Obama changes "you can keep it" slogan, makes it seem like we misunderstood him

[BoberFett]

Except we weren't doped. We supported health care reform for ages, and Obama finally got it passed. We supported ending the Bush wars, Obama ended them. More progressive taxation, done. Liberals on SCOTUS, ditto.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that health care has NOT been reformed? The ACA changes nothing about health care.

 

[OutHouse]

First of all, even if it was the tradeoff, tens of millions vs millions is a good one.
But millions are not going to lose care. Switching plans is not same as losing care.

good grief, your denial and spin is really sad.

 

[senseamp]

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that health care has NOT been reformed? The ACA changes nothing about health care.

Nothing?

 

[OutHouse]

The ones who can't otherwise afford it are "magically" going to get a subsidy to pay for Obamacare.

So out of the 5% who have individual coverage now, most will still have coverage. Some of them now have very limited "coverage" that doesn't even pay for things like hospitalization, because there are no standards. They will have REAL coverage.
Plus 15% who have no insurance now, will have it with Obamacare.
So for 15% it's a positive. For 5% it could be a positive or a negative.
So positives outweigh negatives somewhere between 3/1 to 4/0.
Good tradeoff.

this is all free right? you sure do make it sound free.

 

[Matt1970]

Except we weren't doped. We supported health care reform for ages, and Obama finally got it passed. We supported ending the Bush wars, Obama ended them. More progressive taxation, done. Liberals on SCOTUS, ditto.

We were duped. Plain and simple. He promised this and gave us that. The ole' bait and switch. BTW, which war did Obama end? We are still in Afghanistan and we got kicked out of Iraq.

The ones who can't otherwise afford it are "magically" going to get a subsidy to pay for Obamacare.

So out of the 5% who have individual coverage now, most will still have coverage. Some of them now have very limited "coverage" that doesn't even pay for things like hospitalization, because there are no standards. They will have REAL coverage.
Plus 15% who have no insurance now, will have it with Obamacare.
So for 15% it's a positive. For 5% it could be a positive or a negative.
So positives outweigh negatives somewhere between 3/1 to 4/0.
Good tradeoff.

This is EXACTLY how we were duped. We weren't sold on people getting kicked out of their current coverage so they can now get better coverage. A lot of people liked having just catastrophic coverage. Up until now that was their decision and they were told they could keep it. There was never any mention of improving what they decided would be crappy plans. And the subsidies are a sliding scale and you know it. The government kicking in half or even 75% of something someone can't afford because they are barely getting by as it is will still be something they can't afford.

Shoving Obamacare down everyone's throats when they don't want it is Obama telling everyone he knows what's better for them than they do. Now kicking people out of "sub-standard" plans takes that even a step further.

 

[BoberFett]

Nothing?

Correct. Nothing.

 

[sactoking]

Instead of responding to your post, I'd rather let you simply delete it and start again. You can do so after reading this--came out yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%

It's tough to keep track with so many ACA threads going on but this Forbes article was referenced somewhere else as well. In that thread I noted that there are very serious methodology concerns with the underlying Manhattan Institute study. Having reviewed their disclosed methodology and tried to replicate results with source data I cannot endorse the study as even being plausible at this time.

 

[senseamp]

Correct. Nothing.

So what is this thread about?

 

[Jaskalas]

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that health care has NOT been reformed? The ACA changes nothing about health care.

Nothing?

Correct. Nothing.

This forum is better served by substantive posts.

If by "Nothing" you mean "doesn't solve the problems" then sure... but I'd like to know why you think this. Believe it or not there's an audience out there who might appreciate it, but we won't help them if we yield ground to the Democrats by refusing to make logical arguments.

We have to know why we're right and share that knowledge, not just boldly stake claim.

 

[bshole]

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that health care has NOT been reformed? The ACA changes nothing about health care.

Great, then tell the Tea Party to shut the fuck up! They are screwing the entire country up trying to repeal the new Obama laws that "change nothing about health care".

 

[diesbudt]

Let us make a list for Obamacare.

Pros---------

+ Pre-existing conditions can now not be refused coverage!

>>>>However, premiums that have pre-existing conditions covered are much higher than not, and thus most people who wanted pre-existing conditions covered, still can't afford options that cover pre-existing conditions. Ironic no?

+ A small fraction of the country will now be able to afford some kind of health care

>>>>However, they will still be living paycheck to paycheck, and with high deductibles if anything serious were to happen though, it would devastate a lot of people who needed the ACA to get insurance in the first place

Cons----

- On average most to all premiums will go up, especially the middle class that cannot qualify for government help/subs.

- A lot of places that work their employees hourly, have reduced hours below 40 so they do not have to help out on health care costs, now forcing people to make less money per job AND still need insurance help. Places that have employees salaried yet the insurance is not up to par, the company isn't going to pay more/change policies to fix it, rather just dump it and have employees use the ACA

- The "fine" for not having insurance is 100% avoidable for anyone with half a brain when it comes to dealing with taxes. So there really is no pressure if someone wishes to skip out on insurance they can. And no the government cannot make it a tax they collect, because that would actually make the law unconstitutional.



Just a few things I have covered / researched over last year or so interested in how this program will work. It honestly is a horrible program. And no I am not saying we didn't need healthcare reform, what I am saying is that the way they went about it was horrible. Not only does the law suck, but in the end it literally does nothing to change healthcare. And some of that has to go back to the Democrats rushing it through the congress before the republicans could get enough people set to vote on it. If the government took years of putting that law together FROM BOTH SIDES of the isle. If they brought in insurance advisor experts and economists, they could have made a much better plan than this shit hole.

 

[nehalem256]

So what is this thread about?

Government regulation of health insurance. Specifically Obama's lies about whether you could keep the insurance you have.

 

[rudeguy]

Government regulation of health insurance. Specifically Obama's lies about whether you could keep the insurance you have.

no..its just about the lies. We have enough ACA threads.

This is a thread about Obama lying. Then lying about lying. And waiting for him to lie about lying about lying.

 

[FerrelGeek]

And the website to allow people to sign up is a total disaster. $200+M given to a substandard company via a no-bid, no penalty contract that 'just so happens to have' an exec that was a college buddy of Michelle. Another example of The Obama admin's policy of Corny capitalism. The website doesn't even have to match what Amazon and Ebay do and it still farts all over itself.

The dems didn't need a single rep vote to pass the ACA and they still try to blame the reps. The reps are in many ways 'the stupid part', but this isn't their mess. The ACA does virtually nothing to improve healthcare and will in fact make things worse for most Americans.

The people voted. The people are now forced to live with the consequences of their vote.

Let us make a list for Obamacare.

Pros---------

+ Pre-existing conditions can now not be refused coverage!

>>>>However, premiums that have pre-existing conditions covered are much higher than not, and thus most people who wanted pre-existing conditions covered, still can't afford options that cover pre-existing conditions. Ironic no?

+ A small fraction of the country will now be able to afford some kind of health care

>>>>However, they will still be living paycheck to paycheck, and with high deductibles if anything serious were to happen though, it would devastate a lot of people who needed the ACA to get insurance in the first place

Cons----

- On average most to all premiums will go up, especially the middle class that cannot qualify for government help/subs.

- A lot of places that work their employees hourly, have reduced hours below 40 so they do not have to help out on health care costs, now forcing people to make less money per job AND still need insurance help. Places that have employees salaried yet the insurance is not up to par, the company isn't going to pay more/change policies to fix it, rather just dump it and have employees use the ACA

- The "fine" for not having insurance is 100% avoidable for anyone with half a brain when it comes to dealing with taxes. So there really is no pressure if someone wishes to skip out on insurance they can. And no the government cannot make it a tax they collect, because that would actually make the law unconstitutional.



Just a few things I have covered / researched over last year or so interested in how this program will work. It honestly is a horrible program. And no I am not saying we didn't need healthcare reform, what I am saying is that the way they went about it was horrible. Not only does the law suck, but in the end it literally does nothing to change healthcare. And some of that has to go back to the Democrats rushing it through the congress before the republicans could get enough people set to vote on it. If the government took years of putting that law together FROM BOTH SIDES of the isle. If they brought in insurance advisor experts and economists, they could have made a much better plan than this shit hole.

 

[FerrelGeek]

no..its just about the lies. We have enough ACA threads.

This is a thread about Obama lying. Then lying about lying. And waiting for him to lie about lying about lying.

And watching the faithful spin.

 

[rudeguy]

And watching the faithful spin.

I wouldn't even call it spin.

Its more like...suffer. I gave up on the Repubs a long time ago because I couldn't defend the things they were doing and trying to do. Watching someone cling so hard to the Dems and just deny what is right in front of their face is...painful.

In case anyone had any questions, I am anti politicians altogether. Until we clear out these lying, stealing, cheating, vote buying assholes the country will continue to fail. Lets get some people in office who will represent us and not their buddies or the highest bidder. I have been reading too much on the American Revolution and what made the colonists break. We passed that level a long time ago with our current system and I pray that it get fixed before something really bad happens.

 

[Jaskalas]

no..its just about the lies. We have enough ACA threads.

This is a thread about Obama lying. Then lying about lying. And waiting for him to lie about lying about lying.

Will Obama ever, in his lifetime, admit that the ACA was a failure?

Surely after single payer is implemented he'll just say "I could only do so much with those radical Republicans" or even better "They wouldn't let a black man truly help the American people".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Depends on how crappy the "cheap" insurance was in the states where the rates are going up. Seeing how it's going up most in least regulated states, I am going to venture to guess, very. That means people are paying more out of pocket or going bust when things go wrong, which means less disposable income over all. Plus uninsured getting on Medicare (in states that are smart enough to take free money) adds to that.
In general, these federal subsidies are stimulative, so you would expect them to be a net economic positive for states.

Do you understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?

 

[Doppel]

Will Obama ever, in his lifetime, admit that the ACA was a failure?

Surely after single payer is implemented he'll just say "I could only do so much with those radical Republicans" or even better "They wouldn't let a black man truly help the American people".

If it turns into a failure no. He can't even admit he's lying despite overwhelming evidence that proves he did. I understand that. Politicians are assholes and won't admit to lying, but to see his neophytes continue to lie to themselves and us is sad. It's unfortunate that people like that vote and project their false reality on the rest of us by virtue of living near each other.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Losing the current plan is not same as losing your health insurance entirely.
This is a net stimulus because of the federal subsidies.

Losing your current plan means that you no longer have health insurance until a new plan is setup.
That new plan may be at a much higher cost.

Federal subsidies - where does that money come from - the taxpayer. So you take money from one person and hand it over to an insurance company

 

[lupi]

I Hope you weren't expecting this to not Change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Losing your current plan means that you no longer have health insurance until a new plan is setup.
That new plan may be at a much higher cost.

Federal subsidies - where does that money come from - the taxpayer. So you take money from one person and hand it over to an insurance company

I guess this plan hinges on those subsidies. Whether or not they are enough to overcome the unaffordable care.

If the barrier to entry is too high, no one is going to enter to qualify in the first place - right?

 

[senseamp]

Losing your current plan means that you no longer have health insurance until a new plan is setup.
That new plan may be at a much higher cost.

Or at a much lower cost if you have preexisting conditions or get subsidies.

Federal subsidies - where does that money come from - the taxpayer. So you take money from one person and hand it over to an insurance company

And insurance company hands it to doctor, and doctor pays bills and buys things... That's how stimulus works.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, it looks like Obama has realized that trying to explain himself out this mess isn't going to work, so he's going to ignore it and let it fizzle on its own.

So it's up to you Repubs and Tea Partier's to keep waving this flag in the air until your arms drop off as that's about the only thing that's going to result from it. It's not hurting Obama at all, as he's reached the end of his rope politically speaking, and what with the Tea Party successfully alienating more and more voters the more they push their agenda, it doesn't look like the Repub Party is going to be winning back the White House any time soon....well, unless guys like Chris Christie get nominated that is.

Call it a lie, call it wishful thinking, call it BS, call it a lack of foresight and situational awareness, call it not thinking before speaking, call it typical political entrepenureal jargon, call it politispeak.......whatever....it's not going to change anything....at all.

But it sure feels good to unload a barrage on this guy, doesn't it?

 

[cubby1223]

Or at a much lower cost if you have preexisting conditions or get subsidies.


And insurance company hands it to doctor, and doctor pays bills and buys things... That's how stimulus works.

And the person who paid the taxes has less money to buy fewer things, cancelling out that stimulus.

Except in our situation it's a citizen of China who has the less money to buy fewer things, so what the fuck do we care about that person half-way across the world?