was a master of insurance beforehand.

As I understand it, the policies in existence before March, 2010 were grandfathered and protected, though they were still liable for increasing premiums. I’ll bet a lot thought that keeping one’s insurance meant keeping the same premium forever.

New policies issued after March, 2010 were considered transitional with no guarantee of sustenance after 2013. They’re calling them “junk” now but that’s after the fact.

But then I’m sure they’ll find some cases that grandfathered policies are being discontinued which then makes Obama’s credibility even worse even among his supporters.
Click to expand...
I can get the credibility question if the ACA disallowed the plans, which I understand to be the case in some of these instances, but if the insurance company decided (for bottom line reasons or whatever) to drop the plan, did someone seriously expect the government to force a business to sell a particular product? Employers do the same thing on a regular basis too, change plans from ones their employees like…was the government supposed to send them cease and desist letters?
 
markomalley said:
From CBS Denver:
Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan
(snip)

Cathy Wagner says she isn’t political and has never written a lawmaker, much less the president, but with Obamacare she felt compelled.

“I really just wanted him to know … I was so hopeful that this plan was going to move us forward, but in fact I think it’s moving us backward,” Wagner said.

Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.

“I was really shocked … all of my hopes were sort of dashed,” Wagner said. “’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “

She was shocked further to learn that for the same coverage she would pay 35 percent more and have a higher deductible.

“Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said.
*
(snip)*
The question for me is if these people actually recognize that they were in error for supporting Obamacare or if their regrets are that somebody else isn’t paying for them?
Click to expand...
What is their income level? In Obamacare stories, that is the first question I have as it’s the most important detail to determine whether she is really going to be paying more. My premiums would also go up under the ACA, but with subsidies, my actual monthly payments would go waaay down. Like I said, the real question is, what would be the relative size of my bill (pre-ACA vs post-ACA) if I got sick is the REAL unanswered question here.
 
seekerz said:
I can get the credibility question if the ACA disallowed the plans, which I understand to be the case in some of these instances, but if the insurance company decided (for bottom line reasons or whatever) to drop the plan, did someone seriously expect the government to force a business to sell a particular product? Employers do the same thing on a regular basis too, change plans from ones their employees like…was the government supposed to send them cease and desist letters?
Click to expand...
“If you like your health care you can keep it. Period.”

No way you can parse those words. he lied.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qpa-5JdCnmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top