If you're on Medicaid (about 75 million) you can keep it.
If you're a government employee (about 20 million) you can keep it. (Like Governor Perry who has free health care for life.)
If you have a large company policy (about 25 million) you can keep it. (Like Senator Cruz who has a $40,000 through his Goldman-Sachs employed wife.)
If you're on Medicare (about 50 million) you can keep it.
If you exclude children it doesn't leave too many and a lot of those will keep or get a better policy.
If you're on Medicare, you can't keep your current Medicare supplemental policy without major premium increases and lower credits (Obamacare). And:
"When Obamacare was enacted in 2010, the Medicare Actuary projected that the impact of Obamacare's cuts would be significant: "We estimate that in 2017, when the MA provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law)." This means that these enrollees would have to enroll in the less generous traditional Medicare program, causing them to lose their current health plan and likely face increased out-of-pocket costs."
If you're on Medicare, you can't keep your doctor as promised. http://nypost.com/2013/10/25/elderly-patients-sick-over-losing-doctors-under-oba...
If your company is getting hit with big Obamacare premium increases, you can't keep your full-time job: "It's Fact, Not Anecdote, That ObamaCare Is Turning Us Into A Part-Time Nation":
I guess common along with obama himself fell for the oftrepeated(25 times) lie about keeping ones insurance. Logic tells us that millions will lose insurance they like. The numbers are up in the air depending on who's counting,so what is an acceptable number,common? One? 60 million? Something between? If you're an Obama believer then that number would be zero.
Thanks,mic. Too much nice weather and leaves to take of to deal with friend common today. Have at it.
More dishonesty, that article is specifically about Medicare Advantage, not Medicare as you claimed. -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 7, 2013, at 11:25 AM
The dishonesty is on your part. As usual. Now answer this simple question as the smartest person on SO. How many people have Medicare Advantage that aren't on Medicare? Duh. Like all liberals you slice a point thin enough, accuse someone of being dishonest and then get schooled. From the article:
"Elderly New Yorkers are in a panic after getting notices that insurance companies are booting their doctors from the Medicare Advantage program as a result of the shifting medical landscape under ObamaCare.
That leaves patients with unenviable choices: keep the same insurance plan and find another doctor, pay out of pocket or look for another plan where their physician is a member."
All of the seniors on Medicare Advantage are not on Medicare? What? You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
"For people who choose to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, Medicare PAYS THE PRIVATE PLAN A SET AMOUNT EVERY MONTH for each member ("capitation"). Enrollees may have to pay a monthly premium in addition to the Medicare Part B premium, but in areas with strong younger population demographics, many companies offer Medicare Advantage plans with no monthly premium in addition to the Medicare Part B premium which the beneficiary pays DIRECTLY TO Medicare."
Once again the smartest person who knows nothing is wrong. Typical pattern there miccheck. Now that you've been proven wrong, go to your next post of "That is off the subject" or "That is not relevant". It's a pattern with you.
Scrap the thing and bring it back to the table for a complete overhaul all it is now is junk and it was put together that way, designed to fail so a single payer system can be thrown at us. This law is a complete wreck and many democrats are now realizing this, many of those people are up for re-election next year and they could lose their seats over this train wreck. This is what cost the democrats the House in 2010 this Obamacare you would think they would learn something from that.
Talk about a "hornets nest"
Top 5 things to know about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if you have Medicare:
1. Your Medicare coverage is protected.
Medicare isn't part of the Health Insurance Marketplace established by ACA, so you don't have to replace your Medicare coverage with Marketplace coverage. No matter how you get Medicare, whether through Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage Plan, you'll still have the same benefits and security you have now.
You don't need to do anything with the Marketplace during Open Enrollment.
2. You get more preventive services, for less. Medicare now covers certain preventive services, like mammograms or colonoscopies, without charging you for the Part B coinsurance or deductible. You also can get a free yearly "Wellness" visit.
3. You can save money on brand-name drugs. If you're in the donut hole, you'll also get a 50% discount when buying Part D-covered brand-name prescription drugs. The discount is applied automatically at the counter of your pharmacy--you don't have to do anything to get it. The donut hole will be closed completely by 2020.
4. Your doctor gets more support. With new initiatives to support care coordination, your doctor may get additional resources to make sure that your treatments are consistent.
5. The ACA ensures the protection of Medicare for years to come. The life of the Medicare Trust fund will be extended to at least 2029--a 12-year extension due to reductions in waste, fraud and abuse, and Medicare costs, which will provide you with future savings on your premiums and coinsurance.
- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 7, 2013, at 2:22 PM
Those five talking points were cut and pasted straight out of the Medicare website. The least you should have done is give them the credit. I will do it for you.
Funny how the people that seem to be in the greatest danger of losing their coverage are the ones buying their plans independent of any group. Policies they shopped for and chose based on their need not what the government thought they need. Commons examples are generally the ones already under some sort of government mandate and subsidy. In his socialistic mind that is the only thing that matters. Let the government do your thinking.
Common doesn't realize the people that it will hurt badly are middle class. The guy that make $50K to $90K and pays his own insurance. The 55 year old small business owner that can no longer cover his men but now has his personal insurance going up 70% because he didn't have maternity and eye care.
Then there are the leeches that will get it for pocket change. Wonder who they are?
"The least you should have done is give them the credit. I will do it for you."
You're right, I should have included that; I was in a hurry to get to a class, still no excuse. Thanks for the help.
(Like Senator Cruz who has a $40,000 through his Goldman-Sachs employed wife.)
What does that mean? $40,000 what?
Medicare Advantage and not the majority of Medicare beneficiaries. -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 7, 2013, at 12:38 PM
Once again - read this slowly - Medicare Advantage people ARE part of Medicare. Quit spinning.
He means he is envious of Cruz's $40K policy. I guess he doesn't realize there will be $16K paid a year in redistribution funds because of the cost. BTW the unions are getting out of paying for their Cadillac plans.
Oh look. Paisley is branded a racist now. Who would have thunk it?
"If you're on Medicare (about 50 million) you can keep it."
Look what Common posted.... pure deception.
Of course you will keep Medicare Part A, but one cannot live by Medicare Part A alone. You need Supplemental Insurance.
Just a day or so ago, I posted that a person known to the Company Service Manager had his United Health Care Medicare Supplemental Policy canceled and it appears Lincoln County as a whole will be getting those cancellations from United Health Care. Makes Common's blanket statement a lie. Medicare Supplemental Insurance is being canceled in some instances. And it is definitely a part of the Medicare overall program.
Do not know the stated reason for the cancellation.... maybe it doesn't carry maternity coverage.
The point appears to be, as long as you have government-provided health care, you can keep it. The Democrats were looking out for their constituents when they passed the bill, those who suck at the teat of government. The rest of us, well, not so much.
"You need Supplemental Insurance."
You may want it, but it's your choice.
"2. How will the ACA and new Health Care Exchanges affect Medicare supplemental health insurance
It won't. The Health Insurance Exchanges will not offer Medicare supplemental (Medigap) insurance. If you currently have Medigap coverage and would like to continue you coverage, the process for doing so hasn't changed.
In fact, the ACA largely leaves the treatment of Medigap plans unaffected. The ACA originally mandated that certain Medigap plans add nominal cost-sharing by 2015, but the federal government decided to waive this requirement.
Medigap insurance, sold by private companies, is designed to help pay some of the health care costs that traditional Medicare doesn't cover, like copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles. Some Medigap policies also offer coverage for additional services not covered by Medicare, including medical care when you travel outside the U.S. If you have Medicare and you buy a Medigap policy, Medicare will pay its share of the Medicare-approved amount for covered health care costs. Then your Medigap policy pays its share.
It's important to note that a Medigap policy is different from a Medicare Advantage Plan. Those plans are ways to get Medicare benefits, while a Medigap policy only supplements your Medicare benefits."
"The rest of us, well, not so much."
Who are us? Does that suggest that no conservatives are on Medicare or on qualifying health plans? And are conservatives not permitted to go on Medicaid? (I personally do know some that are, but i won't tell on them.)
Misleading is not a mistake. It may be a strategy for Obama, but not a mistake. Wrong again miccheck.
Also re: medicare advantage and medigap (all people who are on medicare or subsidized by medicare - and that's not lie liar) regarding Obamacare:
"The irony here is not lost on the agents who work in the Medicare market. If PPACA proceeds as planned, seniors on Medicare Advantage plans will get whacked with benefit cuts. But if they choose one of the most popular Medigap plans for their coverage instead, they'll face higher premiums for Part B and taxes on their insurance plan."
Common says "If you're on Medicare (about 50 million) you can keep it." at a much higher cost and partially taxed. Common also told us when it was revealed that there were over $500 BILLION in cuts to medicare in Obamacare that "those aren't really cuts. They're efficiencies and fraud control". Laughable. Another Obama lie exposed. Now the truth rolls out - which everyone knew except for Common.
miccheck is lost in his/her mind and then calls people who decide to work instead of go on SS disability "not admirable". Can I also get a free Obamaphone from you? YOu'd be the perfect sales person...
I'm not misleading when I specifically respond with "Bush and the congress run by his party". You just don't like the facts.
The caller said" "the federal deficit has been cut in half under Obama as compared to Bush" is very open and misleading itself.
The federal deficit under Bush when his party controlled congress was UNDER $200 Billion and falling fast. Until democrats got control of the congress.
Either put up or shut up. In what year has Obama's deficit ever been 1/2 of less than $200 BILLION.
And only a liberal like yourself would push the callers point when all the data says Obama has DOUBLE the US debt with his deficits. Misleading - like you - would be to say that somehow, someway Obama is more fiscally responsible than Bush. Laughable.
The ACA originally mandated that certain Medigap plans add nominal cost-sharing by 2015, but the federal government decided to waive this requirement. [From common's post]
This is what it is coming to. The executive branch gets congress to make a law, the law of the land as it's called, then has the authority to waive parts of it or change it however it pleases the president without congress.
Sounds like a king's rule.
"Misleading is not a mistake. It may be a strategy for Obama, but not a mistake. Wrong again miccheck."
Obama's mistake was lying and getting caught at it. That is a mortal sin in the political world. You have to lie in a convincing fashion and not get caught therefore avoiding having the lie bite you in the ***.
Obama got caught, it is not going away and his feeble effort yesterday was too little and way too late.
If he himself truly believes what he tried to make of it yesterday.... well he has to be dumber than dog crap.
well he has to be dumber than dog crap. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 9:52 AM
True wheels. Worse than that are those that believe what he says. And even worse than that are those that know he's lying yet push his lies onto others. See above...
People think this is the bad part. Wait until you find you cant see a doc for weeks because they are bombarded with patients that wont be paying the high deductibles the working folks have to pay. There will also be fewer docs to see them.
I'll never forget Wheels' statement of "get used to looking at the wallpaper" in the waiting room.
Remember, Hillary wanted it to be illegal to pay for your own doctor visits or surgeries.
"Hillary wanted it to be illegal to pay for your own doctor..."
Where in the world do you find this BS? In "The Onion?"
Obama has lost all of his creditability millions of people just don't believe him any more take a look at his most recent decline in poll numbers just in the past ten days and they are declining even more each day, he refuses to fix his train wreck health care law period he takes no blame at all he always spins it around to make it sound like some one else done that not me. This is a guy that said in his interview with NBC that he was responsible for two million Federal Government Employees he don't even know how many employees our government has it is 4.3 million I wish we did have just two million on the payroll we would have a much better ran government where it could be managed properly and there would be some accountability and most of all it would save us a ton of money each fiscal year.
"Americans would have had choice, but only to the extent of picking which of several plans the government was going to offer you. Going to a doctor that you pick on your own, and paying cash for that or other services, would have been illegal under this plan, with criminal penalties for both the doctor and the patient."
"...several plans the government was going to offer you."
The plans being offered are based on competition between private insurance compnies. The government is not "offering" anything, it is simply setting ground rules that all of the competing companies follow.
"...would have been illegal under this plan, with criminal penalties ..."
Please provide proof of this statement. And your Limbaugh/Hannity quotes don't count.
I am talking about Hillarycare.
You and Mic can try but I remember. Shae also thought it should be illegal to go overseas to get care because they needed everyone in the system. I would think you and MIC wouldn't have to search for it but I guess you weren't paying attention.
Common and Mic can argue all they want to about details and nuances of ObamaCare. I don't have time to read the whole bill and cannot afford to pay the lawyer to explain what it really means. (If a dozen lawyers read it, there would probably be a dozen different interpretations) But here is the crux of my whole argument. It has been proven that President Obama lied when he made the following statement. And if he lied about that why should I put any trust in anything he or his loyal followers say about ObamaCare?
"If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period," Obama said in a speech in Chicago in 2009. "If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
But that never was the whole story. It was simply not credible that the Obama administration would make a number of sweeping changes to health insurance and everyone would still get to keep their health care plan and their doctor.
Back in 2010, the Obama administration vaguely acknowledged this by noting the high rate of turnover when it came to the 14 million individuals who have private insurance, as opposed to group plans.
Tucked in the federal register they noted the normal turnover rate for individual insurance is up to 67%, and that because of changes mandated to plans by Obamacare, turnover would likely exceed that range.
We haven't even mentioned the employers who are pushing workers off their plans and onto the Obamacare exchange because it's cheaper.
This doesn't sound like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan."
Using wealth envy Obama blamed the rich insurance companies and were going to force them to be cheaper. Now the insurance companies are going to cut a fat hog on this deal and the middle class he said he was helping is going to be hurt.
Remember Obama was going to hammer Wall Street but he ended up giving them a golden egg.
Ok folks, here's the rules: You all sell the exact same product and profits are capped well below the expected return of any other well ran business in an promised healthy economy.
Not that's fair competition! Right common?
Should be "Now" that's...
"Who are us? "
Us are people who don't get our insurance from the government...
Obama always hammers the rich his net worth is 12.2 million and many of his loyal supporters are all wealthy. He talks about how evil the rich is well if you would look at many of his friends they are all wealthy including himself. With that said he and his staff should have to go on Obamacare like the rest of us but that will never happen we all know that.
"...below the expected return of any other well ran business..."
The requirement is for companies to return 80% of their premiums to the policy holders in the form of coverage.
Medicare returns about 96%. If the companies are just as efficient administratively as the government, they should be making 16% profit. That seems pretty fair, even if they have to divert a few percent to advertising.
"Us are people who don't get our insurance from the government..."
Those buying private insurance from State Exchanges aren't getting it from the government.
Those like Senator Cruz who is under a qualifying $40,000 policy from Goldman-Sachs, aren't getting it from the government.
Who's left, except for Medicare participants, (who like their policies and are keeping them)?
Common sure has the wealth envy thing going. He's gotta show them people their place.
Those buying private insurance from State Exchanges aren't getting it from the government. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 7:58 AM
Is this a thinly veiled attempt to return to your old talking point (lie) that "Under Obamacare, everybody will pay"? Remember when you were pimping Obamacare and said we all pay when they go to the ER without insurance but now they will have to pay?
As clearly written in Obamacare not everyone will pay - many will get free health insurance with their Obamacare credits. Up to 400% of FPL (federal poverty level) will receive credits and many will get 100% free health care. And remember the unforeseen side affect here. Many are simply opting onto the new generous MediCAID program that the federal gov't is expanding. More free health care.
Common, So we should just put the whole population on Medicare and the cost would only be 4% of claims paid. Cut waste and fraud by any more than that and the taxpayers could get a rebate each year from their withholdings.
Wow, you guys have a plan there!
"Wow, you guys have a plan there!"
It's called a single payer system and would actually be the best solution.
Common, you can depend on the government for your health care if you want to. Just don't require me to do the same.
People who receive the federal subsidy to be part of Obamacare will be allowed to incur a three-month "grace period" if they can't pay their premiums and then simply cancel their policies, stiffing the doctors and hospitals.
Their only repercussion is that they have to wait until the following year's open enrollment if they want coverage on the exchange.
read more at: http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/09/obamacare-leaves-doctors-on-the-hook-for
There are those who are not willing to pay for their own health care. They depend upon the sympathy of liberal progressives. They know that if they come up with a sob story someone will use OPM to provide their wants and needs. This is just one loophole they will use to rip off the taxpayer.
Stanford economist Edward Lazear, who chaired George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2009, explains why one man's "substandard" health plan is another's optimal coverage:
Plans that exclude the president's "core" benefits may be exactly what is desired for those in good health with the means to cover their limited every-day and predictable medical expenses....
Just as it would be a bad idea to require that all cars come with power windows, power locks, and automatic transmissions, it is also unwise to order citizens to buy health care that includes maternity benefits or other care.
read more at: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/08/the-advantages-of-substandard-health-pla
For your information, I am a person who is still upset because it is so difficult to find a used car or truck with manual windows. I seem to be a person who values function over form living in a world in which form is more important than function.
I wish they'd bring back the 3 on the tree and foot operated high beam switch.
"...you can depend on the government for your health care..."
I have been contributing to my health care account since the 60's and now pay about $225 per month.
How is that depending "on the government?"
"I seem to be a person who values function over form..."
That could also be described as "living in the past," or just being "old fashioned."
As a matter interest the last 3 cars I owned all had power windows and the were driven to 254,000 miles, 265,000 miles and 206,000 miles respectively, and I never had one problem with the windows,
That's bumping 3/4 million miles common claims to put on his last three automobiles. With that amount of driving and you would have thought he worked some, given the amount of time he spends BSing the rest of the world on the computer, it is hard to see where he has had time to sleep.
I still remember when the average driver put on 10,000 miles a year, don't know what it is now but Common is not in the average range I would wager.
Its a long way from SEMO to the farm.
What does he do at SEMO? Is he another professional student?
If you were to call me old-fashioned I would consider it a compliment.
Common, you defend Obamacare every step of the way. And if you life it I think you should take part in it. I merely object to being forced by the government to change that which meets my needs and I am satisfied with.
You and the rest of the world have my permission to do whatever pleases you as long as you have the courtesy to allow me to live my life as I please. Unfortunately government is becoming more and more intrusive.
254,000 miles, 265,000 miles and 206,000 miles respectively and 25 years of driving and never knew the windows went down?
I have two vehicles parked in the driveway; one with 240,000 miles and the other with 290,000 miles. And I never complained about having problems with power windows. I said I preferred manual windows.
Freedom, I have another vehicle with the old foot operated high/low beams. It could be yours if you really wanted it.
"Those buying private insurance from State Exchanges aren't getting it from the government."
Those buying from the State Exchanges aren't keeping their current policies, either. I take it you've forgotten the gist of your own thread?
"It's called a single payer system and would actually be the best solution."
I agree, the person receiving the service should be the single entity responsible for paying for it.
Even if only one person is forced to change his/her doctor or terms of insurance..........that makes President Obama a liar. And it has been proven that he knew his statements were untrue and continued to make the same assertion;
Barack Obama, June 15, 2009: "We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
Barack Obama, September 9, 2009: "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. "
Explain to me (if we already know he lied in order to pass the plan and also to get re-elected) why should I believe him when he says I will like it when it is in full force?
The best system is when each individual has the ability to choose what insurance coverage is best for his situation, which insurance company he wants to deal with, and which health care provider he wants to see. All of which are restricted by ObamaCare.
"...person receiving the service should be the single entity responsible for paying for it."
Sounds like a genuinely "compassionate" conservative approach. If someone can't afford treatment or adequate insurance, they can get well on their own or die. Either way, it doesn't cost the conservatives a penny and that seems to always be their biggest concern.
If you like your current car you can keep it. If you want a different car it must be of a certain standard. If you can't afford a car or you can't afford the upgrade, the government will take money from the conservatives to make it happen. :)
I would challenge common to get out and associate with some of his Bollinger County neighbors. Go to one of the dinners, auctions, shooting matches, or other social affairs which local communities use to support neighbors who need help with family emergencies. It is not that we conservatives are unfeeling. Over a period of time we have developed a system for helping the less fortunate which does not depend on those sympathetic people in the federal government.
People are not dying on the street because they are turned away by healthcare providers. Doctors and hospitals provide services with sliding scales or no cost every day. And ObamaCare does not provide health insurance for everyone. In fact, at this point more people have lost insurance coverage because of ObamaCare than have been signed up on the exchanges.
Common does not make a factual argument; just tosses out grenades on the threads and labels anyone who disagrees as uncaring.
Sounds like a genuinely "compassionate" conservative approach. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 10, 2013, at 8:47 AM
Robert - so true. Common, like many liberals (movie stars, celebrities, etc.), mistake "charity" for "government" and are some of the laziest people you'll ever meet. They don't want to get personally involved in helping people.
They believe that Obama is such a generous man for taking money away at a record amount and giving it away at a record amount. While he plays golf weekly and flys on lavish vacations.
Charity comes from the heart, not the government.
"$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August" - http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/2472542000000-record-taxation-...
"Record Revenue" - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-30/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-to-5-year...
"Feds' 2013 tax haul will be biggest ever" - http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/147700-feds'-2013-tax-haul-...
Dug, that is the kind of information that liberal/progressives hope most of us never read.
Don't forget; it is a revenue problem....not a spending problem. :-)
"...more people have lost insurance coverage..."
Robert "...does not make a factual argument..."
How many people have "lost" coverage? Letters have been sent to some that their insurance must be replaced by Jan 1, 2014, so they have not "lost" anything as of right now.
The vast majority of Americans are not affected.
Sounds like someone "...just tosses out grenades on the threads..."
"Go to one of the dinners, auctions, shooting matches, or other social affairs which local communities use to support neighbors who need help with family emergencies."
I have done all of those things. Why would you say that I have not?
"....system for helping the less fortunate which does not depend on those sympathetic people in the federal government."
How many people in Bollinger county do you think are on Medicaid? An estimate from Cross Trails Mdeical Center puts the number at about 4000. That helps people too.
"Sounds like a genuinely "compassionate" conservative approach. If someone can't afford treatment or adequate insurance, they can get well on their own or die. Either way, it doesn't cost the conservatives a penny and that seems to always be their biggest concern."
Stealing money from other people to satisfy your definition of "Compassion" doesn't make you compassionate, it still makes you a thief, even if you use the government as the instrument of your theft.
We can be genuinely compassionate by charitably supporting those who need support, voluntarily, or we can be thieves by taking forcibly taking money from others to pay for those we deem to be needing support (whether they are or not). I prefer true compassion, which flows from the heart, not from a government mandate. You can wrap up the fact of the theft as prettily as you please, but if you're using someone's money other than your own to satisfy your "compassion", you are stealing.
The problem is simpy that we have allowed "compassion" to be so redefined that few people recognnize it anymore. That is what prompts statements such as yours.
"Either way, it doesn't cost the conservatives a penny and that seems to always be their biggest concern."
Both sides' biggest concern is money. Conservatives, at least, only concern themselves with their own money, while liberals obsess about everyone else's.
"That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: 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."
-- President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health-care law was being written.)
"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future."
-- Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.
Common, you say that no one has lost coverage. Once again, like Obama, you are trying to rewrite history. That is a bogus argument and you know it. These people had insurance coverage which met their needs. Because of government regulations that coverage is no longer available. It is lost due to Obamacare.
"...they can get well on their own or die."
You still did not address this issue. Should they be left to die?
This business of "stealing" money is also getting a bit lame. Living in the United States subjects citizens to taxation. Calling it stealing is ludicrous, it's a fact of life. If some of that tax money is spent to help other Americans, that's a necessary function of the government.
Also, you seem to ignore the fact that conservatives are not the only Americans subject to taxation. I have paid taxes for over 50 years and have no problem with some tiny part of that tax load going to help other Americans not as fortunate as you or I.
"...no one has lost coverage."
as of right now. Yes that's correct. Substitute polices are available, some may be cheaper, some more expensive. It's up to the individuals to acquire coverage of their choice.
It's up to the individuals to acquire coverage of their choice.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 10, 2013, at 6:56 PM
My choice is my current policy which I am not being allowed to keep.
I have paid taxes for over 50 years and have no problem with some tiny part of that tax load going to help other Americans not as fortunate as you or I.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 10, 2013, at 6:52 PM
Tiny part? Just what percentage of the federal budget goes towards social programs? What percentage the Missouri state budget? Bet it's not tiny.
"...yes or no ?"
Yes and it will be available to more people from private companies.
as of right now. Yes that's correct. Substitute polices are available, some may be cheaper, some more expensive. It's up to the individuals to acquire coverage of their choice.
Once again you avoid the point that 'if you like your plan you can keep it, period'. And you choose to overlook the fact that some will not be able to pay the higher premium for the new plans that they are forced to shop for. And it is not 'coverage of their choice'. It is coverage that the government has chosen. The 'coverage of their choice' has been taken from them.
The promise was that we could keep our insurance and see our doctors; those that we had already chosen. That promise has been broken. It will take years to determine how good the new coverage is. With the thousands of pages in the law plus all the regulations written by HHS no one really knows how it will work; not even Common.
And I see no reason to believe Obama, Sebelius, or any other official when they tell me how good the new insurance is and how much I will like it. They have already lied to us; over and over again.
" Robert "...does not make a factual argument..."
How many people have "lost" coverage? Letters have been sent to some that their insurance must be replaced by Jan 1, 2014, so they have not "lost" anything as of right now. "
He was factual. I cant believe you are now around 67 and don't realize when you get a cancellation letter that states that in 60 days you have to find new insurance. That is cancelled buddy. Unlike the government many people plan their personal budget a year in advance and many are going to find they will pay substantially more.
BTW taxation is stealing by the threat of a force. But in the envious mind of a liberal they think s**** those b******* because they got their money by cheating them out of it. You chose your destiny as they did their but later in life you feel cheated and want a share you didn't earn.
Fact. Under Obamacare my children up to the age of 26 can be covered by my insurance.
1. I expect people to be self-supporting long before that. No need to raise a generation of leeches.
2. My children are all older than 26. I will never have the opportunity to draw the benefits I am forced to help finance.
Fact. Under Obamacare my wife and I have coverage for birth control.
1. This has always been a normal out of pocket expense.
2. Again, there is no way I will ever have the need for this coverage. Again, I am subsidizing others.
Fact. Under Obamacare my wife is covered for prenatal care.
1. Absolutely have no need for that coverage. Another subsidy.
Fact. Under Obamacare I am covered for pediatric dental care.
1. Absolutely no need for that coverage; another subsidy.
This would be kind of like my car insurance company insisting I carry full coverage insurance on a clunker. It is legalized highway robbery; using the IRS for enforcement.
"...insisting I carry full coverage..."
But they do require you to have basic coverage.
This is no different than what the ACA requires. Do you really think that you will suffer from every single illness or condition that your current policy covers? Of course not.
Furthermore just as good drivers get cheaper rates than bad drivers with numerous tickets and accidents, I am quite sure that the competitive private health insurance market will find ways to provide the same basic coverage at variable rates.
Possibly you are you one of those that also feel that their property taxes should be reduced if they no longer have their own children in school (or never had children)?
The IRS has very limited power to enforce the taxes under the ACA.
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 6:29 AM
Really? The IRS has access to all my personal financial information which I must release to them under penalty of law. They have the ability to
Now they will have access to all my personal health information.
They have the ability to seize my property and freeze my bank accounts.
The IRS is perhaps the most powerful agency with the most ability to directly impact my life without the necessity of a public trial. And it has been demonstrated to be a corrupt and willing tool in the hands of this present administration.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Nov 10, 2013, at 7:44 PM
I believe you neglected to add Common, and a number of other posters on here who cannot be believed.
Example: "The IRS has very limited power to enforce the taxes under the ACA."
"Theft is illegal. Taxation, by representation no less, is not theft."
Taking money from some to give to yourself, or others, is theft, regardless of the instrument you use for the taking.
Taxation for "general welfare" is distinct from "individual welfare". I've pointed that out before.
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:06 AM
No matter what the law says so far as the ACA, they will do as they chose in government. The law as written said the bill would take effect Jan 1, 2014, but Obama arbitrarily and capriciously delayed it for some.
The law did not give the IRS the power to single out Conservative Groups for "special treatment", but they assumed it anyway. The law did not say the IRS could rush Obama's brother's application through either, but they did it.
The IRS, with this President's blessing, will do as they please. Congress may investigate and huff and puff, but they and the American people will be stonewalled. That is my opinion.
Who defines the line between "general welfare" and "individual welfare"?
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:18 AM
Very easy question. The thieves we send to Washington.
That's record revenue. Tax rates are still very low, from a comparative standpoint. -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 7:58 AM
"Revenue" to a liberal, "taxes" to the lawmakers in Congress and conservatives. Involuntarily taken from citizens.
Few tax rates are a littler lower, but we tend to overlook the 21 new taxes in Obamacare and other rising taxes and new rates extracted every year.
Either way, the "taking" is a record - and it is being taking from Americans. And sad how liberals want even more...
Incredibly low? Does look like that on this chart:
You can't separate voting from taxation? Interesting...
Try not paying your taxes and let us all know how that works out.
I don't suggest that it's involuntarily. But, if three wolves and sheep sit down to vote regarding what to have for dinner, guess what'll be on the menu.
The point is, when we vote to fund roads, bridges, or wars, we are not voting to take the money from one pocket to put in another, at least not in theory. When we vote fund welfare programmes, health care programmes, cell phone giveaways, etc., in which the recipients of these massive programmes are voters, and we promise to procure the funds from "the rich" (a guaranteed minority of the voters), we are promoting theft by taxation.
In Victor Hugo's novel "Les Miserables", Inspector Javert opined that there was no guilt or innocence outside of the law. I think of that when I read Spaniard's posts. Spaniard's view appears to parallel that of Javert: if the law supports and the courts uphold it, it is the just and moral. Thus, only stealing as defined within the narrow confines of the law is really theft, and the government cannot, thus, be guilty thereof, since the government will not define its own stealing as such. I find that to be a very narrow view, as most of humanity upholds that there are things that can be both legal and yet wrong.
"Who defines the line between "general welfare" and "individual welfare"?"
It's an easy distinction to make. If the monies taxed are spent on projects that benefit society at large, such as on police protection, harbours, roads, etc., it is "general welfare". If the monies taxed go into the pockets of individuals, or to offset the expenses of individuals so that they are relieved of responsiblility for paying their own debts, it is individual welfare.
For example: If we build a poor house, available to all who have need of shelter over their heads and a warm bed for the night, we are serving the general welfare. If, on the other hand, we pay someone's mortgage to save them from foreclosure, we are serving the individual welare of that person. The same is true of hospitals, etc., If we build "free clinics", available to all who need medical services but cannot afford them, we serve the general welfare. If we pay the medical bills of individuals we decide are incapable of paying for them themselves, we are serving the individual welfare.
According to the CBO, after Obamacare is fully in effect this nation will still have approximately 30 million uninsured.
And this was to get 30 million uninsured insured? Business as usual for Obama..... Everybody pays more and nothing changes.
46%. That's how much the replacement plan to the plan we were supposed to be able to keep is costing us at my place of employment.
Under the new, Obamacare-mandated pricing structure, the cost of every single employee's coverage is going up, based on age and other factors. Not one employee is seeing a decrease, even though both deductables and co-pays are also increasing, and coverage amounts decreasing.
The Democrats sold America a bill of goods. Their supporters are still trying to spin this as being good for America overall, but the fact of the matter is we who opposed it were right, and the cost of all that free stuff is very high.
Insurance companies may be padding their bills, due to the uncertainty of the cost of all those pre-existing conditions and additional "freebies", such that we may see this sudden increase slack off or even decrease in the years to come, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Methinks the rich, who are being taxed, probably vote largely against the taxes that are imposed upon them, but are overwhelmed by those who are not rich and, thus, are not subject to the same rate of taxation. Ergo, while the public at large may consent, by direct vote or by proxy, those being taxed cannot be said to consent to it. To be sure, given that they take such efforts to reduce their tax liability, one must assume they do not.
If white voters voted only to tax black voters, even though they be the majority, the theft of the black's money would be regarded as theft. The same would be true of any majority ganging up to deprive a minority of their possessions, rights, or authority. Somehow, "the Left" does not regard the minority of "rich" with the same care. I can only assume that is because they have designs on their money to satisfy their own desires, which is to say they favour the theft from that particular minority.
Merriam-Webster does not include a lack of consent as a necessary component for defining "theft". To be sure, we generally regard it as "theft" even when a person willfully surrenders their monies in response to false promises, such as a confidence game or rigged games of chance.
Remember taxation is the taking of assets by threat of force. I call that theft.
A politician "lied" and you people are surprised?!
It could be worse I suppose. He could have lied about a reason to send several thousand American soldiers to their deaths just to line his vice-presidents pockets...
Part of living in a society is realizing something that is best for society as a whole isn't necessarily best for me personally.
Sounds like something heard in a re-education camp.
He could have lied about a reason to send several thousand American soldiers to their deaths just to line his vice-presidents pockets...
-- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:00 PM
No offense, but that's an idiotic statement.
You don't like Bush, so be it. Just come out and say it. Didn't care for him much myself, but to insinuate that Bush or any president would send troops to die for no other reason other than lining a vice president's pockets is ludicrous.
He could have lied about a reason to send several thousand American soldiers to their deaths just to line his vice-presidents pockets... -- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:00 PM
I didn't know Biden was involved in the military. I do know that 73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.
Didn't he win a Nobel Peace Prize for something? Was it a promise to do something or for actually doing something?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 6:43 AM
I'm guessing I'm not the only one posting that pays school tax in more than one county and have no children in school. I have no problem with paying school taxes in other counties than where I reside, just think if I am to pay, I should be able to vote for or against the increase of those taxes.
I pay taxes in St. Charles, Bollinger & Lincoln Counties in Missouri and Baldwin County in Alabama.
I would just love to have some input on any one of these counties on how they divide up the monies they spend on Sports vs Education.
I don't give a Tinker's dam about who's kid wants to play sports, but I see no need in me helping to pay for it. I believe in education and wish our system delivered a much better product. I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars supporting it. But I could care less where the next crop of football or basketball players come from.
CSM why don't you poll the employees at Manpower about if they get to keep their insurance. Also check with the Casino employees then get back with us.
The Democrats have a disaster on their hands with Obamacare. It is their program. They own it 100%.
The midterm elections are on the horizon and they know it. They better be cooking up some very fervent lies it they hope to retain Harry's seat in the senate.
I am looking forward to the spin that will be made in the future to cover this blunder. When 3 kids working a few long night put together a good working website it should tell people that government is not the answer.
I'm headed for warm weather for a few days.
Wheels, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Obama company kick it down the road with a few more promises until after the elections.
From Manpower's website:
We're employment experts. But we know there's more to life than work. That's why we're committed to providing you with valuable benefit options that meet your needs and those of your family. We recommend you speak to your local Manpower representative to confirm your eligibility with our benefits program. All of our benefit packages vary by location.
Manpower's benefit packages include:
Medical Coverage. You can participate in a high quality, affordable and extensive group medical coverage plan.
401k. Take advantage of one of the best ways to save - Manpower's 401(k) savings program.
Paid Holidays. When you've fulfilled accrued hour requirements, you're eligible to be paid for any of the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
Referral Bonus. We're always looking for talented people like you. When you refer someone to Manpower and he or she completes at least 40 hours of work, you may be eligible to receive a referral bonus.
Recognition. We know it's important to experience a sense of satisfaction and pride. To recognize a job well done, we have several local and national programs that acknowledge your continued success on the job.
"Until after a 30 day probationary period that is , when they could become full time employees..."
That's normal with most businesses. One does not usually become eligible for benefits immediately upon employment. It is normally 30 to 90 days for health benefits, and a year or more for many retirement plans.
If a workplace has an irregular demand for labour, then hiring temporary workforces through a source such as manpower makes sense. Manpower handles the paperwork, since they are technically employees of theirs, and the employer merely pays Manpower through contracted amounts. Kelly Temp Services works similarly.
Hiring and laying off workers can be cumbersome and expensive, particularly when benefits and unemployement compensation are factored in, so the use of temp labour can be quite beneficial in industries where labour requirements are subject to periodic peaks and valleys.
But, it only works if Manpower can maintain a ready supply of capable workers. In order to do so, they must provide them with incentives the same as any other employer, and that includes the benefits described above. If Manpower cannot deliver qualified and capable workers, businesses will not use them. If Manpower can't deliver pay and benefits to its employees, qualified and capable workers will not apply. It's simple market economics.
"I dis-agree , Man Power and Work Force employees were not put on un-employment , they did not gain employee benefits as in Corporate deductions for employment hours , they were just let go to find another temporary job , which means they did not accrue any un-employment hourly benefits ."
That was my point. If the company did not use Manpower services, they would have had to go through the cumbersome and expensive process of hiring labour, knowing they would only be laying them off when the work ran out. That means checking employment eligibility according to the law, enrolling them in the benefits plans, paying unemployement taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare Taxes, income taxes, etc.,
Hiring through manpower eliminates those headaches for workers who are temporary in nature.
Consider the Biblical stories of the hiring of vineyard workers. When the harvest time comes, the vineyard owner finds himself in need of workers, knowing that their employment is to be temporary in nature. He goes (or sends his servant) into the city to hire workers, and they are paid a days' wage fror the days' work. This type of labour is at least 2,000 years old.
In "The Sand Pebbles", we again see the picture of the temporary worker, and the origins of the employment system that coordinates them: the coolie boss. According to Richard McKenna's work, the Navy paid the coolie bosses, who provided the labourers to handle the menial tasks aboard the ship. The coolie boss paid the coolies, determined who was fit for what line of work, and provided the services necessary for their work. It is an old system, saving the person needing the labour the difficulty of finding and employing all the individual labourers they may need. If more workers are needed, the coolie boss provides them. If a worker needs to be dismissed, admonished, or otherwise addressed, the employer brings it to the attention of the coolie boss, who handles the issue. This is akin to the manner in which temporary employment agencies work.
The temporary agency assumes the responsibility for the paying of taxes, provision of benefits, and discipling of the employees. The employer contracts with the temporary agency for the handling of this.
The labourer, on the other hand, benefits from having the temporary agency serve as his agent in finding employment. When the temporary employment by the employer in question ends, the temporary agency finds him new work, saving him both the trouble of filing unemployement and of looking for work.
As I noted, this depends upon the ability of the temporary agency to find, retain, and supply qualified and capable workers to prospective clients. When there is a dearth of workers, they have to lure them with benefits and higher pay, the same as any employer. When there is a wealth of them, the need to do lessens, but do does the demand for their services and, thus, the cash flow needed to provide those benefits and pay. Again, market economics at work.
The hogs are feeding at the obamacare trough.
Shapley, Is the coolie boss akin to a union?
"Shapley, Is the coolie boss akin to a union?"
Somewhat, but generally, no.
Unions tend to organize labour forces already employed, whereas the coolie bosses, like the temporary employment agencies, find employment (at a cost) for those needing work.
Where they are similar is in their efforts to monopolize the employment. Temporary agencies recognize that they are filling voids in the labour market that exists in what is sometimes called "casual labour". The coolie bosses, like the labour unions, also wanted control of the permanent labour force within their jurisdiction, as I recall McKenna's work. They were also specialized, like the unions, with deck coolies and engine room coolies and galley coolies and so forth, each with a distinct boss.
I can't claim to have worked with a lot of hiring, but it is my best recollection that union labourers are employees of the company, not of the union, and that the employer must go through the full process of hiring them as they would a non-union employee, including taxes, pensions, and so forth, rather than simply paying the union to handle that. Pensions, I suppose, are an exception, as some unions monopolize their member's pensions as a means of retaining them as members of the union.
but it is my best recollection that union labourers are employees of the company, not of the union-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 6:29 AM
It may vary but anywhere I have ever worked and dealt with unions they were always employees of the company and not the union. We always reminded them of that as well.
re: pensions, and so forth, rather than simply paying the union to handle that - that varied by union. Some had their own pension funds and medical programs that we made direct payments to. Some were on our pension / medical plan.
some unions monopolize their member's pensions as a means of retaining them as members of the union.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 6:29 AM
I thought I remembered discussion of this from 2010. I wonder why insurance companies are waiting until the last minute to notify their policyholders?
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 4:35 PM
Ah yes, Media Matters, a truly unbiased site. Since I do not waste time reading their crap, did they bother to mention that the bureaucrats have been busy writing regulations ever since 2010? How would an insurance company have known in 2010 what to warn people of? And all of the while Obama was stating that people could keep their insurance and their doctors.... "Period".
Did the insurance companies bear the liability of calling Obama a liar or let people find out for themselves? Who would people have believed those vile Capitalistic Insurance Companies or the President of the Untited States?
Wheels, I think the private insurance companies have seen the writing on the wall. They have aligned themselves to get the most they can before the ultimate demise of their existence under Obamacare.
I have had basically the same feeling. The insurance companies will go down and the Leftists get what they want, single payer.
How do you know it's crap if you don't read it?
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 6:53 PM
Media Matters is still largely funded by George Soros....... correct? It's crap!
The Left is desperately looking for someone who can be blamed for the failures of Obamacare, might as well be the insurance companies. Obama repeated his lie hoping if he repeated it often enough it would be the new truth. Now he is caught in the lie and we must find a fall guy.
It was easier to attack me than to answer any of the questions I asked, so she took the easy way out.
"Yet you again refer to me using female pronouns despite knowig I'm a man."
I know nothing of the sort. I prefer to believe what I feel is correct vs what someone just tells me to believe.
Why didn't you answer the questions?
Wheels, it is beginning to look as if common is losing some support. No wonder he is getting testy.
"Congressional Democrats are quickly losing patience with the White House as the deeply flawed Obamacare rollout drags on.
The broken HealthCare.gov website and President Obama's broken promise that "if you like the plan you have, you can keep it" have sent Democrats searching for ways to distance themselves from the Affordable Care Act.
Senate Democrats are flocking to introduce bills they say would preserve Obama's pledge, and White House officials met with House Democrats on Wednesday in an effort to push them away from supporting a similar Republican measure.
The Democrats' response: If you don't want us to vote for the GOP bill, give us something else to support--before Friday's vote.
That's a tall order for the administration. Obama said last week that he had directed his team to look for a way to address the wave of cancellation notices hitting consumers in the individual insurance market. But no solution has been announced, and policy experts say there aren't any easy options.
The House bill, sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., would allow consumers to keep certain health care plans longer than they can under the Affordable Care Act.
A policy analysis from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the bill would undermine the health care law, not help it. But in the midst of such bad publicity, that concern hasn't resonated with rank-and-file Democrats who feel boxed in by Obama.
"We weren't making grandiose claims. He doesn't have to run again, I don't know why he needs to make such grandiose claims. Some of this stuff is just gratuitous rhetoric," Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., told BuzzFeed on Wednesday, referring to Obama's promises that Americans could keep their health plans.
In the Senate, Democrats are rushing to put their stamp on the frustration over canceled insurance policies. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has introduced a more aggressive version of Upton's bill--hers would require insurance companies to keep offering plans, not simply allow them to.
She picked up support from the Left when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., agreed to cosponsor the bill."
read the rest at:
The Democrats own Obamacare 100% and the Republicans need to hold their feet to the fire and make them eat crow. They were so cocky when they passed the POS bill. It appears they are getting a refresher course on what can happen when you screw over the voters. If they do not get their act together and start bucking Obama and the far left, they are going to find that the midterms in 2010 were a cakewalk compared to what 2014 could be.
I and many others have known Obamacare was wrong for this country when it was passed, now we get to see it's failures and will be punished right along with Obama's loyal supporters.
It is small satisfaction to see the Obamacrats sweat a little.
"Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has introduced a more aggressive version of Upton's bill--hers would require insurance companies to keep offering plans, not simply allow them to."
And that is the true mark of a Democrat. How many more mandates will stem from this lousy legislation. The death of freedom, as I noted.
"I think this is the key to the Republican strategy. It's not what's best for the country, but rather how they can take down Obama."
No. That's what the Democrats want you to believe: but it's because Mr. Obama's policies are not good for this country that Republicans oppose them. Remember, even though they wanted to take Mr. Clinton down, they worked with him becuase he was willing to sign on to legislation that was seen as good for the economy, and to abandon polices (such as Hillarycare), that weren't.
"...everyone knew in 2010 that some people wouldn't be able to keep their insurance."
Apparenlty not. Mr. Obama claims it was news to him, as do many of the Democrats who supported the bill.
"Why didn't the GOP introduce a bill amending the law so that all plans could be grandfathered?"
Because it is counter to the concept of Freedom, as is the entire bill. Why alter a bill you oppose just so it can be more palatable? Nor would Mr. Obama have signed any alterations proposed by the Republicans. Besides, why pass an amendment allowing the very thing that was promised when the bill was passed?
Surely a bill making Obama keep his promise would have easily passed the Senate and been signed. -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 7:58 AM
No - it was tried. There were several attempts to block this unmitigated disaster called Obamacare. One of them was to simply delay it's individual implementation for a year - just like Obama did for his business buddies.
But Obama refused to compromise even on that delay and the Senate failed to pass it along strict party lines. You see - there was not, is not and hasn't been any compromise from Obama.
And now the stupid democrats are crying about how bad it is and wanting the very thing than many Republicans have asked for years. The best effect would be to do nothing at this point.
You supported this president and the democrats and Obamacare. You - and they - are responsible for this debacle. 5 MILLION personal insurance policies cancelled, a failed rollout with no end in sight, thousands of employees cut to part time all to insure 30 million (who refuse to sign up) and illegals.
You got what you wanted. Now deal with a bill your friends had to pass before reading it.
A bill passed the House to change the grandfathering rules? -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 8:50 AM
"House GOP's Third Shutdown Offer Would Delay Individual Mandate By One Year" - from the coveted Huffington Post itself:
"With just hours to go before the government shuts down, the office of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed that it will put together a new continuing resolution with amendments attached to it that will delay Obamacare's individual mandate for one year and end the employer healthcare contribution for members of Congress and their staff.
The outcome, of course, will be a rejection by the Senate, as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has insisted that the Senate will not pass a continuing resolution that contains Obamacare provisions.
A plugged-in GOP lobbyist confirmed the contents of the offer, speculating that the goal is to get moderate Democrats on the record supporting the continued existence of the mandate. But at least one of those moderate Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), has said he will oppose a bill that delays the implementation of the individual mandate, even though he himself supports such a delay."
So here we have a democrat senator who now demands a delay but refused to support the delay a month ago even though he was for it?
Where's that "compromise" at?
Wheels told us: they didn't care about what was best for the American people; they only cared about making Obama look bad.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 7:48 AM
Wheels told you no such thing. That is your interpretation of what Wheels said. So it is another of your lies.
What I said was the Democrats own Obamacare 100%.
They stuffed it down American's throat and it is now time to make them pay the price for disregarding the American people. The Democrats had a bullet proof majority if they stuck together and they were bribed, bullied and threatened into doing so. Look what it got us.
Getting rid of representation that pay no attention to their constituents is not bad for American.... it is good for America. We have this lame duck president for the next 3+ years, but he has done enough harm and it is past time to put stop to it.
You along with the Leftists are doing their best to find someone else to blame for this debacle. Are you not getting enough from the teat in Washington already, without Obamacare?
it is now time to make them pay the price
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 9:06 AM
Again, nothing about improving the law or the system...it's about making them "pay the price".
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 9:09 AM
The complete sentence was "They stuffed it down American's throat and it is now time to make them pay the price for disregarding the American people."
Yes, dump the people who stuffed a bad law down our throat and put some people in office who will handle this like Prohibition was handled. We can then start with a clean slate and put something together that will work. The POS we have now is not possible to repair into anything that makes sense.
Does anyone else notice how she tries to twist your words?
The republicans are just as much to blame for people losing their policies as Democrats-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 9:27 AM
I can't believe you said that. Absolutely outrageous. This is OWNED by your president and your party and you - who support them and push their lies on SO daily.
So I'm assuming you agree with me that the answer to my question is "no"? -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 9:00 AM
You answer the question - would delaying the individual mandate have delayed the cancellations? Why wouldn't the democrats compromise?
The GOP has tried in many ways to amend (not just cancel) this mess. And at every turn Obama refused, the democrat senate voted it down or Reid refused to allow a vote. Period.
They are smart to let it play out and fail miserably. Can you not see the benefit? ONLY then will democrats agree to change. Even when democrats want change (See Manchin above) they voted against it for purely partisan reasons. Now that they own it and it's failing - thanks to democrats refusal to address ANY of the problems - they finally want to modify it.
I say, let them eat cake... their partisan, lying ways are "chickens coming home to roost" as Obama's great mentor and pastor said.
"Again, I'm a man."
I do not believe you.
"I'm not twisting your words. You have stated over and over again that you want the President and Democrats to "pay the price"."
Yes I want anyone connected to passing Obamacare against the will of the people to pay a political price for their actions. They stuffed it down our throats and now it is time to make them pay the political price. Move them out and put someone in office who will listen to the people. And it is not someone else's responsibility to try amending a bad law that you have passed. We need a majority in Congress who will do the people's bidding and do with this law what was done with Prohibition. Then start over and listen to what people are saying.
It is interesting to note that on another thread where drug testing was being discussed you seemed to be concerned if anyone was prosecuted, but here where the national interests are at stake you do not believe a politician who will not listen to his constituents should be punished. Freaking unbelievable!
"Again, everyone who paid attention knew in 2010 this would happen."
If this is true, then you have to believe Obama either was not paying attention or has continued to lie to the American people with his sing song rhetoric about keeping your policies and doctors. I find it amusing that the OW's like yourself are finding themselves in a very uncomfortable position of trying to defend this kind of behaviour. But you keep it up sport, you will only look more foolish as time goes on.
"Why do you prefer that over those people making changes that would help people?"
Say what??? Because they allowed themselves to be bullied, threatened and bought to pass a law that people did not want. And did so without even reading it. I know I do not need to repost Nancy Pelosi's dumb statement again.... we have listened to it ad nauseum. We were lied to by Obama when he said a new law would be posted X number of hours (Have forgotten the number)before he signed it.
I do not want to see changes to a failure. Dump it and start over. When you put a cup of salt into a recipe instead of a teaspoon of salt, you are not going to salvage the meal. Throw it out and start over.
"That is, in fact, precisely the responsibility of all elected officials. And it is, in fact, precisely what you are advocating for. However, you'd rather see those currently in office hurt politically."
In this case I see abolishing Obamacare as the duty of politicians. It is a terrible law that is not working and does not need to become another fiasco like the tax code in this country.
And yes, absolutely remove those from office who will not listen to the voice of the people. If you want to call hurting them politically.... then call it that. I prefer to look upon it as firing a bad employee who is hurting the company.
"I have no idea what an "OW" is, but I'm not defending any type of behavior."
I do not believe that either.
But just to make it absolutely clear.... "OW" is an Obama Worshiper.
Obama has placed himself in the position of Dictator. If Congress allows this to go unchallenged... it is shame on Congress.
With that, I am out of here until late evening. Have things to attend to.
BTW, you never did posted this supposed "proof" you have about who I really am...
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 11:00 AM
You're pushing your luck Me'Lange.
Will the millions who had their private Health Insurance cancelled have the opportunity to get them back ?
Anyone like to guess ??
-- Posted by Dissidence. on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 11:35 AM
Not a problem, all Der Fuhrer need do is command the insurance companies call in all of the letters of cancelation and his will, shall be done!
"Because that's what a compromise is."
NO. That is called surrender. Compromise is permissible on policy, but not on principle. If the government has not business doing what it is doing, making it more efficient at doing it is not a viable compromise
"Obama offers fix for canceled plans - Americans may be able to keep their individual insurance plans for one more year"
Surely he wouldn't do this so the problems would occur AFTER the fall election? Surely?
He is very smart in one way. He knows he has two major groups on his side.
1-The low information voter who will believe anything he says. He will delay this a year and those idiots that voted for him twice will run to the polls believing all is fixed until right after the election.
2-The "All-things-Obama" crowd who are the real problem. They know better but don't care because it fits their view of a liberal, socialist utopia. And several of them post right here on SO. They will lie directly through their teeth because it's for Obama.
Imagine - delaying this crap until just after the election. He's done that so many times...
The plan is poison. Making it taste better does not make it less poisonous.
In order for the exchanges to work, offering "affordable" plans, the insurers selling their plans on the network need people leaving their current plans to buy them. That isn't likely to happen if the current plans are still available, so they have to cancel them to force the necessary movement.
The authors of Obamacare knew this, which is why the "You can keep you plan lie was so egregious". And it was not just Mr. Obama's lie, as most of the Senators and the Congressman supporting the bill repeated. Dick Durbin now claims if he'd know it was a lie he wouldn't have told it. Hmmmm. At least he admits it is one.
So now the Democrats have a problem. If they allow people to keep their plans, as promised, their exchanges will likely fail. If they don't permit it, they acknowledge that the cornerstone promise upon which the law was sold was a lie. What to do? Mr. Obama has his usual solution: delay it, postpone it, put it off in the hopes it will go away. Some plan.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 1:26 PM
All this means that a bad law can still be held constitutional. But it is still a bad law.
"Citizens who enroll in Medicaid..."
and are working also pay Medicare taxes.
"...they likely will remain among the nation's uninsured poor..."
Sounds like there is a very simple solution to this that the States involved can implement.
However, the GOP had an opportunity to change it so everyone could have kept their insurance and chose not to.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 12:32 PM
People were still reading to see what's in it at that time.
Whatever bill is proposed, it should be called "The Save The Mid-term Elections for Democrats Act"
I still can't understand how this president has free reign to make law at his whim.
"No, they ruled the law was Constitutional as written, because the "penalty" can be considered a tax."
True, but it has to be the first time I've ever heard of our government imposing a tax on something you don't have rather than something you do.
Perhaps we can pass a non-property tax to encourage more people to buy real estate. The increased demand for real estate would then drive up home prices and help the "general welfare", under that logic.
I'm saying that the reason they didn't change it was because they didn't care about the American people as much as they cared about making the President look bad.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 12:26 PM
This was all boy Wonder and the democrats so don't try to lie and say it was the GOP's fault. The queen of the Democrats said Just sign it first without reading it and they did. Done deal. Your crazy if you think different Mel.
Sounds like there is a very simple solution to this that the States involved can implement.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM
There was a simple solution before but now you are back to square one and you've s****** up the healthcare system in the meantime. Congratulations.
"If that's the way you feel, you agree that the law is best as it's written."
Karl Marx's books are best as written, but they're still wrong.
I agree that the law is so hopelessly flawed in principle and in construction that simply amending it will not fix it. It needs to be scrapped completely.
a liberal socialist plot or a gift to Obama's business buddies? -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 12:30 PM
Both. Liberals ultimate goal is a socialist / marxist (Obama) utopia. If they can buy influence along the way and get businesses to donate to the cause they'll compromise themselves. It's the long term that matters, not the short term.
What you are all forgetting. Obama had promised there would be no new taxes, so Obama and the Democrats fought tooth and toenail to keep the word tax out of Obamacare. It was written as a mandate, pure and simple, and you were penalized if you did not purchase it.
That was the way it was written so Obama could keep his promise of no new tax.
The Democrats are reaping what they sowed.... and the worst part is they cannot even manufacture a good excuse to blame the Republicans. It would be hilarious if it was not so pathetic. Their incompetence is showing in front of the whole world. Time to send Barry off on another apology tour.
Again, everyone who paid attention knew in 2010 this would happen. Boehner and Cantor could have passed a simple bill to allow more plans to be grandfathered. Everyone would have been happy (with that aspect, at least).
Why was that not done?
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 9:27 AM
It would never have passed in the democrat controlled senate. Reid would never have allowed for it to come to a vote. The democrat's priority #2 is to see republicans fail, just as it is the republican's #2 priority to see the democrats fail.
Only the complete shat for brains of the world haven't figured that out yet.
That is just her way of trying to help white wash Obama. Hmmmmm! White washing Obama.... would that make him look like Michael Jackson?
Now hurry and see who can be the first to call me a racist.
Is a racist one who races?
This has been known for 3 years. This could have been changed anytime over the past three years. The only reason not to change it is to make sure Obama didn't keep his promised.
I have no problem with anyone voting to replace an incumbent that they don't feel is representing them. However, I do take issue with you, and the GOP in Washington knowingly allowing something to happen that they could have prevented in order to make sure things were as bad as possible.
Why don't you explain to the rest of dumb@sses just why it was that the democrats and obama knew for 3 years this would happen, yet did nothing to prevent it.
by JOHN NOLTE 14 Nov 2013, 6:45 AM PDT
Dozens of times (that we know of) over his campaign to pass ObamaCare and to win re-election, President Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep the health insurance they like. But that lie has only been replaced with another: the lie that these cancellations will be limited to the 5% of Americans in the individual marketplace -- when the truth is that these cancellations have only just begun.
Over at National Review, in a piece appropriately titled "Lying About Lies," Michael Tanner reports that the same ObamaCare formula currently wiping out the individual market is about to rain hell on the employer-based market. The result will be that tens of millions of policies will be wiped out.
This is a secret that is and always has been hiding in plain sight.
As far back as last March, the media dutifully reported that the CBO reported that these cancellations were coming. So the media knew Obama was lying during the campaign but never said a word to spread this truth -- oh, except to call Mitt Romney a liar for telling the truth.
All these Democrats and members of the elite media now pretending they don't or didn't know... Please.
Just as the media knew Obama was lying about people in the individual market being able to keep their insurance, the media also know that the same apocalypse looms for the employer-based market. It is not conservatives making this estimate, it is the Congressional Budget Office. [emphasis mine]
But the same conditions that are causing the cancellation of individual policies will eventually result in the cancellation of millions of employment-based policies as well. The only reason that hasn't happened yet is that the employer mandate was postponed for a year, so employer plans don't yet have to be ACA-compliant. But they will. Even the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 20 million workers will lose their current employer-sponsored plans. Combine that with those losing individual plans, and more than 30 million Americans cannot keep their current insurance.
ObamaCare's latest trick is the "junk plan hustle." Over and over, we keep hearing about how our White House overlords are doing Americans a favor by canceling the insurance they like and replacing it with "appropriate" health plans. But most of those plans are not junk plans. That is just another lie the White House is telling, and the media are letting them get away with it.
The media know the White House is lying about this junk plan nonsense because the ObamaCare guidelines for what isn't a "junk plan" only includes 2% of the policies currently in existence.
According to HealthPocket, a health-insurance consulting firm, fewer than 2 percent of individual plans on offer today meet all ACA requirements. The most frequent reason for noncompliance was not a failure to cover hospitalization, as the administration has suggested, but not providing pediatric care, including vision and dental care for children. A worthwhile benefit, perhaps, but if you are childless, it's hard to see how lacking such a benefit makes your policy subpar.
This is why other serious think tanks believe that before this nightmare is over, up to 93 million people could lose the insurance Obama promised they could keep.
In order to buy time, Obama, Democrats, and the media are trying to con the American people into believing that the rolling ObamaCare catastrophe is compartmentalized to just 5% of the population. This conspiracy of silence is all about trying to contain through a lie of omission what is a legitimate reason for the public to panic as soon as they realize that ... they are next.
Obama is not sorry for lying. And the media are not sorry for covering up that lie for three years.
The phase we are in now is nothing more than a 2.0 version of that exact same lie.
I had been wondering for some time how many policies could be expected to be canceled when the business mandate goes into effect. Now my questions are answered.
I expect that the calculations are that the 2014 elections will be over by the time most voters realize this.
"However, I do take issue with you, and the GOP in Washington knowingly allowing something to happen that they could have prevented in order to make sure things were as bad as possible."
The Democrats passed the law, as written, and the President signed it. How does it become the Republicans responsibility to fix it. The Democrats were still assuring us that we could keep our plans as late as 2011, so why should we not have taken the authors of the plan at their word.
I made a similar argument regarding the Democrats' efforts to prevent any changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing bubble burst. The difference there was that the Democrats actively sought to prevent any correction of the impending crisis, not merely sitting aside and letting it happen. I take it you were willing to hold them accountable and thus did not vote for any of them in subsequent elections? That would include not promoting one of the obstructionists, Mr. Obama, to higher office, no?
I would suggest the White House buy a few cases of this beer for consumption during Obama's "Beer Summits"..... or maybe while discussing who gets to keep their insurance.
"Because the Republicans take issue with it. Saying "The Democrats did this, so they should take the blame" is immature and petty. This was a known consequence of the law, despite what anyone said to the contrary. The Republicans had no motivation to change it, because they wanted people thought if people were hurt by the law it would improve their chances in future elections."
Perhaps you could tell us..... was this on the November list of Democratic talking points? It is about the silliest notion yet printed on this thread.
"Expecting people who disagree with something to actually do something to change it is a silly notion to you?"
1.) The Republicans in Congress, by someone's count, tried 40 times to repeal this law and were roundly criticized for doing so. Because you may not agree with the method of their trying to change it does not mean they did not try to change what was going to happen.
2.) If you are so smart and so ahead of the curve, why did you not create some national attention to the impending doom and request your Leftist Democratic friends change it?
Expecting people who disagree with something to actually do something to change it is a silly notion to you?
-- Posted by miccheck on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 7:38 AM
They were in the back seat. Its all on you. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Right now is is the insurance thing. Wait until the healthcare part starts.
It's not a tax on everyone, it's only a tax on those who choose to pay it. -- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 1:38 PM
As Charles Krauhthammer said today: "a liberal being someone who doesn't care what you do as long as it's mandatory."
"How does it become the Republicans responsibility to fix it."
How has it become a republican responsibility to do everything possible to avoid a fix?
Are they part of the US Congress, or are they not?
What is the alternative program that the republicans are proposing?
What is the alternative program that the republicans are proposing? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM
The republicans voted to delay the implementation of the individual mandate.
Obama said "NO". Reid said "NO". Even democrats that supported the delay voted "NO" for purely party reasons. And you continue to lie and spin for the party. The worst of America...
There WAS national attention, as I posted earlier (of course, you proudly stated didn't read the article). No one cared.--
Posted by miccheck on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 8:16 AM
To clarify, I do not get my news from the Democratic Underground.
Democrats have been cleaning up republican messes since 1933 and that's a fact.
"Saying "The Democrats did this, so they should take the blame" is immature and petty. This was a known consequence of the law, despite what anyone said to the contrary."
The Repulbicans did try to fix it: by defunding it and by repealing it. The Senate killed those efforts. End of Story. The Democrats wanted it passed, as written. They had time to fix it before they passed it, but they decided to ram it down our throats. It's not the Republicans' fault it turned out badly.
The fact of the matter is, letting people keep their policies will not fix the law, it'll wreck it. In order for the exchange policies to be "affordable", people have to move from their current plans into them. If not, the exchanges will be overloaded with persons with pre-existing conditions, high health costs, and other factors that previously prevented them from buying coverage. If that happens, premiums will rise in accordance with the costs of providing coverage for them. The simple fact is, they need healthy, already covered people moving from their plans to the exchanges. That is why the proposed 'fix' is temporary in nature. It's just a delay.
They knew you couldn't keep your plan, but they didn't expect so many to be dropped all at once, methinks, and they didn't expect so many to be upset about it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM
Scrap the whole POS before the real damage starts. But you have already stated you want single payer so you want it to crash. That way you can get those evil republicans that dis'd you.
I have said before and will repeat it now.
It is my suspicion that Mr. Obama and the democrats wanted 'one payer' insurance but knew the people would not go for it. They proposed Obamacare knowing that it would fail, but at the same time starting the lie that 'conservatives don't care; conservatives do not have an alternative'.
Progressive/liberal organizations are probably at work crafting the plan to 'save healthcare' when Obamacare crashes and burns. Their cure will be a 'one payer' government-controlled system and they will attempt to pin the blame for Obamacare's failure on conservatives and 'evil big insurance companies'. They have already laid the foundation for this argument.
Conservatives need to be prepared with a plan of their own based on the free-market system.
"2.) If you are so smart and so ahead of the curve, why did you not create some national attention to the impending doom and request your Leftist Democratic friends change it?"
I will ask, oh wise one, why YOU could not answer the question above and chose to chastise me because I won't read Media Matters.
I will say it again...... I do not read left wing blogs for my information, nor do I read far right blogs for my information. No matter who they quote in their articles, they will only pick out the information to quote that they want you to hear and keep you in the dark on the balance.
Therefore I chose not to get my information there.
But YOU.... YOU knew that people were going to lose their health plans and their doctors and YOU did nothing. YOU did not plead with YOUR Left Wing-Nut representation to change the law. So that makes YOU responsible.
For my part, I listened to YOUR president.
Democrats have been cleaning up republican messes since 1933 and that's a fact. -- Posted by left turn on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM
Let's see... Truman (D) got us into Korean War... Eisenhower (R) got us out.
Kennedy/Johnson (D) got us into Vietnam... Nixon (R) got us out.
Hmmm... looks like lefty has gone so far left he's come around to right?
"The Repulbicans did try to fix it: by defunding it and by repealing it."
How is it that there was not a single republican that was willing to sit down and say, "This is the almost same as the successful Massachusetts plan. Here are a couple of adjustments that might make it work better, let's work together on a fix."
If you don't know the answer, here it is ....
Because the republicans had no interest in the ACA working. They were more interested in political gain that doing what's best for the nation.
If you don't know the answer, here it is .... -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 5:33 PM
You simply are about all things government. If you don't know the difference between what happened in Massachusetts and Obamacare then I don't think you should be commenting about either here.
You'd like to roll them together and I think you even referenced the Canadian system of health care once.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 6:41 PM
That has never stopped Common in the past.
So, as usual, neither of you knows what really happened.
Obamacare and other big government social programs are based on the mistaken belief that 'we the people' are not capable of providing for our own needs or making the right decisions for ourselves and our families. The premise is that 'we the people' need a paternalistic government to provide a structure within which we are permitted to make minor choices.
This premise denies the idea that we are all created equal. It is based upon the belief that there are certain more 'enlightened' individuals among us who have a better understanding of what we really need. These 'enlightened' individuals rise to the top through our political system.
"Perhaps you could tell us..... was this on the November list of Democratic talking points? It is about the silliest notion yet printed on this thread."
"It's the Republican's fault" has been the mantra for five years now. This simply takes it to the next level of absurdity.
"This is the almost same as the successful Massachusetts plan. Here are a couple of adjustments that might make it work better, let's work together on a fix."
There have been. And the simple fix is to let other states that are inclined to do so emulate the Massachusetts plan. It's not as if Massachusetts has kept the formula secret.
The point is, the states have certain authorities to enact programmes the federal government lacks.
"How has it become a republican responsibility to do everything possible to avoid a fix?
"Are they part of the US Congress, or are they not?"
It was something that Congress should not have attempted in the first place, being beyond federal authority. The Republicans have tried, repeatedly, to fix it by removing it. Are the Democrats not bound by the same Constitution as the Republicans?
"Why didn't the GOP do so?"I
I've answered that, repeatedly. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it hasn't been given. It is not within federal authority to pass this bill, so fixing merely exacerbates the problem. Repealing it is the fix, and they tried to fix it.
"Because the republicans had no interest in the ACA working."
No. It's because they realize that the ACA is beyond the scope and power of the federal government. It's that oath of office thing.
"They were more interested in political gain that doing what's best for the nation."
Actually, that's why the bill got passed in the first place. They had to lie to people to get it passed. If it was so good for the nation, why couldn't they be honest about it?
Yep...all that time wasted and they didn't change a thing about the law. One bill to grandfather all existing plans and no one would have lost their insurance. Why didn't the GOP do so?
-- Posted by miccheck on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 8:14 AM
Why didn't the democrats do so? Knowing that this law was going to cause a sizeable portion of the populace to lose their insurance that they liked and could afford, I can only surmize that the democratic party knowingly and purposely hurt these people. Can you tell us why the dems wanted to hurt those people?
There WAS national attention, as I posted earlier (of course, you proudly stated didn't read the article). No one cared.
-- Posted by miccheck on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 8:16 AM
Did obama and the democratic party care?
How is it that there was not a single republican that was willing to sit down and say, "This is the almost same as the successful Massachusetts plan. Here are a couple of adjustments that might make it work better, let's work together on a fix."
Because the republicans had no interest in the ACA working. They were more interested in political gain that doing what's best for the nation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 5:33 PM
Why was there not a single democrat willing to do so?
"Birth control, keg stands, and moral hazard"
"A Colorado organization managed to produce ads promoting health insurance under the Affordable Care Act that are so goofy that some supporters thought they were a parody produced by over-caffeinated tea partiers. But the ads are more than just an unwitting parody. Some of them also unwittingly illustrate an economic principle that is crucial for understanding the cost of health insurance: moral hazard."
[One of the ads in question show a girl boasting that, thanks to Obamacare's free birth control, she doesn't have to worry about getting the "hot" guy into the sheets. Thanks, De now mocrats, now we can get laid without fear.]
[The second one shows a guy perched on the top of a keg, sucking beer from the nozzle. He points out that, thanks to Obamacare, he doesn't have to worry about falling off and busting his ***, because he's got insurance. Thanks, Democrats now we can get plastered without fear.]
"Contrary to what you might think after reading the ads, "moral hazard" does not mean health insurance is hazardous to your morals.
"Moral hazard refers to an insured party's incentive to take greater risk because the insurer will pay the costs if there is a loss. The two ads above pretty clearly say, "Go ahead and engage in risky behavior, because if there's a cost, your health insurance will take care of it."
"In the health care context, moral hazard can also involve excessive use of health care services because the insurer is paying the bill. "Excessive," in this context, means that the patient uses a service even though its cost exceeds the value to the patient. For example, my Mercatus colleague Maurice McTigue tells me that before New Zealand reformed its health service, a lot of elderly people used to schedule monthly visits to the doctor's office because it was free and provided a good opportunity to socialize with friends and neighbors. Visits dropped significantly after New Zealand's health service instituted a $5 copay for doctor visits -- which suggests that some of these visits were pretty unnecessary even from the patient's perspective!
"Moral hazard can have a big influence on the affordability of health insurance. Moral hazard losses in private insurance plans can equal about 10 percent of spending. Moral hazard losses in Medicare and Medicaid are much higher, equal to 28-41 percent of spending.
"Duke University health care economist Christopher Conover and I examined the eight major regulations rushed into place in 2010 to implement the first wave of Affordable Care Act mandates. The government's analysis accompanying these regulations failed to take moral hazard into account. In other words, federal regulators extended insurance coverage to new classes of people (such as "children" aged 21-26) and required insurance plans to offer new benefits (such as a long list of preventive services), without bothering to figure out how much of the resulting new health care expenditures would be wasted due to moral hazard.
"Is it any wonder that health insurance under the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be less affordable for many people? Makes me want to do a keg stand to forget about it. After all, if I fall down and get hurt, I'm covered!"
I believe it's called "subsidizing stupidity".
"Moral hazard losses in Medicare and Medicaid are much higher, equal to 28-41 percent of spending."
That seems to be an extremely high estimate. And that's all it is, a guess. The paper on the link contained no back-up data. There may be a minor effect, but nothing more. Makes for an academic exercise rather than a independent assessment
I agree that a set co-pay for office visits would be a good idea.
The references for it are included in the link. Here is the data from page 8 of the referenced document:
'Any kind of insurance creates moral hazard--a risk that individuals will engage in
wasteful spending or other behavior because the insurance company is covering part of
the cost. Several of these regulations seek to expand insurance coverage to new services
or individuals. For every dollar of expanded coverage, there unavoidably will be moralhazard
losses, that is, care whose cost exceeds its dollar value to patients. For those on
Medicare, such excess utilization has been estimated to be 28 percent of spending.25 For
the Medicare prescription-drug benefit added in 2003, moral hazard has been roughly
estimated at 41 percent of the incremental increase in spending induced by expanded
coverage.26 Based on the results from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment in 1988,
the equivalent moral-hazard losses for a typical, privately insured individual likely
amount to only 10 percent of spending.27 Another form of moral hazard relates to
individual willingness to engage in preventive activities or health-promoting behavior.
There is some evidence that Medicare coverage reduces prevention and increases
unhealthy behaviors among elderly men;28 this is confirmed in other work showing that
Medicare generates small levels of moral hazard in alcohol consumption, smoking, and
exercise among the elderly.29 The grandfathering rules allow plans to avoid adopting
more costly coverage. Such coverage would have been associated with greater moral
hazard. Therefore, the avoidance of this increase in moral-hazard costs should count as a
benefit of this regulation."
"25 Amy Finkelstein and Robin McKnight, "What Did Medicare Do (and Was It Worth It)?" (NBER Working Paper
Series no. 11609, Cambridge, MA, 2005).
26 Mark V. Pauly, "Medicare Drug Coverage and Moral Hazard," Health Affairs 23, no. 1 (2004): 113--22.
27 Emmet B. Keeler et al., The Demand for Episodes of Medical Treatment in the Health Insurance Experiment
(Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1988).
28 Dave Dhaval and Robert Kaestner, "Health Insurance and Ex Ante Moral Hazard: Evidence from Medicare"
(NBER Working Paper Series no. 12764, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
29 Ahmed W. Khwaja, "The Dynamic Trade-off between Medical Expenditure Insurance, Moral Hazard, and
Mortality Risk: A Life Cycle Analysis of the Effects of Medicare on Individual Incentives and Outcomes" (working
paper, Duke University, Durham, NC, 2005)."
They are hardly the first to point this out - one of the reasons cited for the ever-rising costs, higher than estimated, is the moral hazard issue since the programmes inception. You may recall Nancy Pelosi's statement during the selling of Obamacare that, if you wanted to be an artist or pursue your other dreams but were held back by the need for insurance, not to worry, the government would have your back.
So, yes, the paper did include back-up data. You had to follow the embedded links. The paper specifically stated that the data was found on page 8 of the embedded link.
Medicare patients losing their doctors. This despite assurances they could keep their doctors.
Yes, I can see where this is a problem. Just a matter of human greed, we don't mind who is paying as long as it is not us and we may as well sit in a doctor's office and visit as down at the casino.
And then there is 'Moral Compass' the Democrats seem to have lost theirs and it is now the Republicans responsibility to fix the mess Obama and the Democrats created with Obamacare. And if the Republicans try to fix it, little Adolph rises up with righteous indignation and threatens to veto it before they get started.
Washington DC has gone mad. 2014 is upon us, start examining your candidates now. Watch their every move to see if it is in the interest of the politician or us.... then vote accordingly. Give the Liar in Chief a veto proof majority so that he is forced to work with them in a bi-partisan manner.
"...moral hazard has been roughly estimated at 41 percent of the incremental increase in spending induced by expanded coverage..."
So it's not a 41% increase. It's 41% of the incremental increase, whatever that was. That is what makes these types of speculation suspect.
Playing with numbers to make your assumptions look more impressive or serious, is a fairly common subterfuge.
"It's 41% of the incremental increase, whatever that was. That is what makes these types of speculation suspect."
Medicare Part D was an incremental increase in Medicare spending, which has been incrementally increasing ever since the programme was created with Part D being one of the most recent:
"Medicare has been in operation for over forty years and, during that time, has undergone several changes. Since 1965, the provisions of Medicare have expanded to include benefits for speech, physical, and chiropractic therapy in 1972 (Medicare.gov, 2012). Medicare added the option of payments to health maintenance organizations (Medicare.gov, 2012) in the 1980s. Over the years, Congress expanded Medicare eligibility to younger people who have permanent disabilities and receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments and those who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The association with HMOs begun in the 1980s was formalized under President Clinton in 1997 and in 2003, under President George W. Bush, a Medicare program for covering almost all drugs was passed (and went into effect in 2006)." (From Wikipedia).
Logic should tell you that. You're also attacking the messenger, the message is that having someone else pay the bills tends to increase the bills, because few people seem to feel the need to watch their spending so closely when its not their money they are spending, and are more likely to jump off a bridge when the consequences of doing so are lessened.
I made the analogy of government-funding of peoples' bill to having 'drinks on the house' long ago. If I walk into a bar and say: "Drinks are on me!" I have no recourse if the drinkers shift their drinking patterns from draught beer to Chivas-on-the-Rocks. The government found this to be the case. Now, to prevent that, I could simply say "A round of draft for everyone", thus allowing people to drink whatever they want at their own expense, with me picking up the tab if they choose to drink draught. The government, however, is basically saying "the drinks are on us, but everyone has to drink draught beer".
"Common pointed out that those figures were not correct, because the 41% is on the INCREASE in spending, not on spending."
That assumes that 41% of the initial spending was not also due to moral hazard. Also, since the increase in spending is due to the addition of certain programmes, such as Part D, the authors are saying that up to 41% of Medicare Part D is due to moral hazard. It is not dishonest, particuarly since the included the link, it is merely summarizing the data without going into a lengthy explanation that will detract from the discussioin at hand. Quite common in such studies.
Commonsensematters is attempting to discredit the article by discrediting that particular sentence, even though the link was provided for those wishing to explore it further. The data is accurate, certainly more so than the oft-repeated claimes that "you can keep your insurance plan, period", or the claim that Obamacare would lower premiums by $2,500, yet Commonsensematters sees no problem letting those pass.
Playing with numbers to make your assumptions look more impressive or serious, is a fairly common subterfuge. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM
Here, play with these numbers from a new Reuters story:
"UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors... UNDERFUNDING OF MEDICARE ADVANTAGE plans for the elderly could not be fully offset... doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment."
More promises broken and more lies. Again, I can see why Obama would lie continually. He's a narcissistic product of federal government programs. The scary part is the supporters who know better, know he's lying and then start thread like "MOST can keep their insurance" as if that is what Obama ever said. Or miccheck trying to convince us that medicare advantage people aren't on medicare (see above). If you are on medicare advantage and you lose your coverages then you are a person ON MEDICARE who lost insurance. And now apparently your doctor as well.
"However, the original post (here: http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/... does not make that distinction clear and is misleading the reader. Notes should provide support for interpretations, not tell a different story."
The original post included the link to they data. In pasting the copy, I omitted the sentence identifying the link (which even stated the page on which it was to be found) because Semissourian.com does not support embedded links. It would be meaningless for me to include the sentence "The data can be found here" if clicking on the word "here" does not link you to the data. Instead, you had to follow the main link to the secondary link. It is not a matter of obfuscation, but a matter of living with the limitations of this forum.
But, again, you are attempting to divert from a true discussion of the matter. Commonsensematters and yourself apparently agree that moral hazard raises the costs, but to seek to nit-pick the post in order to draw attention away from that.
Who was behind Obama's lies in markeeting healthcare?
Something for the Leftists to get their denying teeth into.
"If you want to maintain your claim is true, you should find an alternate source."
Not true. I re-examined the source it agrees exactly with what was written. For Medicare, the rate is put at 28%. For the expanded coverage, that rate is put as high as 41%. That is what the article says, and the source data confirms it. Commonsensematters approached it with a jaundiced eye, looking for fault. The error lies in his (and your) interpretation.
"That's why reading is so important."
And I say you and Commonsensematters misread the data.
So if an average income person gets a subsidy to help pay for the Obama specified insurance, is that subsidy considered taxable income?
If you haven't already had reservations about a government run health care system/health insurance system, whatever you would like to call it, with the colossal cluster **** that has taken place in it's roll out... I would like to report some more government efficiency that we get to pay for.
A few weeks back, we received a notice and ballot from the United States Dept of Agriculture regarding the County FSA Committee Election due to the farm we own in Bollinger County. Within a day we received 3 notices/ballots from the same USDA regarding the farm in Lincoln County, one for me, one for the wife and one in the name of the entity that it is titled in. Both farms are titled exactly the same. I supposed we had 3 votes for one and only one for the other. Hardly seemed right.
Today we received 4 notices from the USDA telling us to disregard the ballots and to destroy them as they were incorrect. Your name and address is on the back of the ballot and it is supposed to be a secret ballot.
Oh and stand by, the replacement ballots will be sent out in mid December with a new election date. This is as I understand it a nation wide screwup. Anybody have any idea of what that excess printing and postage might run.
Obamacare web sites were funded with $4.4 BILLION to states that participated in the exchanges. Where did the money go?
California - $910 million
New York - $401 million
Kentucky - $253 million
Oregon - $245 million
Florida, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota and Texas were among a handful of states receiving the least amount of grant money -- $1 million each.
Barack Obama: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."
Spaniard will swear Wheels got some of it☺
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Mon, Nov 18, 2013, at 7:25 PM
Only a small stipend DT.... $25 million. Not much in the scheme of things. But I will share with you, if you don't tell anybody.... especially Ike. ;-)
Whats going to be the big surprise is when the businesses start this mess. This is nothing compared to the people that will lose their healthcare then. But as long as common and Spaniard gets their so called free healthcare....
Part of the problem with Obama... he is intent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends.
Solyndra ring a bell with anyone.
Thanks for cutting and pasting exactly what I posted. You think wrapping it up in the rest of the words make a difference? Are you that naive?
From the man himself on his "clarification" - he realized what he said, it's amazing you can't...
"And I said, well, you can't punish your friends when -- the folks who've been supporting it. Now, I did also say if you're going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word, "opponents" instead of enemies."
"...he is intent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends."
A longtime by Mayor of Chicago one once simply responded to a similar charge by asking, "What do you expect me to do, reward my enemies and punish my friends?"
I kinda thought the function of government was to effectively run the country, not to reward or punish anyone.
That's why the context is important-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 9:18 AM
Your problem is the "context" doesn't change anything. He later corrected himself and changed it from "enemies" to "opponents". He was characterizing anyone that would disagree with policy as an enemy. Period.
As usual - you'll spin anything for Obama. Please don't post here again how you aren't deeply in his pocket.
And today there is a story in the NY Post that the administration faked the unemployment numbers (drop from 8.1% to 7.8%) right before the 2012 election.
You also bought that lie and voted for the man again... Obama makes a liar out of his supporters daily. I can't help you with that - talk to him.
Something to bring you comfort.
Obama believes you should punish your enemies and those enemies are people who don't agree to your policies. Answer this question: If he didn't believe that, why did he say that?
The fact that you're that deep in his pocket doesn't make a tinker's d*** to me. He's made you a liar numerous times. As I said above - I can't help you with that. Take it up with Obama.
"I guess someone should tell them Obama will be president until January 20, 2017.."
Who said he would not? The clock state until the election is held.
PS: When you try to repost someone's link.... try to get it right.
Yes DT, the Democrat's worst fear. The American people could reverse the majority he enjoys in 2014 and they would impeach his sorry ***.
Who said he would not? The clock state until the election is held.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 10:13 AM
In big letters at the top of the page: "Countdown until Obama is OUT OF OFFICE"
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 10:22 AM
In all matters, one needs to not jump to conclusions and read the small print..... then count on your fingers if necessary for the actual time he leaves
I typed slowly so you can understand.
"until Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 7:00:00 AM (San Bernardino time)"
Once again..... when you copy and past someone else's link, it is your responsibility to make sure it works correctly. I am surprised you, being the smartest person on Speak Out and the Threads, do not do that.
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 10:33 AM
Maybe the person who programmed the clock, or who copied someone's program for the clock was one of the the Programmer's on the Obamacare website that works so well.
Still would like to know.....
Once again..... when you copy and past someone else's link, it is your responsibility to make sure it works correctly. I am surprised you, being the smartest person on Speak Out and the Threads, do not do that.
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 10:43 AM
Well, I didn't say it.... here was my post.......
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 9:39 AM
PS: Link doesn't work on this repost.
PPS: Still would like to know.....
Why do you respond to something where you assume someone is making an error, I just pointed out the fine print to you.... but you fail to respond to an error of your own that is pointed out to you but that you will not own.
Even the Pope doesn't claim infallibility on secular matters. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
miccheck: I'm a little disappointed in you to say the least. You keep confusing these right wingers (esp. HWWT) with facts. Please be a little more lenient and understanding with your posts.
It appears that she cannot swallow hard and admit an error on her part.
I just pointed out the fine print to you.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 10:59 AM
And I pointed out the fine print makes the headline wrong. Why are you continuing to try to defend it?
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 11:16 AM
Not defending anything. If your education level does not allow you to calculate the difference, so be it. The whole thing was not my contribution, I just established a link to it for another poster and you poked your beak in.
So I pointed out how you apparently do not know or care enough to check a link that you repost to make sure it works. You are not big enough to acknowledge it.
I am a little on the busy side now, so you have a nice afternoon.... you heah!
Sigh....there's no reason to "check a link" I repost. The only reason to quote previous posts is to make it clear who you are responding to, since the forum set up doesn't make that clear. I'm sorry your life is so worthless that that is a big deal to you.
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 2:54 PM
Mmmmmm! My life is not quite worthless yet. I still work a little and I pay a considerable sum of taxes. I daresay more than you make at a part time job that will not afford you things like health insurance.
But in as much as you saw the necessity to jump in and criticize something that I posted a link to... I felt it necessary to respond to you in kind and point out your shortcomings.... even if you will not admit them. It does take a big person to do so.
So when you start assessing my life as worthless, bear in mind what I posted was response of like kind to your own. So is your life worthless?
mic'check, Elder abuse is a crime. :)
Wheels, Child abuse is a crime. :)
Notice who had to have the last word.
Solar firm linked to Obama donors could be 'next Solyndra,'
"A California-based solar company backed by several Obama supporters has been receiving millions in federal tax credits while losing $322 million since 2008, raising concerns about the company "becoming the next Solyndra."
"Among SolarCity Corp.'s biggest investors is Elon Musk -- the high-profile donor and fundraiser who co-founded PayPal and whose companies SpaceX and electric-car company Tesla Motors have received at least $846 million in loans and startup money from the Obama administration."
Wheels, Some comments are almost as interesting as watching that circle on the screen going round and round. I just figured out my free anti-viris has expired, maybe that's why it does not compute.
Just hope my sense of humor doesn't expire, for that would make some of our Speak Out friends discomputable.
If it makes any difference, I was smart enough to figure out the countdown clock without instructions from another poster.
Another reg buried in Obamacare:
Who knew the Dems want to subsidize those dastardly profit making insurance companies they sought to destroy?
BTW- mic claims again and again to be male. No man I know keeps up the badgering like that. I do believe there is a really PO'd divorcee lurking about. No self respecting man could live with her.
I didn't even look at it closely before posting. I just Googled Obama Clock and took the first one on the list.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 7:19 PM
Fits the pattern
No need to fret wheels. Mic got to the bottom of it...thank God.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 7:43 PM
Yeah, but I daresay if Common or Lefty had directed the link to the Obama Clock to someone, the case would never have been solved.
I guess when you look at it that way it is fortunate that I sent you the link. Else we would never have known there was a flaw in the clock's logic.
Check out Jessica Sanford.... Obama lied again.
Once again I figure the insurance companies see their demise and reckon to clean up good before that single pay system takes over.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 19, 2013, at 8:01 PM
Can't say I blame them.
Sweetie, you started in on me and I asked for an explanation and you kept ignoring me. So I kept reminding you. Go nitpick someone else next time.
The fact that locations with state run insurance exchanges are doing well in implementing the ACA , makes one wonder what happened to those other states where the governors have consistently and habitually claimed that "we governors can get things done and make government work."
Why then are they sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing? Is it perhaps because they were ordered by the "party of no" to allow their citizens to suffer without available health insurance, rather than doing what was best for their states?
In the end, the ACA will work successfully, and all of the whining and complaining will be forgotten.
The most probable long term memory will be people wondering why in the world republican/conservatives made such a big deal out of a program that turned out to be good for the nation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 8:31 AM
Extra... Extra Read All About It!
The Democratic list of talking points for December are out earlier than normal.
The fact that locations with state run insurance exchanges are doing well -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 8:31 AM
Another bald-faced lie. Have you no dignity? It's "all for the man" with you.
Oregon had ZERO sign ups. And as for the rest, they are only enrolling 20% of the targeted amount expected. Doing well? Only in that small mind of yours... want a HuffPo link that would rip your lie to pieces? There are plenty of others.
I think the roll out would have been much different if every state had chosen to participate in the law as originally planned. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 8:38 AM'
Not a lot of logic in that statement. Let's see, the "healthcare.gov" site couldn't even handle the measely load it was given with a few state exchanges.
And you claim it would have been better if all states participated? Another "in-the-tank for Obama" poster. Just think how illogical your statement is. Then ask yourself - "Why did I even say that?"
Your logic is backward. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 9:09 AM
I misread your statement. Thought you meant that it would have been better if everyone used the federal government site.
"....the PPACA was the holy grail..."
Why would anyone think that? The program was designed to get better coverage to more people.
The program was designed to get better coverage to more people. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 9:48 AM
It was never designed for that. It was designed to "insure" 30 million plus and illegals. To pay for that millions of already insured Americans have had their policies cancelled to meet Obamacare rules, many have had their premiums skyrocket - more than doubling in some cases, many have had their deductibles and copays go up and many are now working part time or laid off due to the huge increase companies are facing. Not to mention the fines.
You pushed that talking point in 2010. Give it up. It was wrong then. It's a lie now that the layers of this bill are pealed away.
Before Spaniard chimes in...
"pealed" as in the loud noise that occurs every time we discover more of this glorious failure.
The program was designed to be a big spread the wealth around socialist blending fueled by the stirring of class warfare incited by progressive idealism.
"..."pealed" as in the loud noise..."
We understand that you really meant "peeled" as in removing a layer, and we forgive your error.
".....and we forgive your error."
We? Does this mean it takes more than one to compile your rhetoric?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 10:50 AM
Uh I corrected my own error. And I certainly don't need forgiveness from you. Keep that for Obama. He - and you - need it.
"The fact that locations with state run insurance exchanges are doing well in implementing the ACA..."
Doing well? A total of about 106,000 enrollees nationwide, with 5,000,000 cancellations is "doing well"?
My, how we have lowered our standards.
"The most probable long term memory will be people wondering why in the world republican/conservatives made such a big deal out of a program that turned out to be good for the nation."
Not hard to figure out. They opposed it because it is beyond the scope of federal powers. It may mean little do Democrats, despite their having taken the same oath to uphold the Constitution, but some people do take that 'limitation of pwoers' thing seriously.
ACA will get better as soon as they get it fine tuned like the other government programs. The nice thing is how we the taxpayers will get robbed by doc's who will try to make ends meet since the pay will be horrible. We already see that with medicare and medicaid.
The signing up is a disaster but implication of the medical side is going to get people killed. people will figure out is would have been cheaper to insure the 30 million uninsured instead of draining the swamp. BTW the administration says there will still be 30 million uninsured.
"They opposed it because it is beyond the scope of federal powers."
Then it's clearly a surprise that the republican Supreme Court did not notice it. Was it only republican congressmen that figured this out?
"Doing well? A total of about 106,000 enrollees nationwide, with 5,000,000 cancellations is "doing well"?"
No cancellations as of right now, as the cancellations are supposedly not effective until January.
5 million out of 325 million people is a pretty small percentage. The vast majority of the population is not affected.
My nephew said his family plan (wife and 1 child) goes up $236 a month. This stuff sure is affordable alright. Id like to see Common tell him its for the good of all. It would be fun seeing a liberal get his head stuffed up his ***.
How about your cronies using the healthcare database for community organizing.
Democrats in Congress are reported to be seething mad. They are running scared that this will really erupt when the Employer's grace period given by Obama without authority to do so runs out a month before the 2014 election and as many as 100 million people could get cancellation notices.
They should have thought of that in 2010 when they voted for a poorly thought out law without reading it. They deserve to be punished by the voters.
They didn't read it? Wonder why?
"Then it's clearly a surprise that the republican Supreme Court did not notice it."
When did the Supreme Court become "Republican"?
"Was it only republican congressmen that figured this out?"
No, it was the people that elected them that figured it out. Remember, there was a Democrat majority when it passed, and then there wasn't.
"5 million out of 325 million people is a pretty small percentage. The vast majority of the population is not affected."
The 5 million only represents those who have received cancellation notices so far. It does not include those whose premiums have skyrocketed, or whose plans have been altered without cancellation. It is disingenuous to claim they have not been affected by it simply because they aren't cancelled.
My cost is expected to rise about 46%. But I'm sure Sandra Fluke will send me (and everyone else) a thank you note for her "free" birth control.
There's actually something kind of telling about the free birth control thing, trying to tell peple they can now get s*****d with no cost and no consequence. I see Commonsensematters still believes it.
It also doesn't include the many people getting cut to part-time work because of it. Happens every day and I personally know of 2 companies that have done this.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 10:12 AM
Like most things with you, the comment was above your comprehension.
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 20, 2013, at 10:03 AM
The layers of the bill make a loud ringing noise. -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 12:11 PM
Loud enough to get you to cry about it. You supported this disaster and you own it. Maybe you can explain to your friends and family (doubtful you have much of either) how you foisted this mass cancellation, higher deductibles/copays and higher premiums on them.
Probably wouldn't bother a communist sympathizer and atheist like yourself.
Posting a comment requires free registration: