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.
youtube.com/watch?v=_OzH-MW-KvU < Woman gets woozy, faints during Obama’s long repetitive speech.

youtube.com/watch?v=6GqGCXEsero < full speech. Fainting occurs at about 26:00 as the POTUS tells how Obamacare was saving someone $900 per month in healthcare costs. :eek: :hmmm:🍿

The most mysterious thing about this was, as they took her away she had a strange appurtenance attached to the back of her right arm. You see it as she is lead away 26:10 on the clip!

😉 - Not really a conspiracy theorist here. But it was too strange not to mention. YouTube critics are posting previous famous fainting episodes at Obama speeches where he is involved in the “rescues”. 🤷

This poor woman (Karmel Allison) gets sicker as the speech goes on, then collapses altogether.

Wonder who she was, what her story was, and how she got the front row seat – or -
temporary standing room? She is pregnant (upon further research).

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/21/video-undefined-18E3256200000578-291_636x358.jpg
She was dxed with diabetes when she was 9 and is now pregnant. The appurtenance on her arm is some sort of insulin checker or regulator, like a nocotine patch.

She enjoyed looking at Obamacare because she could consider options but is apparently sticking with the plan she had before.
 
As long as an individual isn’t due a tax refund,the IRS,cannot collect the fine for noncompliance.They do not have the authority to garnish wages,places liens,etc.This is a not so well known loophole in this whole ACA debacle.
But are you saying in the future if the person has any tax refunds coming to them the IRS can just keep the money? Many people collect tax refunds at the end of the year so we are going to be owned by the IRS. No wonder Obama wanted them to take over running health care.
 
Whenever the government regulates the content of health insurance policies, it limits choices, and thereby drives up prices. It does this with a great many other things as well.
They have only 4 choices to chose from. You need to chose which one you want even if you don’t want any of them and the insurance you have now is better.
 
Obama committed a fraud when he sold his Obamacare to the American public, with all the slickness of a snake oil salesman.
“Those who like their plan can keep it” ; 'The price of health care will actually go down due to volume and efficiencies", “No tax increases”. ‘Everybody win, win, wins!!!’

There are more people receiving letters of cancellation than are signing up for the great opportunity to receive health care that they neither really needed nor can afford. The one good thing about all the glitches, and the endless loop of having the online service refer to the 1-800 and the 1-800 refer back to the online, is that people are still being sheltered from the sticker shock.

It was a nice idea for sure that everybody gets free health care.
And now that people are finding out that it is going to cost them their own plan which they already liked for a plan that is more expensive and offers things that they do not need, all with a much higher deductible, that is the price that has to be paid for a rather mediocre form of health care.
Sure would be nice if a judge finds this is a bait and switch like any other business. We could cancel our contract if that happens. Not holding my breath though.
 
Why not start your own private, personal health insurance business - like this.
If you currently spend $300 per month on health insurance then put that aside in a different bank account and pay into it from your current account every month by standing order.
By the end of one year you’ll have an insurance policy worth $3,600. By the end of 10 years you’ll have a ‘policy’ worth $36,600, in 20 years $72,000. So your best health insurance is your own plus a change to a healthier lifestyle and diet with masses of easy physical exercise to keep you fit and healthy for longer. And the best thing of all is that you don’t lose the money you have paid on your ‘private health policy’ because all that money is still sitting in your 5 or 10 year savings account gathering interest, no less. Everyone could create a policy they could afford, both spouses and even their older children could have their own…🙂
That would be nice and it is called individual insurance health care but Obama doesn’t want you to do that. You will be fined if you don’t buy into Obamacare or have insurance on the market. How are you going to have enough money for your own savings insurance account if they take money from you each year in fines?

Then to add insult to injury Obama has let his cronies take exemptions from Obamacare. Nice huh?
 
#3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”

The facts: False: If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:

If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.

**If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan. **Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions.
Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on pre-existing conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.

54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.

If you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

**And right there means Obamacare won’t work. They are depending on young, healthy people to sign up but why should they, they will just pay the fine which is much less.

No one thought this through but even the person who wrote it said it was a train wreck.:mad:**
 
I’m glad mother and child are doing ok. Perhaps next time Obama will choose more carefully who he uses as props.
 
She was dxed with diabetes when she was 9 and is now pregnant. The appurtenance on her arm is some sort of insulin checker or regulator, like a nocotine patch.

She enjoyed looking at Obamacare because she could consider options but is apparently sticking with the plan she had before.
Thanks for the info. Wow. Even the President’s first row fans are opting for “other”? Ouch.
 
I’m confused. This story is from NBC, which is part of the lamestream media that we can’t trust, right? So why are we trusting them now?
 
I’m confused. This story is from NBC, which is part of the lamestream media that we can’t trust, right? So why are we trusting them now?
The story is not news. There are any number of reports demonstrating how many people who have been forced to find new policies.
*(as of 10/28) Some stats
*
That adds up to 1,492,000 cancellations. And that number is low as similar cancellation notices have gone out in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. We also know that Humana has cancelled policies in Maryland. Unfortunately, no numbers are available thus far in those cases.*
The fact that the story was reported on NBC is news.
 
“Healthcare” in the Democrat party philosophy means tax payer funding for contraception, abortions, and so-called “sex-change” operations.
 
We know now that people with private plans are in a world of hurt and will probably all be forced onto the exchanges.

We know now that “small employer” plans are very limited as to insurers and providers. So far, it looks like my area has only one of each. And, because of mandates, they’re expensive. So a lot of employees of small businesses will probably also go onto the exchanges. If employers try to “make up for” the lack of employer-provided insurance with money, employees’ taxes and those of employers will increase.

Now we can all speculate on what the big employer part is going to be like.

-It will be more expensive, of course, because of mandates. employees will be expected to pay more than they did before. So will employers, so prices have to increase.

-But employers will try to avoid charging more than (what is it now?) 9.5% of each employee’s income for the employee-paid part. So, they’ll need new people and programs to figure all of that out.

-On the low end of the salary scale, employers will have a tremendous incentive to put them on part time, because if they go over 30 employees that go on the exchanges because of the 9.5% cap, they get fined for every employee they have, whether insured or not. For an employer with, say, 100,000 employees, that would be about $2 million/year.

-On the high end, the 40% tax on “cadillac plans” will perhaps require special withholding. I’m not sure where the IRS is with that just yet.

-Labor problems where the labor force is organized are likely, since union-administered plans are pretty much “cadillac” plans. Are union members really going to just do nothing to get somebody else to pay for it, or will they engage in strikes and slowdowns in order to get more money? If they do, of course, prices will have to go up.

-On the positive side, it’s possible a lot of overtime will be available for full time employees. Their additional pay will not cause either theirs or the employer’s Obamacare costs to go up, and full time workers will probably much better skilled and motivated than all the “second class” part-timers.

-The “well worker effect” will disappear due to portability. So, disproportionately lower premiums for industrial workers will gradually disappear. If employer coverage is truly portable, further administration on the part of insurers will be required.

As a separate matter, as time goes on, Medicare reimbursement will fall below that of medicaid, and elderly people will be S.O.L. when it comes to medical care.

I don’t know. Kind of looks to me like Obama and his people have punched a hole in the hull of the “ship of state” that’s too big to plug. And that’s if they don’t control congress after 2014 and do something even more insane.

And, of course, eventually even Janet Yellen will have to stop the quantitative easing Bernanke has employed to ameliorate the effects of this disasterous administration.

Not looking too good.
 
It seems to work pretty well in Canada.
If you think that, then you need to research the issue MUCH more in depth. Canada’s system is a dumpster fire, and only sustained by the fact that they live next door to the best medical system, and their citizens can cross the border for medical care. In fact, my wife worked for a dermatologist for a decade, and their office gets jam packed in April and May as many Canadians are willing to PAY for his services before they go back home, instead of accessing the “free” healthcare in Canada.

examiner.com/article/canada-s-health-care-system-has-its-problems

*But they also found that the cost of the system is a constant concern, and many fear that public health care is unsustainable.

Negative discussion about health care in Canada tends to focus on a persistent set of problems: access, wait times, and shortages of health care providers. This has been the case in times of good economy and during economic crisis.

The 10th annual Health Care in Canada survey confirms that wait times and the shortage of doctors top the list pf concerns voiced by Canadians in 2008. Other issues of concern were timeliness and access to care and environmental health issues such as air and water pollution.

Although some Canadians say they have never waited for medical services, complaints about long waiting times have lead virtually every provincial government to publish data on wait times for specific procedures in their province. *

nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html

*Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

The authors conclude that while it is **commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly **than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view. *

huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html

*Many Canadians and commentators in other countries lauding Canada’s government-dominated approach to health care refer to Canadian health care as “free.” If health care actually were free, the relatively poor performance of the health care system might not seem all that bad. But the reality is that the Canadian health care system is not free – in fact, Canadian families pay heavily for healthcare through the tax system. That high price paints the long wait times and lack of medical technologies in Canada in a very different light.

Despite talk of wait times reduction initiatives (backed with substantial funding), **Canadians face longer wait times than their counterparts in other developed nations for emergency care, primary care, specialist consultations, and elective surgery. Access to physicians and medical technologies in Canada lags behind many other developed nations. *And things have improved little since 2003. For example, the total wait time in 2012 (17.7 weeks from GP to treatment) is every bit as long it was back then.

cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-681801.html

*A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: “If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies.”

The patient wasn’t dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.*
 
I’m confused. This story is from NBC, which is part of the lamestream media that we can’t trust, right? So why are we trusting them now?
When the state-run paper Pravda reported something bad about the USSR, you could trust that the situation was AT LEAST that bad, and possibly/probably MUCH worse. The fact that NBC is finally having to cover this dumpster fire and admit the lies the administration told should tell you how bad this thing really is.
 
As long as an individual isn’t due a tax refund,the IRS,cannot collect the fine for noncompliance.They do not have the authority to garnish wages,places liens,etc.This is a not so well known loophole in this whole ACA debacle.
Could you explain this? The IRS garnishes wages for non payment of taxes all the time. In fact, they may garnish the entire wage until the taxes and penalties are paid. Most garnishments, except for child support, limit the amount 25% of pay after taxes.
 
If you think that, then you need to research the issue MUCH more in depth. Canada’s system is a dumpster fire, and only sustained by the fact that they live next door to the best medical system, and their citizens can cross the border for medical care. In fact, my wife worked for a dermatologist for a decade, and their office gets jam packed in April and May as many Canadians are willing to PAY for his services before they go back home, instead of accessing the “free” healthcare in Canada.
My impression is that most Canadians are pretty happy with their health care. I have yet to encounter one that thought theirs was inferior to ours (though it is possible, I suppose). It’s probably not perfect but it seems to result in a high degree of satisfaction among Canadians (both physical and moral). That’s difficult to understand if it’s the “dumpster fire” you say it is (what is a “dumpster fire” in this context anyway?)
 
My impression is that most Canadians are pretty happy with their health care. I have yet to encounter one that thought theirs was inferior to ours (though it is possible, I suppose).
boiseweekly.com/boise/canadian-health-care-has-a-dirty-secret/Content?oid=1511496

From the article:
“That’s why the premier of one of the Canadian provinces came here just last week to have his heart operated on,” Barrasso told Obama. “He said, ‘It’s my heart, it’s my life,** I want to go where it’s the best.’ And he came to the United States.”**
Williams, a 60-year-old populist who has been running Newfoundland since 2003, did indeed put it that way.
“This was my heart, my choice and my health,” he told the Canadian Press from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla., where he was recovering from surgery. "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics
 
Could you explain this? The IRS garnishes wages for non payment of taxes all the time. In fact, they may garnish the entire wage until the taxes and penalties are paid. Most garnishments, except for child support, limit the amount 25% of pay after taxes.
I wasn’t referring to all situations re the IRS,garnishing wages,etc.
I heard this on Rush the other day,this statement was backed up by someone credible(sorry I can’t remember who:blush:)the thought is,unless one is due a refund,theIRS cannot access personal banking accounts,garnish wages,etc,for the penalty of non compliance to the ACA.
I know you are a CPA,what do you think of this?
 
I wasn’t referring to all situations re the IRS,garnishing wages,etc.
I heard this on Rush the other day,this statement was backed up by someone credible(sorry I can’t remember who:blush:)the thought is,unless one is due a refund,theIRS cannot access personal banking accounts,garnish wages,etc,for the penalty of non compliance to the ACA.
I know you are a CPA,what do you think of this?
I am not a CPA, but I am an accountant heavily involved in payroll. We get garnishments from the IRS for employee non payment of taxes all the time. I do believe the ACA was designated a tax by the SC.

It is possible there is an exception in the ACA, but the ACA was written before it was declared a tax by the SC,.

Another one of those “we have to pass the bill so YOU know what’s in it.”

I think nobody really knows at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top