Tonik Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Yes, I read the article, yes it sucks for them, but they still can get insurance. It will cost them a bit more because of their high income (oh the problems of some people). They have to pay more because they have a higher income? WTF does that have to do with anything. So they qualify for no subsidy, guess what, they didn't get any subsidies before. And their new plan sucks compared to their old plan, yet it is considerably more, not a 'bit' more. You made the claim they could get a comparable plan, that was blatantly false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) They have to pay more because they have a higher income? WTF does that have to do with anything. So they qualify for no subsidy, guess what, they didn't get any subsidies before. And their new plan sucks compared to their old plan, yet it is considerably more, not a 'bit' more. You made the claim they could get a comparable plan, that was blatantly false. I didn't say it was going to cost them the same... i said they could get a comparable plan... That remains blatantly true... Edited November 7, 2013 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I didn't say it was going to cost them the same... i said they could get a comparable plan... That remains blatantly true... Ignoring costs when comparing plans is very disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Magz has a Teflon-like shield of denial. It deflects facts and common sense to the point where they have no bearing on his opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 again "affordable" is debatable "denied coverage" is not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) again "affordable" is debatable "denied coverage" is not... Apparently 'You can keep your plan, period." is also debatable. Edited November 7, 2013 by Tonik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Individual policy holders are fucked. They don't have the buying power that larger employers have. This is justified, apparently. The ends always justify the means with some people. Luckily, we did our homework early and made sure our plan "qualified" under the new abortion, er... I mean "law". Others weren't so fortunate, but that's ok... Fuck them, right Duane? I'm in no better position than you are, but I think the health insurance industry needs regulated. What alternatives were presented? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Apparently 'You can keep your plan, period." is also debatable. right? 8 of the 10 employees on our company plan are pretty pissed because the plan they were on no longer exists. Luckily for them we had a 2nd offering (the plan I'm on) that we were grandfathered in to for at least this year they could switch to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) Should I believe him? I mean...he's the president, right? Edited November 7, 2013 by Tpoppa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 So their "current" plan got cancelled... boo hoo Yes, I read the article, yes it sucks for them, but they still can get insurance. It will cost them a bit more because of their high income (oh the problems of some people). Exactly who/ what are you defending? And who is your argument with? Or is it simply a case of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?!?!? Obama himself isn't even trying to claim that people losing their plans is acceptable: "...And I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me. We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this. ... Obviously, we didn't do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law. And, you know, that's something that I regret. That's something that we're going to do everything we can to get fixed." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) Exactly who/ what are you defending? And who is your argument with? Or is it simply a case of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?!?!? I'm defending the premise that Health insurance reform NEEDED to be done. Nobody has pointed out any plan other than the ACA that eliminated the "Pre-existing" condition loophole that would have passed the house and senate... I believe this is the correct direction... towards completely socialized health care. the other direction would work, too. but it's too heartless for most people, completely capitalist health care. No money, no insurance no treatment, get bent. Edited November 8, 2013 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 I'm defending the premise that Health insurance reform NEEDED to be done. Nobody has pointed out any plan other than the ACA that eliminated the "Pre-existing" condition loophole that would have passed the house and senate... I believe this is the correct direction... towards completely socialized health care. the other direction would work, too. but it's too heartless for most people, completely capitalist health care. No money, no insurance no treatment, get bent. No. Perhaps that is your new position after realizing that Obama is not even trying to defend the previous weak position that you were trying to defend. The ACA is flawed, and needs reform. The idea of young healthy people being forced to purchase insurance to prop up the system for the unhealthy is flawed. The idea of affordable (small "a") is just fine, but we are not socialists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 No. Perhaps that is your new position after realizing that Obama is not even trying to defend the previous weak position that you were trying to defend. The ACA is flawed, and needs reform. The idea of young healthy people being forced to purchase insurance to prop up the system for the unhealthy is flawed. The idea of affordable (small "a") is just fine, but we are not socialists. No, that's the position I've been defending the whole time... go back and re-read... I've stated on several occasions that the aca was not perfect, but it was better than what we had... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 I've stated on several occasions that the aca was not perfect, but it was better than what we had... No it isn't. We now have more people without healthcare. That might change, I hope it does, but I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 No it isn't. We now have more people without healthcare. That might change, I hope it does, but I doubt it. No, what we have is fewer people during the transition period without "health Insurance"...and by the time the law goes into full effect, it will make good fiscal sense for me to purchase health insurance. (currently not the case) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 basically, he's fine with it because he hasn't seen a big hit to his premiums yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 No, what we have is fewer people during the transition period without "health Insurance"...and by the time the law goes into full effect, it will make good fiscal sense for me to purchase health insurance. (currently not the case) So it is acceptable for people that had good insurance who no longer do now, too just wait patiently with no coverage until the bugs are worked out? Yeah that seems real fair to me, there is a big difference between never having insurance compared to having insurance and then you are dropped. Experts said for example: that people with cancer and other medical needs that require specialists are going to suffer.....we are now seeing that firsthand. Thanks Barry you are a helluva guy!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 So it is acceptable for people that had good insurance who no longer do now, too just wait patiently with no coverage until the bugs are worked out? Yes. Because when they do get new insurance it will cost them more so they can subsidize the poor people who can't afford insurance. Never mind though that the people that used to be able to afford to get insurance won't be able to anymore. You have to ignore that part, otherwise your brain will explode. Catch-22 one of my favorite books of all time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Spent some brain cells thinking outside the box. I see teams of actuaries making sure profit is maintained. There is no way the quantity and quality of insurance company actuaries will fail at the task and opportunity. 1. Any decisions from DC is not going to compete with the collective skill level of the insurance industry.2. Cancelling coverage in entire states while the opportunity is there to excuse it. "Didn't meet the requirements."3. Dumping entire groups if "pre-existing conditions" dominate the group. Big winner, let some other company deal with it.4. Raising rates at a time when everyone will be switching for mandatory one reason or another. A no brainer.5. In other words... "It's a trap!". Some of these are coming out in the news if you dig around and look carefully.Feel free to add more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I believe this is the correct direction... towards completely socialized health care. And this is what Obama wanted the whole time. He wanted to set up a system where he could let the health care system fail (in a way that could be blamed on insurance carriers - 'cause hell, who likes them?) then he can come in and "rescue it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 And this is what Obama wanted the whole time. He wanted to set up a system where he could let the health care system fail (in a way that could be blamed on insurance carriers - 'cause hell, who likes them?) then he can come in and "rescue it."He doesn't have the political capital to get it or anything else major done other than by executive order. Plus he would just f it up again.Look for massive EPA rules and executive orders to combat global warming. That's the only card he can play now.He will f that up too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 He doesn't have the political capital to get it or anything else major done other than by executive order. Plus he would just f it up again.Look for massive EPA rules and executive orders to combat global warming. That's the only card he can play now.He will f that up too.Mission accomplished there too. See the train wreck in Alabama? First thing the media goes to is, "... justifies new rules on rail shipping of oil..." or something similar. Remember the XL Pipeline? That's part of the reason that stuff is traveling over the rails in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I'm in no better position than you are, but I think the health insurance industry needs regulated. What alternatives were presented?the insurance industry isn't the problem. It's the lawyers and constant bad drug lawsuits that try to bankrupt the doctors and hospitals. So of course healthcare costs have to go up.A real solution would have been a 1.5% tax on all health insurance premiums put into a general fund for those truly in need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I'm defending the premise that Health insurance reform NEEDED to be done. Nobody has pointed out any plan other than the ACA that eliminated the "Pre-existing" condition loophole that would have passed the house and senate... I believe this is the correct direction... towards completely socialized health care. the other direction would work, too. but it's too heartless for most people, completely capitalist health care. No money, no insurance no treatment, get bent.do you buy insurance after a car wreck? No. It's cheaper to pay the penalty, so why not just pay the penalty until you need a 30,000$ surgery then get insurance... IDIOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.