ObamaCare's Plans Are Worse

This is what happens when you put children in charge.

They totally "F" things up.

When will the lefties admit that ObamaCare is a total failure?

ObamaCare's Plans Are Worse

 

What a bunch of BS article.

If people are "choosing with their OWN money", they have no NEED to use the Obamacare exchanges, and thus don't have to :"suffer" under "limited networks" or whatever this article is carping about (my Obamacare Exchange plan has an ENORMOUS statewide network of doctors and hospitals, but my mailbox and email have dozens more begging me to buy!)

The ONLY people who need to use an exchange (and this doesn't mean ONLY an "online exchange" - they can see insurance agents or sales personnel to buy it without being "online") are those who ant subsidy or would be rejected by insurance companies for having pre-existing conditions.

These people have NO options now, so Obamacare is a vast improvement over ANY of the options they have now (i.e. none).

And it is hilarious to see health plans that simply cover all health conditions, everyday drugs, and annual physicals as a "a very rich level of "essential" health benefits" or as a "First Class" policies. Executives would quit their jobs if ever offered something as menial as an Obamacare or standard health policy!

Current health policies have become a crap shoot of a consumer blindly deciding what care or disease or injuries they might NOT have in order to exclude critical coverage that can easily leave them bankrupt without care and taxpayers on the hook for millions. Of course, the "helpful" insurance salesmen and companies are masters at coming up with policies that "sound good" and are so reassuring but are crap.

But the Wall Street Journal calls them "Rich and first class" and people should be free to skip buying REAL health insurance in order to make health insurance "affordable"!! Huh??? Its like people should be able to buy cars without brakes, safety glass, or tires that will survive going 60 MPH in order to make the cars "more affordable"!

Americans are such suckers.

 

That article is just seething... damn.

(Conservatives in unison) Told you so.

Gee... what is it about Massachusetts that would be more than three times ND? Hmmm... what could it be...

 

Not all of them are. Just those like you who fell for something as invasive, oppressive, unworkable, and counterproductive as ObamaCare.

 

The "junk insurance" defense... In Wisconsin there was a high risk pool insurance HIRSP that was a non profit that covered preexisting conditions... it has had to cancel many of its plans because they don't meet Obama's ideal for what a plan is. Many states had plans and insurance for people with high risk.

If private insurance is so crappy and the government is going to fix it, then why does private insurance continually provide better results than Medicaid....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704758904576188280858303612

This is what one expects from government managing of healthcare, they already have half the market why are you so keen on them getting the other half? Is it because you believe they will do a better job than "evil" for profit companies? Well they haven't proven it yet.

 

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

THEN-REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): “Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve.” (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): “So we want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we're going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want.” (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): “Our bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…”(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): “For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…” (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): “I also believe this legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change.” (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): ‘People who have insurance they're happy with can keep it’ “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): “f you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 10/22/09)

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): “If you like what you have, you get to keep it” “Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won't have to change. ‘If you like what you have, you get to keep it,’ he said.” (“Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says,” The Record, 6/19/09)

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): “[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it” “The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it.” (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): “It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it.” (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): “I want people to know, the President's promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): “If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it.” (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): “‘If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,’ says Sen. Sanders.” (“Sick And Wrong,” Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): “As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the chairman's mark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That's a strong commitment. It's clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That's the bottom line for me.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): “‘If you like your coverage, you'll be able to keep it,’ Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger”. (“Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care,” The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): “Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won't. If you like your current plan, you can keep it.” (“What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress,” Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): “…it honors President Obama’s programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything.”(Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/27-de...uld-keep-your-health-coverage/article/2539245

The real suckers believed them.

 

Liberals have been successful in blaming others for their failures so they keep repeating the same nonsense.

 

In spite of my railings against Ocare, I have mixed feeling about it.

1. Even though our company has changed our available plans, supposedly to comply with Ocare, I'm not 100% certain they aren't merely curtailing our benefits and using Ocare as an excuse. I can't seem to be able to penetrate the bs and actually find a real human being at our company to find out. [The company I work for is a large multinational beast]

2. If there are and will be people that can get health care that couldn't have without Ocare, then I'm glad for them. I don't mind helping others at my own expense. But I do mind when it's rammed down my throat by a bunch of elitist hypocrites that wouldn't lift a finger to help others in their own private lives. Can you imagine Democrats volunteering 10% of their income over most of their working lives to help other people??? Anyway, I do mind being forced to do help others by government mandate. But if it's the only way those in need can get decent healthcare then that at least somewhat takes the edge off of my reaction to being screwed by hypocritical assh0les.

3. I don't trust the Democrats as far as I could throw one at being able to put together anything but a fuk-me plan.

4. I don't like the fact that we still don't know what's in it. I mean as far as us ordinary, non-lawyer, non-insurance geek types are concerned. We just sit back and try to read through and/or listen to all the crap everyone else says about it. It's wonderful; it sucks; it will bankrupt the nation; the nation will go broke if we don't do something about healthcare costs; it's a scheme to get Democrats more votes; we'll have to pay for all the illegal immigrants; illegals won't be covered; illegals will be covered after amnesty; it's working in Mass. and those folks love it; it isn't working in Mass. and costs everyone an arm and a leg; it's another major boondoggle; it will put granny in the hands of idiots; granny will be fine; it's working and will reduce costs; costs will skyrocket; it's completely unnecessary; it's critically necessary or else the nation will go broke; it's capitalism but with a more competitive market; it's Socialistic redistribution and the productive get screwed yet again; and so on all the way to the puke bucket.

5. In conclusion, in my opinion Ocare IS government mandated redistribution of heath and wealth. But if it actually does help a significant number of people in need without encouraging yet more parasitic sponging off of society except where absolutely necessary, and the plan doesn't completely wreck our health care system in the process of helping others, then I can live with the extra costs and reduced benefits and even reduced health care quality. If only it could've been conceived, designed, and implemented by non-partisan adults - experts vs politicians - or at least some group of people with some common sense that weren't slavishly incumbered by their enchantment with power, bureaucracy, and deceptive bullsh!t, I would feel a whole lot better about my mandatory sacrifices.

 

In general, the Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper.

But the one place that you can guarantee that you will not find anything representing objective reality is on its editorial page, which is a haven for corporate public relations peddlers and political spin.

These articals regarding the results of Medicare patients are a great case in point.

Deliberatly comparing the general population to the population that is poor, and/ or had been excluded from access to private insurance is not only deliberatly misleading, but it makes a strong case FOR insurance reform.

All your examples do is show how effective the insurance industry has been at offloading its risk. With no one preventing them from doing it, year after year, growing numbers of people found themselves in this trap.

Your citations say nothing about what happened to these people financially. Did they go bankrupt? (a lot did, since medical costs that insurance now has to cover under the ACA is the leading cause of bankrupcy in the US).

Of course, in the modern countries, no one goes bankrupt because their insurance wasn't good enough.

But here, conseravatives crow about it.

 

I have to say that that was a very odd post IMO. It was full of contradiction and half truths.

In one respect, it was very honest. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Lets go down the list.

1. No, you have no idea whether the company you work for used the ACA as an excuse to downgrade your benefits.

This is one of the really odd things about the right wing rant about "Obama lying". People like you, and most people who are insured through their employer, never had any choice. You get what the company offers. You have no say in the matter, other than possibly being able to choose between a few narrow options. You can't go shop for insurance in a market. Even when Ocare didn't exist, you were still at the whim of the senior management of the company you work for.

So, your point here is hardly relevant since you always had that problem.

2. Health insurance only works when the largest number of people are insured. I don't know where this "ramming down my throat" nonsense comes from, since you obviously are hardly affected at all.

3. Nothing but partisan ranting here. If you think that Ocare is a "fuk-me plan", consider the GOP alternative.......no plan at all. And if you prefer that, I suggest you retract your comments about being willing to help others at your own expense, because you obviously don't mean it.

4. That's your own fault. Fox News isn't going to tell you what's in the ACA, and most of the rest of the media won't either. They're too busy playing the gotcha game, and trying to pretend that their politics is better than anyone else's is. Google ACA and read a few in depth articles about it. Learn what's in it and how the law is supposed to work.

Most of the conservatives here have no idea at all, and most of them believe lies that have been fed to them by their favorite right wing media.

There's plenty of real information out there. If you don't know what Ocare is by now, that's your fault.

5.

This, "if only" seems to be a new right wing theme. It's plainly bogus!

I think this theme is out there because it's begining to become likely that the law will work, and that people will like it, or not be affected by it (as is your case). This "if only" lament needs to be viewed in perspective. That's exactly what Hillary Clinton tried to do in 1993. But Congress in general, and the GOP in particular was having nothing to do with that approach. The GOP got control of Congress the next year, and kept it, and or the White House for the next 16 years.

During that period, the GOP offered NO plan to reform health insurance, not even discussion.

In the five years since the current President was elected, the GOP has still offered NO plan.

They are not interested. Not then, not now. Instead they are running a long term campaign to sabatoge the effort and keep it from succeeding wherever possible. This was supposed to be "Obama's Waterloo". No bi partisan commissions are needed when that is the GOP objective.

Of course, it's hard to image that Ocare will be flawless. The botched rollout of the exchanges is case in point. It would have been a lot easier if 36 states had done what they were supposed to do and expand Medicaid (with free money), and set up their own exchanges. But the GOP is more intrested in winning this battle for their clients in the insurance industry than they are in serving their constituents. Six months from now, we'll be bombarded with stories of people who can't get health insurance in North Carolina, or Florida, who would have it (and afford it) if they lived in a blue state.

That story is already emerging.

Of course, if the GOP cared about making Ocare and health insurance work for most people, they would support tweaks "designed, and implemented by non-partisan adults -".

What would you care to bet me that they won't?

 

Thanks for that... lol

But still, in spite of your probably mostly valid criticisms, I have mixed feelings about it. I want it to help those in need and don't mind taking a hit for that to happen. As far as a partisan rant, that may also be somewhat valid. The Left has turned me completely off by all the deception and trickery. But I don't expect the Right would've done much better. In fact, they wouldn't (and didn't) bother to do anything at all since most of them aren't in the poor category and therefor had adequate healthcare. And to the Left's credit, at least they wanted to fix it, whereas the Right insisted and still does insist that it wasn't broke.

That leaves people like me squarely in the middle, between your rant and those rants that I'll almost assuredly recieve from my rightie friends. And I have looked through the Ocare info at the gov websites and I'll admit, everything looks pretty rosy from that info. Gee - what a surprise. I still don't know how it's going to impact me and the nation as whole over the long haul. Like the rest of us, the gov sites are hardly objective either. So, I'll be patient and take the hit and just hope that when it's all said and done, a lot of other people that needed help will be helped as a result. Nothing much more I can do or say about it

 

Well Tom, I can see you are one of the few that more than likely talked about Obamacare over your Thanksgiving dinner. If your family is still talking to you, the reality of what you say is yet to come when the sticker shock of healthcare comes home to roost on the American families. When their premiums equal or near equal what they pay for their house payment, the failure of this bloated government redistribution will blow up in the democrats faces coming next year. It doesn't take a genius to realize why Obama wanted the implementation of O-scare to be moved past next year election cycle.

Obama is a great politician, he is absolutely pathetic as a leader and it is obvious to everyone of this liar and his failings (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, Cash for Clunkers, "I didn't draw that red line", NSA spying, and the biggest failing of all O-scare, the most significant failing in the history of the United States)

 

That's fair.

I don't think you should rely exclusively on the government's websites either. There has been some excellent overview reporting in the press. Alas, it's hard to find because there is really not much of it. A complex subject like health insurance is far less "newsworthy" than some rant or stupid comment from some politician.

I think the "wait and see concusion" that you came to, is the one that most people will come to. That's why the conservative noise machine has been so shrill lately.

The main difference seems to be how confident we are in it succeeding.

I think it will succeed, and I think that all Americans will be better off if it does. Getting the maximum number of people in group health insurance expands access to health care and spreads the risks as broadly as possible. Taht's what insurance is supposed to do.

I would like to see the GOP stop its nonsense and step up and participate in making it succeed, but that appears to be unlikely based on the history. I think it would be the best way to insure that we have the best deal on health care for all.

And, that's why most modern countries have some form of single payer system, whether it's government run or only regulated by a national government (unlike in the US).

Oddly, if you work for a multinational corporation, nearly all of your colleagues outside the US are covered under their government's single payer system, not company supplied insurance.

 

No, we didn't talk about it over dinner.

But then, we benefitted greatly from the state exchange that was set up to insure people with pre existing conditions, which was an Obamacare requirement. Of course, we got the cancellation notice, as insurance companies are no longer allowed to exclude people with pre existing conditions, another Obamacare requirement. We're not worried about health insurance.

There will be very little sticker shock, and most of it will come in states where the shocked would have been eligible for subsities or Medicaid has the GOP leaders of those states complied with the ACA.

But, as another poster on this tread has already amply demonstrated (if not inadvertently), most people will feel little or no effect at all.

Actually, I'm wondering why you responded to my post at all. You did not address a single point I made.

 

so you agree, the average person has to pay more to subsidize others. Thank you for your honesty.

 

they were already paying into risk pools, and had coverage. Now it will cost them more.

 

Try telling those who were ineligible for private plans due to previously existing conditions that their plans are worse.

 

So the plans are better for some, but worse for most....is that a good program?

 

No. The people who got cheap insurance because of actuarial endowments no longer get a cheap ride. Forcing their providers to include those with preexisting conditions will likely increase their premiums, but not by much. It's also something that should have been done decades ago to bring the USA up to par with more happy, healthy, prosperous nations.

 

My real world experience with risk pools is exactly the opposite.

Your claim is false anyway. We're talking about people who could not afford to buy insurance (small business people and sole proprietorship, who paid the highest possible rates) and people that insurance companies didn't want to write.

Before the ACA, the first group paid whatever the insurance company charged or did without, as the second group did.

 

So you agree, this is simply a redistribution of wealth from the majority who already paid for their own coverage, and will now be forced to pay more for that coverage.
Thank you for your honesty.

This bill was sold to the majority as something that would lower their costs. This was blatantly false.

- - - Updated - - -

thank you fro admitting to forced redistribution. Most will not admit to it.

 

Obamacare is opt-in, opt-out. Nobody is forced.

 

I see this inflammatory statement as a personal attack and will report it to the establishment.

As far as the liberal ideology that the liberal horde knows what is best for all and wants all to pay for insurance that most don't need; I find that un-American. My brother's wife can't have children, my oldest daughter and my wife can no longer have children so why in the world should they have to buy insurance that includes - birth control, prenatal care, abortions and lactate training? Why not at least split the coverages for the liberal horde and cover birth control and abortions for those who can't figure out birth control and then cover those who want kids with the other options.

Professor Peabody; Do you think that all of these people were knowing lying or are they that ignorant of the law? I know that the dems voted for obama-care without knowing what was in it and maybe they figured that there was no reason to put the cute staffer with huge breasts through the trouble of learning to read to find out what is in. The bill had over 2,000 pages to start with and the real critical is still being added as we speak so a staffer who can get through a page a day is way behind.

I love the liberal spin here. Access to private insurance is only a small disadvantage to the poor when it comes to critical health care in particular and normal health care in general.

I had a life changing injury twenty years ago at a time that I had no health insurance and I got care in an ER with the hospital knowing that I had no insurance and I got discounted care from one of the best surgeons in Austin, Texas.

I didn't go bankrupt because I couldn't pay for the health care that I got but because I couldn't work for a while. As most people know, you don't lose your position but you can't get new and better ones until you get your (*)(*)(*)(*) back together.

Whish conservative is crowing about what? Give us a quote to show what you are talking about??

First of all; BH Obama did lye about obama-care to get reelected and most of the dems have lied for the same reason. Second; Dave can get a deferent job, we can only get a different country if we get rid of BH Obama and his progressive minions

Well there is the American way of life that was based on free choice. There are the hundreds of new taxes on medical devices and charges to all aspects of the insurance system that every person will have to pay for.

Implying that Dave is lying is rude and the GOP plan is to not hand the best health care system on the planet to a bunch of incompetent fools like the BH Obama progressive liberals.

I have to agree that it would be hard to imagine that any progressive inspired scheme like obama-care would work at all but BH Obama and a lot of dems told you that it would work like Amazon and the rest of the corporate developed and operated web sites. Didn't he? He told you that there would be no "Death Panels" but the dem controlled Senate changed 200 years of tradition so that the 13 "Death Panel" members can be confirmed my a majority of liberal dems. I like that they wanted "13" members for the choosing of who lives and who dies.

 

Hahahahaha! Now that bald-faced Obama was funny right there. I don't care who you are.

 

What happens when you do not opt in or purchase from a private carrier?