Jump to content


Thanks ObamaCare - my cancellation notice came today


  • Please log in to reply
738 replies to this topic

#701 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:33 PM

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?



#702 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,978 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:04 PM

 

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?

 

The overhead rate isn't the most important factor for comparison, IMHO - the demographics of the pool of insured is.  If you have those #s - the comparison would be interesting, especially comparing the "administrative costs" between the two, and noting whether or  not the profit %age took more outta the pie than the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy. 



#703 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:15 PM

 

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?

You are clueless.



#704 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,698 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:46 PM

 

Yeah, a white paper that few on Team Red have read. The ACA would be better with some bipartisan agreement except that the GOP bought into a nullification strategy bent on making the Kenyan a one term President. Now they're stuck with that with even Mitch McConnell getting called soft on dark skinned Presidents.
Health care overhaul was always going to be difficult and complex. Kudos to the Kenyan + Reid + Pelosi for fighting this through. Pelosi knew she'd lose her Speakership. Reid thought he'd lose his majority. Unlike Boehner they used their tine to get something done. Yeah, a public option would be better and Single Payer would be better still. But the ACA, warts and all, is an improvement.


Keep drinking that kool aid. Please tell me how the pros of ACA out weigh the cons? Because the only ones benefiting are the insurance companies. And fuck that BS that Pelosi was falling on her sword for the good of the country. The Arrogant bitch never saw 2010 coming.

 

Have you ever read the forbidden text, the Heritage Foundation white paper, Assuring Affordable Health Care For All Americans? If you read it, you'll turn to salt.

 

Not much happens in DC that Pelosi and Reid don't see coming a mile off.

 

What does that paper have to do with  the incredible pile of shit that was passed as the ACA?

 

I think the link you really should read is the actual white paper.

 

In that paper, the mandated minimum is for Major and Catastrophic insurance.  It does not try to micromanage every aspect of healtcare in the US.  In fact, folks are expected to take care of their own needs for normal day to day healthcare costs like contraception and wellness visits and education.



#705 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:52 PM

And it does it redistribute money from one policyholder to another?



#706 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:20 AM

 

 

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?

You are clueless.

So you admit you are clueless on the overhead rates.  Do you know what percentage of spending goes to the provider?  Medicare vs. for profit?  I've heard 3% vs. 20%.  Your numbers may vary.



#707 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:22 AM

 

 

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?

 

The overhead rate isn't the most important factor for comparison, IMHO - the demographics of the pool of insured is.  If you have those #s - the comparison would be interesting, especially comparing the "administrative costs" between the two, and noting whether or  not the profit %age took more outta the pie than the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy. 

Efficiency is not based on the demographics.  Is based on the amount sucked out of the system to support the payment to provider.  Do you think a government bureaucacy is less efficient than an for profit insurance company on delivery payment to a provider?   Why?



#708 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,978 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:16 PM

 

 

 

Is Medicare inefficient?

 

Medicaid most definitely is, and is more appropriate basis for comparison. 

What's the overhead rate of medicare vs. for profit insurance?

 

The overhead rate isn't the most important factor for comparison, IMHO - the demographics of the pool of insured is.  If you have those #s - the comparison would be interesting, especially comparing the "administrative costs" between the two, and noting whether or  not the profit %age took more outta the pie than the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy. 

Efficiency is not based on the demographics.  Is based on the amount sucked out of the system to support the payment to provider.  Do you think a government bureaucacy is less efficient than an for profit insurance company on delivery payment to a provider?   Why?

 

The demographics of Medicare are elderly, generally higher incidence of consumption users of health care services. The medicaid demographic is comprised of consumers of varying health, ages ranging from birth-65.  Which is the more appropriate comparison - the government system for the former, or the latter? 



#709 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:23 PM

Perhaps you can provide some specific examples of Medicare inefficiencies.

#710 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 06 December 2013 - 08:32 PM

Perhaps you can provide some specific examples of Medicare inefficiencies.

 

Here's a start for you:


Is Medicare More Efficient Than Private Insurance?

 

Let’s begin with a fundamental point that almost everyone tends to ignore. Medicare is not actually managed by the federal government. In most places it is managed by private contractors, including such entities as Cigna and Blue Cross. To argue that Medicare is more efficient is tantamount to arguing that when Blue Cross is called “Medicare” it is more efficient than when it is called “private insurance.” Further, there is nothing particularly special about the way Medicare pays providers. Private insurers tend to use the same billing codes and their payment rates are often pegged as a percentage of Medicare rates.

 

Claim Of Lower Medicare Administrative Costs Is Based On An Incomplete Comparison

 

What about the claim that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2 percent, compared to 10 percent to 15 percent for private insurers? The problem with this comparison is that it includes the cost of marketing and selling insurance as well as the costs of collecting premiums on the private side, but ignores the cost of collecting taxes on the public side. It also ignores the substantial administrative cost that Medicare shifts to the providers of care.

 

Studies by Milliman and others show that when all costs are included, Medicare costs more, not less, to administer. Further, raw numbers show that, using Medicare’s own accounting, its administrative expenses per enrollee are higher than private insurance. They are lower only when expressed as a percentage – but that may be because the average medical expense for a senior is so much higher than the expense for non-seniors. Also, an unpublished ongoing study by Milliman finds that seniors on Medicare use twice the health resource as seniors who are still on private insurance, everything equal.

 

Ironically, many observers think Medicare spends too little on administration, which is one reason for an estimated Medicare fraud loss of one out of every ten dollars of Medicare benefits paid. Private insurers devote more resources to fraud prevention and find it profitable to do so.

 

And there's this:

 

Internal Inefficiencies.  Supporters of government-run health care often claim that Medicare is the most efficient health insurance program in the country, with just 2 to 3 percent administrative overhead.  But that oft-cited admin cost just covers printing the Medicare checks.  It doesn’t cover rent on the building, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions.



#711 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:04 PM

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?



#712 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,066 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:30 PM

It costs 2 or 3 percent of Medicare to just print the checks? Really. That random factoid doesn't strike you as completely bogus? At 15% of the Federal budget of $2.77T, for each of the 49M Medicare beneficiaries that 2% is

 

$2.77T * .15 * .02 / 49 million = $169 worth of printing.

 

Try again.

 

Internal Inefficiencies.  Supporters of government-run health care often claim that Medicare is the most efficient health insurance program in the country, with just 2 to 3 percent administrative overhead.  But that oft-cited admin cost just covers printing the Medicare checks.  It doesn’t cover rent on the building, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions.



#713 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 01:31 PM

Sounds like another Tea Party wacko:

 

 A cancer patient who spoke out against the cancellation of his insurance by ObamaCare now faces an IRS audit he may not live to see, and says he'll pay the fine rather than burden his family.

Bill Elliott knows the meaning of the adage that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes, for he is now staring both in the face.

Like the Tea Party before him, Elliott faces an IRS audit for speaking out against the ObamaCare that canceled his insurance coverage he liked and was promised he could keep.

He appeared recently on Charleston, S.C.'s WQSC and was told by the radio host that "you stood up and spoke out about how ObamaCare screwed over your insurance and probably would kill you, and what's the next thing that happened? You get audited by the IRS. That is not a coincidence."

Elliott responded, "No, it's not."

"I like my doctor. I love my insurance," Elliott told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly last Thursday night. "They were paying just about everything, including medication and medical devices."

Then he got the letter that told him that his cancer was considered "beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition" and his plan was being canceled because of new regulations.

Elliott says he was given the option of a new $1,500-per-month plan, up from the $180 per month or so that he'd been paying.

"Now with ObamaCare, the man that I've got looked into it, they are not going to pay for pharmaceuticals or medical devices. MRI that I had last month before I got canceled was $3,000. Now, if I have to have another one, it costs me out of my pocket $3,000," Elliott told Kelly on Nov. 7.



http://news.investor...m#ixzz2mz4owPU0
 



#714 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:44 PM

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?

 

Medicare fraud - 8-10% (link)

 

Insurance companies average about 3% profit, btw.



#715 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:49 PM

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?

 

Medicare fraud - 8-10% (link)

 

Insurance companies average about 3% profit, btw.

Inefficiencies RD.  We are talking inefficiencies.



#716 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 03:05 PM

 

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?

 

Medicare fraud - 8-10% (link)

 

Insurance companies average about 3% profit, btw.

Inefficiencies RD.  We are talking inefficiencies.

 

And how would you categorize fraud?



#717 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 09 December 2013 - 03:15 PM

 

 

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?

 

Medicare fraud - 8-10% (link)

 

Insurance companies average about 3% profit, btw.

Inefficiencies RD.  We are talking inefficiencies.

 

And how would you categorize fraud?

Illegal activity.  What's the fraud rate of insurance companies?  Are write-offs fraud?  Are they part of the efficiency?  Is any profit an efficiency when it provides zero benefit to the patient?



#718 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 02:54 AM

Please post your cancelation notice.  You can redact any personal information.  But I'd sure like to see how you tie this to Obamacare.  Probably its because you failed to pay your premiums.

Ed, it's really happening.

Trust me. 

Millions more will be without insurance in a few weeks thanks to ObamaCare, are you happy now?



#719 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:08 AM

 

 

 

Not one example of Medicare inefficiencies in your cites.  The second cite is laughable.  So rent, salaries, management, employee health coverage and pensions are not part of the inefficiencies in private health insurance companies?

 

Where is Medicare less efficient?

 

Medicare fraud - 8-10% (link)

 

Insurance companies average about 3% profit, btw.

Inefficiencies RD.  We are talking inefficiencies.

 

And how would you categorize fraud?

Illegal activity.  What's the fraud rate of insurance companies?  Are write-offs fraud?  Are they part of the efficiency?  Is any profit an efficiency when it provides zero benefit to the patient?

 

Did you even bother to hit the link I posted?  Please do that and get back to me with more diversions.



#720 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,416 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 19 December 2013 - 01:51 PM

Please post your cancelation notice.  You can redact any personal information.  But I'd sure like to see how you tie this to Obamacare.  Probably its because you failed to pay your premiums.

Ed, it's really happening.
Trust me. 
Millions more will be without insurance in a few weeks thanks to ObamaCare, are you happy now?
A boy can dream.

#721 Editor

Editor

    Anarchist

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,612 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:18 PM

okay so that's enough shit being flung here. i give you fucks plenty of rope, but then a few twats always prove they are true to their name. keep up the brand of threats, outing and other complete douchefuckery that you know you are doing, and down comes the hammer. 



#722 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 19 December 2013 - 08:36 PM

Damn what did I miss. LOL

Hey Scott Happy Holidays to you and yours.

#723 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 01:14 AM

OOOps cat's out of the bag.

 

131219-rep-stutzman-neatly-sums-up-the-g



#724 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 02:14 AM

Wow - looks like Obamacare is a hands down winner!

By 2025 the website should be fixed and all 9 of his employees should be all set.

Wait - did any of his employees receive company provided health insurance?

Or is it subsidized ObamaCare, paid for by our higher rates?

Need the details, please.



#725 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 02:35 AM

I can smell the fear.



#726 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,698 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 02:43 AM

I can smell the fear.

 

Uhhhh, check your underwear.



#727 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:02 AM

Looks like the White House is doubling down on stupid.
http://www.foxnews.c...care-exemption/

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 Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

#728 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:03 AM

LOL, that wouldn't be fear.



#729 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,684 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:07 AM

Looks like the White House is doubling down on stupid.
http://www.foxnews.c...care-exemption/

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 Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

By what authority?

#730 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:47 AM

LOL, that wouldn't be fear.

 Oh its fear alright 

 Fear that the website still isn't functioning up to standards

Fear that the millions of canceled people will be uninsured come JAN 1st

 

Good question Dog ACA requires minimum coverage's   Now once again Obama is breaking his own law by allowing people to buy substandard plans.  The big question is will the insurance companies play along   Judging by their reaction not likely.



#731 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:51 AM

Looks like the White House is doubling down on stupid.
http://www.foxnews.c...care-exemption/

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 Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

Fucked up beyond belief.



#732 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:52 AM

LOL, I was talking about your fear and the fear the Congressman spoke about.



#733 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 20 December 2013 - 04:08 AM

I agree with the congressman  Very hard to repeal at this stage.  Read up on Prohibition ?   Took years to get that straightened out.   Which makes obamacare the political gift to the GOP that keeps on giving. 



#734 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 04:11 AM

I bet you spend a fortune on lotto tickets.



#735 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 20 December 2013 - 04:14 AM

I bet you spend a fortune on lotto tickets.

Nope never buy them   I do occasionally buy the instant ones  a quick scratch to win. like a McDonalds monopoly game without having to buy the food'



#736 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,770 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 20 December 2013 - 05:00 AM

I kind of thought so.



#737 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 11:56 AM

Looks like the White House is doubling down on stupid.
http://www.foxnews.c...care-exemption/

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 Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

By what authority?

 

Obamacare might as well be a simple lists of guidelines and suggestions that Obama can follow or ignore.

 

I'm glad people who were cancelled will have options, but the arrogance of this President's selective interpretation or simply ignoring parts of "the law of the land" that he doesn't find convenient is setting a really bad precedence.  This is the new Presidency that Obama has created and our Congress has all but endorsed through their own largesse.

 

Passing comprehensive immigration reform under Obama would be a joke.  He'd simply pick and choose what he liked about the law and ignore the parts he didn't. 



#738 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 20 December 2013 - 01:08 PM

If you like your law, you can keep your law.  Unless I feel like changing it.



#739 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,698 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 01:52 PM

 

Looks like the White House is doubling down on stupid.
http://www.foxnews.c...care-exemption/

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 Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

By what authority?

 

Obamacare might as well be a simple lists of guidelines and suggestions that Obama can follow or ignore.

 

I'm glad people who were cancelled will have options, but the arrogance of this President's selective interpretation or simply ignoring parts of "the law of the land" that he doesn't find convenient is setting a really bad precedence.  This is the new Presidency that Obama has created and our Congress has all but endorsed through their own largesse.

 

Passing comprehensive immigration reform under Obama would be a joke.  He'd simply pick and choose what he liked about the law and ignore the parts he didn't. 

 

Reminds me of the old communist joke.

 

Two guys are standing on a corner.  A Rolls-Royce drives by.

 

One of them, a worker proclaims "Come the revolution I will drive a Rolls-Royce like that rich bastard".

 

The other, a party official immediately corrects him "Come the revolution we will kill that rich bastard and you will drive what we tell you to drive".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users