This lady is happy with Obamacare's extra costs so Common can get his so called free insurance.
Obama will probably have her audited by the end of he month.
Tax on the middle class is right.
Who could be happy with a high insurance premium something this law has available. Common is got to realize that this thing is not "free" as he puts it. Nothing free some think everything is free like money grows on the trees just run out in the front yard and start picking off of the tree.
Where is HoneyBear and Mel to defend Obamacare and point out where this lady is wrong about what she is saying?
This is not the savings on insurance he promised but that is nothing new. I thought Obama was going to help the poor and middle class but it looks like he is helping the unions and that 1% evil Wall Street he said he was going to straiten out .
We had no representation in Parliament then and none with our Congress now.
-- Posted by groucho on Sun, Dec 1, 2013, at 9:08 PM
I've noticed that. When they campaign they always agree with what the voters want. When in office, it's all about them, not the voters. It's generally, I am for this or I oppose this, not this is what my constituates expect.
My company chose to drop insurance assistance and join a"group", my costs went from $16.00 monthly to $98.00 monthly. Thanks A C A.
My company chose to drop insurance assistance and join a"group", my costs went from $16.00 monthly to $98.00 monthly. Thanks A C A. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 6:36 AM
It's the tip of the iceberg. There will be many more increases and stories like this to come. Good luck!
"My company chose to drop insurance assistance and join a "group", my costs went from $16.00 monthly to $98.00 monthly. Thanks A C A. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 6:36 AM"
Any idea how much additional profit your "company" makes off of that move?
If employers choose to do this, there's not much anyone can do.
If employers choose to do this, there's not much anyone can do. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 12:37 PM
Maybe you're living in a cave, but ALL businesses are experiencing huge premium increases. I know, you bought the lie that 30 million uninsured and illegals could be covered without increasing costs.
But reality is here Common and you need to accept it. Companies WILL pass on their huge insurance costs to their employees.
This is a way for the insurance companies to raise rates and blame it on Obamacare. They have been raising rates for years and years. Obamacare might not be the best, but at least someone had the guts to address the insurance industry. Blaming Obamacare is total BS.
I chose the $5000.00 out of pocket as I have been reasonably well this year. It's a gamble, could have paid $298.00 monthly but chose to gamble.
"Companies WILL pass on their huge insurance costs to their employees."
"Before , it was who had the best deal , competition . Not now , it's a monopoly."
Someone seems to have lost faith in the free market. State run insurance exchanges are competitive market places, particularly for those states whose governors were astute enough to rake in benefits for their citizens.
Other governors who seem to have buckled under RNC or LHO pressure and deprived their residents of a cheaper, competitive opportunity to purchase insurance.
What happened to those republican governors whose relentless and persistent claim has been that "governors know how to get things done?" Under intense political demands, they completely dropped the ball for their own state residents who would have welcomed better chances to get better insurance.
Other governors who seem to have buckled under RNC or LHO pressure and deprived their residents of a cheaper, competitive opportunity to purchase insurance.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 4:04 PM
Absolutely wrong. Some of the biggest premium increases happened in California which is ruled by democrats and has an exchange.
And speaking of governors - Missouri's is a democrat and we see evidence here of increasing premiums with a democrat governor.
You're wrong on both points. Spin it a different way.
"Who's signature legislation is the PPACA?
DT, if you are that ignorant this far along in the game, then referencing yourself as "dumb as a box of rocks" has been confirmed. I know you try to be one of the cute ones on here with your little childish remarks, but sometimes you over do it. Just so you don't have to look it up. it's Obama's. Anymore stupid comments?
it's Obama's. -- Posted by left turn on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 4:51 PM
And lefty's, and Commons, and micchecks and sugar bears and all the other democrats that have pimped this debacle with spin and voted twice for Obama.
Man that feels good to say. You were told this was a disaster.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 4:51 PM
Joe Palooka's maybe?? Sure couldn't have been Obama... his name is never on anything that doesn't work. No matter how much the Leftists have to lie.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 12:37 PM
Its what you wanted.
"Some of the biggest premium increases..."
Was that two, or ten? What does "some" mean? I gather you don't know. I can more honestly say, "Some of the biggest premium decreases happened in California..."
"San Francisco writer Lisa Buchanan said she and her husband got notices that they'll have to pay almost twice as much for health insurance"
"In Mill Valley, California, retiree Diane Shore got a letter saying her plan is being eliminated and she'll be moved to a new one with higher premiums."
"As many as 700,000 Californians being notified by insurance carriers that their plans don't conform to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, President Barack Obama's signature health-care overhaul. The letters are a surprise to many in California."
There are many many more stories. Google it - "Obamacare California insurance premiums increasing".
So you're wrong - a large democrat state facing huge premium increases under Obamacare.
I guess you've settled on two.
Your powers of exaggeration and embellishment are truly amazing...
Obama will now give insurance companies money to let people keep their policies. Its time to shut Obamacare down!
I guess you've settled on two. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 9:30 PM
Take off your shoes and use your toes: "As many as 700,000 Californians" - two? Your powers of spin for all-things-Obama are truly amazing. Two? Hilarious...
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 9:43 PM
Do you see that as a problem. Hell it's only taxpayer money.
Does he have the authority to do this, or is he going to have to get money allocated from Congress to do it. If so, I think you will start to here about those nasty wepublicans again who are always blocking poor old Barry from getting things done.
"...700,000 Californians being notified by insurance carriers that their plans don't conform..."
That says absolutely nothing about their premiums going up or down. Exactly what I meant about your fantastic powers of exaggeration and embellishment.
Or did you mean to say, "700,000 premiums increased. Period!"
I have come to the conclusion that verbal diarrhea is a direct side effect of **** for brains.
Why weren't those refund checks put into the PPACA for others to use ? Will they start to be ?
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 11:15 PM
If there is to be a refund by the insurance company it should be distributed to the person or persons who paid the premium to begin with, the employer for his portion and the employee for the portion he had withheld from his check. Prorata.
To give it to Obamacare would be a further waste and to give it to those who did not pay in would end up being like the EITC fiasco where you get a tax refund in excess of what you paid in to begin with. That is not a refund, that is welfare.
For what it's worth:
If he lives that long.
Or did you mean to say, "700,000 premiums increased. Period!" -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 10:40 PM
Are you suggesting that the 700,000 who are getting their cancellation notices are going to get better insurance at lest cost? Prove it. Can you not read:
"Middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law."
Your source, townhall.com, is more than a bit suspect, especially if one is seeking unbiased reporting.
Why would anyone believe a site that offers to have Ann Coulter answer questions for you?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM
Just answer the question and quit the deflection. Your focus is on townhall.
Is the story incorrect? Is there anything about that article - or many others - that are incorrect? You still standing by this:
"Other governors who seem to have buckled under RNC or LHO pressure and deprived their residents of a cheaper, competitive opportunity to purchase insurance."
Democrat governors and democrat run states are getting hit hard with large premium increases. I agree that Republican run states are getting hit hard as well. And none of those massive increases have anything to do with state parties.
It's Obamacare. As the president said (but apparently didn't mean) - Period.
"...have anything to do with state parties."
Of course it does. Those states with free market exchanges are doing better.
- - - - - - -
There is nothing there to "prove."
What is "middle" income?
An average of what?
What "several factors" are "tied?"
What was the sample size?
It's more than a little gullible to stand by that kind of a slanted opinion. But what the heck, if the conclusion is one you like, throw it out there.
And the frequently ignored question, how much better is their new covewrage?
Of course it does. Those states with free market exchanges are doing better.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 10:05 AM
There is nothing here proved.
What is "free market exchanges"?
What is "doing better"?
Whose estimate of "doing better"
Doing better than "what"?
What is the sample size?
It's more than a little gullible to believe anything you would say here re: Obamacare. You've been lied to repeatedly by your man and you've been wrong at every turn on this subject. Totally wrong.
And the frequently ignored question - how long are you going to push Obamacare as much better new coverage?
"Buchanan, 53, the San Francisco writer also insured by Blue Shield of California, and her 62-year-old husband, who is covered by Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente, pay a combined $681 in monthly premiums. Their insurers offered comparable plans that would increase their payments to about $1,130 a month".
Thank god for Obamacare. These people are lucky.... oh wait a minute..... $449 more?
Anecdotal evidence is fairly easy to find, especially if you choose to ignore details.
Now there are four examples...
Anecdotal evidence is fairly easy to find. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 10:36 AM
What's even worse than anecdotal evidence? Personal opinion from someone who has been wrong for over 3 years on this:
"Those states with free market exchanges are doing better."-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 10:05 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 10:05 AM
So a guy has pregnancy coverage and free contraceptives? Wow. And only 30% more.
Just look it up for yourself.
Was that two, or ten? What does "some" mean? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 7:52 PM
Just look it up for yourself. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 12:54 PM
I did. Your reference was just conservative spin.
It will be the same. The people that pay their insurance bills. This is just a way for Democrats to control your healthcare. You think it is bad when they sic the IRS on you for speaking out? Just wait until they deny you life saving medical care if you get out of line.
Your reference was just conservative spin.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 1:20 PM
Don't use the word spin. It's sends miccheck into a cerebral pitch.
Common you are the king of spin right next to Carey. The comment about changing Obamacare to Bushcare comes to mind.
We sure will. Check this out.
What , exactly , has changed other then another Federal Government "mandate" on it's citizens ? -- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 9:58 AM
Nothing DT. I remember well Common posting on here that one of the big benefits of Obamacare was that finally - "all will now have to pay".
I pointed out then that was not true and that tax credits and subsidies (taxpayer money) were going to be given to people up to 400% of the federal poverty level. And of course illegals as well.
Common said I was wrong and fought hard. Looks like the reality is he was wrong on Obamacare. Shocker.
Because our healthcare system is set up in such a way that many people didn't have the choice of receiving appropriate healthcare. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 AM
And our car-buying system is set up in such a way that many people can't get appropriate cars.
And our home-buying system is set up in such a way that many people can't get appropriate homes.
There is no constitutional right to cars, homes or health care. Just big government programs that liberals in congress/presidency like to buy votes with taxpayer money.
It's called "personal responsibility" - try it.
"individual mandate" -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:36 AM
A mandate is not personal responsibility. That is a socialist statement if ever I heard one. You are confusing social responsibility with personal responsibility. Most liberals have a problem with that.
The difference is, people don't die because they can't buy a car or house. Having a healthy population is a benefit to everyone. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:36 AM
People do die because they don't have a car or a house. And people with health insurance die as well. Your statement is bizarre.
an official order or commission to do something.
synonyms: instruction, directive, decree, command, order, injunction, edict, charge, commission, bidding, ruling, fiat;
not seeing "personal responsibility" in there anywhere...
What is going to be interesting is Jan 1 and beyond and those thinking they have insurance find out they do not because the central nervous system of this whole scheme does not work. It is not fixed in spite of all the money thrown at it. No one person can be held accountable for the waste.
And then when the doctor's bills start hitting and they find out there is no program in operation at this point to pay them.
Was listening to some talk on this last night.
If little Barry doesn't get his fat pulled out of the fire soon..... he is toast for getting anything done that amounts to anything over the next three years.
Democrats up for election are scared.........
You'll have to find an appropriate word to finish the sentence. Astericks are no longer appropriate for me to use, they offend one of the other posters. Let's see if I get reported for letting you use your imagination.
Don't we live in a wonderfully free country when the Leftist government has to mandate everything we do?
Personal responsibility is what is being mandated. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:54 AM
Then it's not personal. It's a government mandate forcing everyone to buy a product. Nothing personal about it.
I wear my seat belt.... when it looks as if I could be stopped and given a ticket. Otherwise they may stick that law where the sun doesn't shine.
Before that someone gets offended again. There are lots of places the sun doesn't shine
Correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you want everyone to be personally responsible but don't want anyone mandating responsibility. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 12:08 PM
Bingo! It's also called "choice" and "adulthood".
Would it be personal responsibility if the Obama administration mandated that you couldn't post here anymore? Personal responsibility?
How you connect mandates with personal responsibility says volumes on your belief in government control of our personal lives. Scary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you want everyone to be personally responsible but don't want anyone mandating responsibility.
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 12:08 PM
Over and over, I have read mandating responsibility.
That is a silly opinion. You cannot mandate responsibility. You can force someone to do something, but it does not change their personal makeup, that in most cases comes from the environment they grew up in and the training the government has given them in being irresponsible for themselves.
Making you buy somethind does not make you responsible, when you finish writing the check you are still what you were before you wrote the check.
If the government truly had an interest in making people personally responsible they would turn all of those who are capable of tending to their own business over to themselves to manage and fend for. You would see personal responsibility back where it once was in short order.
I typed slowly, I hope you understand it. I think if you read it slowly without a preconceived notion you will be able to comprehend.
Out of the file labeled "Root hog or die!"
Dug is turning into a liberal. He is for "choice". (see above).Can that also be a woman's right to choose?
Dug is turning into a liberal. He is for "choice". (see above).Can that also be a woman's right to choose? -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 12:31 PM
Not if that involves killing another human. So now you're in favor of letting murderers off scot free - because it's their choice?
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 12:39 PM
miccheck, You still beat your wife?
Was there a health care crisis of affordability or availability?
Seems to me the availability was fine, the affordability was what was lacking. The cause is many factors going way back and not without government influence. The term "single payer" has been a misleading factor applauded by those wrongly informed.
The reason we have the most advanced and available medical technology is due mostly to one aspect, profit.
As it evolved to normal for someone else [insurance] to pay the cost there was no reason for providers not to overcharge to recover the losses of those unable to pay and the lawyers ready to sue for the slightest infraction.
Now here comes the idea of curbing the high cost of medical services by forcing everyone to purchase insurance to pay for high cost medical services.
So the government remedy is to restrict the profit of the service providers and put into play a cost plus profit program for the insurers.
Does that sound like a way to increase service and decrease costs?
"...most advanced and available medical technology..."
Would you care to consider the number of teaching hospitals, non-profit research facilities, religious hospitals, the NIH, other government hospitals. The profit motive is clesarly missing.
Nice Webster reference for the word "mandate" dug. I have another definition to add. "Man"date- something mic needs.
"Something that gets more people coverage IS better or something that gets more people coverage IS NOT better."
I thought you guys said it would be better coverage and healthcare would be better.
Healthcare quality will suffer and quantity also. Docs will be in short supply and still all the people who pay will be paying more. Then there will be the free loaders Obama will hand us.
Common, You make a good point but in the the big picture those non profits rely on profits for funding.
I'm pleased that without contradition I can figure you agree in general with my post.
81% are not happy about this thing I have another word for.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 6:35 PM
I kid you not - I spit my toasted ravioli up on that! Thanks!
Gotta be careful,tho. She can "inappropriate" my posts faster than I can hunt and pecker,dug.
"...those non profits rely on profits for funding."
And you do not see the contradiction...
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 9:33 PM
Remember when the teacher would leave the room? There was always the classroom snitch that tattled when the teacher came back in.
This must be common.........
Regret, Surely the senator is as surprised as we are that such language was in there from the beginning.
OJ, I'm wondering how long they can spin this before some of these people know they are full of it?
Regret, Right up to the next elections. I'm Hoping the voters will have another temper tantrum.
You can count on the Dems blaming the failure of Obamacare on the Republicans.
Reid thinks Obamacare is bad too:
"Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges."
And I would swear he thought this was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Why doesn't Reid play the game he was one of the largest supporters of?
Are you on the plan? Beware!
With the government plan you will see the release of your personal information to whomever wants to buy it or used against you if you speak out against the rulers. The private market is held financially accountable for such acts.
Regret, how long were you deprived of oxygen. That is total BS and you know it. You continually lie and I'm beginning to think it's out of stupidity.
Coming from a person that kneels at the alter of the King Obama I figured you would not want to call anyone else a liar since your party has proven they are so many times.
The administration has already proven the fact they will punish their enemies with the IRS and the banking committee. The information will be sold or given away, and I guarantee it.
"...allows the USA Federal Government to create a grand-data base."
Where is this "grand-data base" described, what is its supposed purpose?
To doctors this is just another Medicare/Medicaid program. If the common person knew how they paid they would understand why Docs are avoiding it.
My doc has a sign that says: "We do not give out ANY pain medication prescriptions or samples!" but he said people still asked. He said when he quit taking Medicaid the people coming in don't ask.
Dang Rick, Cadi just wont cut you any slack at all.
"Anymore stupid comments?"
Notice that you were not called "stupid."
It was the comment that was called "stupid." This is a clear difference. With all due respect, there are frequent "stupid" comments on SO, which is not to say that the posters are "stupid."
"...democrats posters always calling others stupid?"
So, therefore, your comment above is thankfully incorrect.
Now it is racist to say Obamacare?
"Y'all know the word that I'm talking about. Obamacare! That's right! I said it and I'm not ashamed, and neither is President Obama!"
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 7:34 PM
Regan, Nixon, Hilary Clinton and now Obama..... all such sensitive people. I guess I didn't realize that. My suggestion for politicians.... if you are so sensitive as to be that easily offended, maybe you need to seek employment in other venues. Maybe the circus would be a good place to start.
And if Obama finds the word Obamacare offensive, I suggest he better get used to it, because I am pretty sure he is going to hear a lot more of it.
Regan, Nixon, Hilary Clinton and now Obama..... all such sensitive people. I guess I didn't realize that. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 8:20 PM
Bill Clinton is sensitive for sure. After the Obama campaign said he was racist in the 2008 election. Imagine that - the democrats self-proclaimed "first black president" Bill Clinton being accused of being racist by the Obama bunch.
"...these cost to the consumer as they do with any other expense."
Think maybe that this was the reason for state exchanges, to insert free market competion to keep prices down.
Too bad the Missouri Congress wasn't able to figure this out. Instead of having numerous companies competing, we have three.
"Instead of having numerous companies competing, we have three."
We had more than three companies competing without Obamacare. What happened?
But it is not Missouri's fault. They did not set out on this vast project with half vast ideas and planning.
Simply put the insurance company has $0.20 out of every dollar to pay all expenses including salaries and still have a profit left over. It is mandated commerce. An arbitrary model established by politicians.
Now if we could get Washington to show us an 80% benefit to taxpayers while only costing us 20% in salaries and overhead, we would have something going for us.
Try checking the admin percent for Medicare...
"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 9:32 AM
So sayeth the government! I would prefer an independant audit of that before accepting it as fact.
That's a possibility, but it is historically unlikely. Prior to the change in the law, most insurance companies had less than 80% of premiums paid to benefits.
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 9:15 AM
Do you have the numbers?
Are you willing to pay for it?
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 10:41 AM
Personally? Don't be an idiot. But the American people do deserve to know if what their government is telling them is the truth. Large corporations have to have their books verified by outside auditors.... government does not take the companies numbers verbatim. Wonder why not?
Would you be willing to swear to it that the governments numbers are all inclusive and factual? Won't cost you anything to be truthful.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but have to wonder why you want it to happen but are not willing to foot the bill.
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 1:05 PM
I am willing to foot my part of the bill. But the suggestion that one taxpayer can afford to fund an audit of the Federal Government is idiotic at best. And that does appear to be what you are suggesting.
Now since you want to be repetitious, I will inquire of you again..... Would you be willing to swear to it that the governments numbers are all inclusive and factual? Won't cost you anything to be truthful. And you did avoid answering the question.
Game's over.... no response to my question, no 3rd answer to yours.
I can't see them voting for a audit. Everybody would be voted out when we found out the results. I don't know if the public can force one.
Since the military can not be audited I'm sure many things would be pigeon holed into the military side or stamped top secret.
It would show the waste that goes on with big government. That's the reason most things should be handled on a state level. But of course many of the states cant handle their finance as well as good old backwoods Missouri.
"If you don't want to be accused of only be here to stir up discord, how about you start by responding to what I say rather than to who you think I am?"
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 4:34 PM
I am no more required to respond to you than you are to me. Which you apparently will not respond to my question.
I see I am going to have to explain it very simply for someone with low reading comprehension.
"Are you willing to pay for it?"
My First Response:
"Personally? Don't be an idiot."
Did you get that.... was it clear to you?
Your 2nd Question: (I suppose it is a question.)
"So you think it should be done, but are not willing to pay for it.
Do you think these auditors should volunteer their time?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but have to wonder why you want it to happen but are not willing to foot the bill."
"I am willing to foot my part of the bill. But the suggestion that one taxpayer can afford to fund an audit of the Federal Government is idiotic at best. And that does appear to be what you are suggesting."
Surely you can understand what I said here if you will just read it slowly, and let it sink in.
There is nothing inconsistent in those two responses. The only inconsistency is your refusal to understand what I said and your failed efforts to turn it into something I did not say. Which in my mind was your game from the beginning.
So why not take your own advice and quit trying to be disruptive on the board. Nobody required your input on this to begin with.
South Carolina voting on bill to end Obamacare in state
Pay no attention to Lefty... he can't help it, he was born that way!
I was a pretty good basketball player but had trouble going to the right.
Better Check out and see if the drug you can tolerate is going to be in the Obamacare formularies. Also you will not be able to apply the cost of these drugs to your out of pocket expense.
For those that have not been though the gauntlet of finding a drug you can physically handle will not understand this. Something as simple as blood pressure medicine can have horrible side effects.
"Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies -- just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That's how they're paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception and screening tests to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers."
The next step. Another new law proposed. As looney as Washington is, they might go for it.
Obama received the lie of the year award from PolitiFact: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'.
Regret, if Obama came in first you surely came in second. I think I saw in a poll yesterday Regret was Pinnochio of the year.
I think I saw in a poll yesterday Regret was Pinnochio of the year.
Got a link?
"The Obama administration, in an 11th-hour change just before the holiday break,announced a major exemption in ObamaCare that will let people who lost coverage and are struggling to get a new plan sign up for bare-bones policies. The move was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability."
"This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."
Comrade Obama making another executive order without a clue on it's impact. Just another presidential dictate from a guy who doesn't know what he's doing. Just 3 more years of this worthless Acorn attorney.
Hang on gentlemen. Common will be along presently to explain the changes to you and how they will enhance the overall experience that Obamacare is bringing to the nation.
I've yet to understand about all these changes. Are these executive orders or rule changes by the czars?
Old John, you will just have to be patient until Common explains it to us.
This so called health care legislation was passed by congress an made into law with the president's signature. The law of the land was what it was reffered to by our liberal friends. Now that it doesn't pan out just right the president is quoted nearly every day announcing a new rule or change.
Someone explain to me where the president has constitutional authority to write law.
Sorry guys, it appears no explanation is forthcoming from Common.... perhaps even he is confused by this quick move before boarding the plane for Christmas Vacation.
I am so disappointed in Common, he is letting his glorious leader down.
So this is how Obama is going to pay for it.....
Huge Medicare cuts to begin. The Obama administration will implement the largest cuts to medicare allowable by law. The story:
"An estimated 3.5 million poor and ill homebound senior citizens will wake up on New Year's Day to discover ObamaCare has slashed funding for their home health care program. On January 1st, the Obama Administration will sharply cut Medicare funding for home healthcare services."
Totaling a whopping 14 percent between 2014 and 2017, this cut is the maximum allowable under the ObamaCare law. The Administration had the discretion to cut less, or even to make no cuts at all. But they decided to impose the deepest cut made possible by the Affordable Care Act . And in doing so, they will shift billions of dollars from Medicare to ObamaCare."
Where are the Obamacare defenders? The liars that told us "vote for Obama - he will give us all free health care and fight the greedy corporations.... blah, blah, blah".
The cowards are hiding. Predictable.
I feel like my Momma now. I told you so.....
-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 8:13 AM
Witching and moaning about how Medicare doomed and broken. Yet you still witch if they find ways to cut cost. Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.
"And in doing so, they will shift billions of dollars from Medicare to ObamaCare"
Those on Medicaid meds should have a mandatory random pill count . It would help slow down the 200% street value profit , help slow down the pill for cash black market with no taxes....-- Posted by ~Rick on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 10:52 PM
Says those who want less government. *rolling eyes*
Suggest all those with previous convictions for Unlawful Use Of Drug Paraphernalia be first in line.
I feel like my Momma now. I told you so.....
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM
If I feel the need to use that phrase I will twist the knife a little and drag it out... kinda like.... I don't want to tell you, I told you so, but I'm going to have to tell you anyway... I told you so!
Says those who want less government. *rolling eyes*
-- Posted by herren on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 9:37 AM
Not hard to tell where this sock puppet hails from.
HWWT, Dude, there are medical treatments for those who are hallucinating sock puppets. Seek help soon.
I don't know who told you that, nor what it has to do with the excerpt you posted... -- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 1:37 PM
The ACA act is more than a year old. Go back read historical posts if you want some perspective. We had big discussions about the 1/2 TRILLION cuts to medicare in Obamacare. Liberals / Obama lovers on here told us we were wrong and liars.
Common, et al, pushed the Obama lies that we knew were untrue. Low and behold as Obamacare is implemented you can't find any of these huge Obamacare supporters.
Are you one?
False. -- Posted by herren on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 9:29 AM
True. Prove it wrong.
False from an Obama lover doesn't count much today. Even Obama is dismantling Obamacare. Aren't you upset at him?
I'd take a sock puppet ID if I were an Obama supporter.
When Obamacare kicks in most those uniformed Obama voters are gonna be mad when they wake up and see it is going to cost them big time.
I'm waiting on my uniform right now.
-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 4:12 PM
Not an original idea Dug.... it is obvious it is going on, from the flurry of new names.
All of this talk about who is allowed to get married etc.
What business does the state have regulating marriage at all.... other than to collect a license fee.
If man wants to marry his pet goat, who cares and if a woman wants to marry her German Shepard.... let her have at it. At least they are not going to be bringing children in the world for the rest of us to feed.
At least they are not going to be bringing children in the world for the rest of us to feed.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 7:33 PM
Amen brother wheels!!!!
"Avik Roy offers an important argument, contending that Republicans could and should enact sweeping reforms that would dramatically improve America's health-care system . . . but with the catch that the Right should agree with the Left that everyone should have health insurance.
"It's a big concession to propose, but the alternatives he cites, from Switzerland and Singapore, are pretty intriguing:
Switzerland has a system of universal, subsidized private insurance exchanges that look much like Paul Ryan's Medicare-reform plan and Obamacare's exchanges. Unlike Obamacare, however, the Swiss exchanges actually work. In Switzerland, there are no public options or government insurers like Medicare or Medicaid. Everyone is in the private system. The poor get a premium support subsidy that covers the cost of their premium; as one moves up the income ladder, the size of the subsidy decreases. Wealthy and upper-middle-class Swiss get no subsidy at all.
"The Swiss system is no libertarian utopia; its exchanges contain some of the unattractive features of Obamacare, like an individual mandate and excessively broad benefit requirements. Nonetheless, as a percentage of GDP, Swiss public spending on health coverage is 60 percent lower than America's. If we had the Swiss system, we wouldn't have a budget deficit and we'd have no single-payer health entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.
"From a fiscal standpoint, Singapore is far better than even Switzerland. Singapore's public spending on health care as a fraction of GDP is 86 percent lower than America's. That's because every Singaporean has a health-savings account, which is used to pay for non-catastrophic medical expenses. Singaporeans pay a payroll tax, which is then redirected into the HSA in a manner similar to our Social Security system. But unlike Social Security, the Singaporean HSA is controlled by the individual and supplemented with a government-sponsored catastrophic-coverage plan.
"The bottom line is that Singapore and Switzerland spend far less on health care than we do and yet achieve all of the things that Americans value about their own system: choice, technology, and physician access. Conservatives have long considered universal coverage as a wacky left-wing goal. But these two countries prove that it's possible to cover everyone in a way that would substantially shrink our government's health spending and place individuals back in charge of their own health care dollars.
"His key conclusion:
To credibly advance this approach, conservatives must make one change to their stance: They have to agree that universal coverage is a morally worthy goal. No conservative politicians oppose universal public education; instead, we champion reforms that improve the quality of public education that poor Americans receive. Ensuring that every American has access to quality health coverage is a legitimate goal of public policy, and it can be done in a way that expands freedom and reduces the burden on American taxpayers.
The first question that comes to mind is whether these ideas can work on a much larger scale. Singapore's got about 5.4 million people and is about four times as large as Washington, D.C. Switzerland has about 8 million people and is somewhere between Maryland and West Virginia in terms of square miles.
I've no problem with acknowledging it as a laudable goal, but not as a right.
If the concern is, as they say, that the systems in Switzerland and Singapore may not work on larger systems then the answer (as our founders intended) is to enact it on smaller scales: say at the state level (re: Massachusetts). This would allow each state to fine tune the model as its electorate, through their legislators, see fit.
The states should also have the option to "opt out", if they think their state can be better served without such a plan. The answer there is to simply not offer them a federal 'back up plan' if they do so, one which simply makes the poor wards of the federal government rather than wards of the state. States' rights come with states' responsibilities, and those responsibilities are not to be cast off onto the rest of the states simply because they want to have their cake even as they eat it.
The states should also have the option to "opt out", if they think their state can be better served without such a plan.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 21, 2014, at 9:51 AM
An important point. Many site the Canadian system as one of success and "why can't we do that". The problem is, we didn't do that.
In Canada the provinces (states) have many ways to implement the federal program and coverage/rates/etc. vary by province.
The one-size-fits-all approach of Obamacare is a problem. It's as if they assume they know everything about healthcare and the industry/professionals in it don't have a clue. So they mandate a program that no one read.
Many site the Canadian system-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 21, 2014, at 10:04 AM
Should be "cite", not site... before the word police focus on that alone.
Posting a comment requires free registration: