nonniey

They're not of course there are all kinds of added mandatory procedures to even the Bronze plans.

That the ACA was a Heritage foundation idea is a myth. A mandate was their idea but what was mandated is where the ACA differs significantly (and significantly is an major understatement) from what Heritage proposed. Heritage wanted to mandate only catastrophic coverage.

The Website fiasco clearing up soon is an assumption, and given previous federal government experience, more likely than not a bad assumption. The FBI for example spent half a $billion on a system both hardware and software about 10-15 years ago and then spent 4-5 years trying to get it to work adequately. They ended up scrapping the entire system and starting over. There are other examples and some where more successful than others but overall the majority of software and hardware fieldings were partial to full failures that took significantly more time than 6 months to become functional.

The funny thing is oh yes they will pay for them. I'd bet that this particular mandatory addition will be added to premiums at a higher rate than individuals can aquire presently by paying for it themselves.

My money would be on #1 (Birth Control? Maternity leave etc.).

Examiner "Obamacare is junk insurance.... Now embarrassed by his oft-repeated and false promise that “if you like your health plan you can keep it,” Obama has retreated to a new line of defense: Your old health plan had to be canceled because it was “junk.” There are two problems with this new argument. The first is admittedly anecdotal: Where are the cancellation victims who now stand to pay less for more insurance – or even just the same amount for a better plan? Yet there is no shortage of people who are finding they will now pay more for less coverage under Obamacare – higher deductibles, smaller provider networks, significantly higher premiums – and end up with little more than free birth control to show for it. That's the second and more convincing reason to disbelieve the White House's new defense. If these millions of cancelled plans are “junk,” then why are so many of the Obamacare substitutes so vastly inferior and more expensive? Obamacare is making Robert Laszewski, a respected health insurance expert, lose his top-notch insurance plan, with which he “can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network ... without higher deductibles and co-pays ... Wellness benefits are without a deductible. It covers mental health, drugs, maternity, anything I can think of.” Obamacare offers Laszewski a plan that costs 66 percent more each month, severely restricts his doctor network, and carries a deductible $500 higher than his old plan. So tell me – which plan is “junk?” Such stories abound. At the Daily Beast, David Frum describes in greater detail what he had earlier summed up in one tweet. “I already had a high-deductible plan,” he wrote. “Now I can buy a plan with double the deductible for only $200 a month more.” (My own experience shopping the D.C. exchange produced results similar to Frum's.)...... Washingtonian contributing editor Art Levine, an Obamacare supporter, wrote at the Huffington Post that he's losing his relatively expensive ($530 per month premium) but comprehensive plan. A comparable Obamacare plan will cost him twice as much. “The spin being offered now is that the plans being canceled by and large don't cover mental health or reasonably-priced medications or maternity care,” he writes. “ But that's simply not true, as my plan's benefits indicate.” ...

WSJ "....... We have a huge piece of U.S. economic and social change that debuted a month ago as a program. ...... It was hugely controversial from day one. It took all the political oxygen from the room. It failed to garner even one vote from the opposition when it was passed. It gave rise to a significant opposition movement, the town hall uprisings, which later produced the tea party. It caused unrest. In fact, it seemed not to answer a problem but cause it. I called ObamaCare, at the time of its passage, a catastrophic victory—one won at too great cost, with too much political bloodshed, and at the end what would you get? Barren terrain. A thing not worth fighting for. So the program debuts and it’s a resounding, famous, fantastical flop. The first weeks of the news coverage are about how the websites don’t work, can you believe we paid for this, do you believe they had more than three years and produced this public joke of a program, this embarrassment? But now it’s much more serious. No one’s thinking about the websites. They wish you were thinking about the websites! I bet America hopes the websites never work so they never have to enroll. The problem now is not the delivery system of the program, it’s the program itself. Not the computer screen but what’s inside the program. This is something you can’t get the IT guy in to fix. They said if you liked your insurance you could keep your insurance—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said they would cover everyone who needed it, and instead people who had coverage are losing it—millions of them! They said they would make insurance less expensive—but it’s more expensive! Premium shock, deductible shock. They said don’t worry, your health information will be secure, but instead the whole setup looks like a hacker’s holiday. Bad guys are apparently already going for your private information And now there are reports the insurance companies are taking advantage of the chaos of the program, and its many dislocations, to hike premiums. Meaning the law was written in such a way that insurance companies profit on it. And—I am limiting things to just today’s news – the New York Times reports that while millions may qualify for enough federal subsidies to pay the entire monthly cost of some health-insurance plans, the zero premiums come with some “serious trade-offs.” What serious trade-offs? Most of these plans, called the bronze policies, “require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visit and other benefits like hospital stays.” Huh? I thought the purpose of the law was to help with the cost of doctor visits and hospital stays!........... ObamaCare is a practical, policy and political disaster, a parlay of poisonous P’s. And it is unbelievable – simply unbelievable – that the administration is so proud, so childish, so ideological, so ignorant and so uncaring about the bill’s victims that they refuse to stop, delay, go back, redraw and ease the trauma....." http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/11/04/obamas-catastrophic-victory/

Googled this link there are others that provide more detail. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-the-obamacare-penalty-actually-have-teeth--144740030.html

Actually the majority of accidents would be covered by other types of insurance (ie auto insurance). Now your heart attack example is valid.

What many of you are over looking is that you don't even need to pay the fine/tax. That particular tax can only be collected on through excess in tax payments and the law bars any other penalties. If one always under pays their taxes all they need to do is pay each year minus the healthcare fine what they owe the IRS. And yes they can suddenly sign up if they need the health care for many circumstances but would take a couple of weeks (That said other types of insurance can cover accidents). If I was in the individual market, I'd accept the fine, and never pay it and wait to get sick no matter the age.

I think that is almost certainly the President. You giving up on him?

A Headline fronm The Hill today. "ObamaCare enrollees to join president in Rose Garden" I immediately thought - All of them?

I'm not disputing they would cause casualties, in the event of war they would probably cause several thousand civilian casualties in northern Seoul and the communities south of the DMZ and more if they use WMDs. I was just pointing out they're not 10 feet tall (5'1 actually). Too many think the nK Army would roll over the Americans and annihilate South Korea forgetting that South Korea has an army too. The destruction of 8th Army or 2ID in six hours is just not going to happen.

Every inch plotted??? Tube artillery does have range limitations and most of theirs range less than 25kms Bottomline, nK is just blustering but in the event they aren't they would be stopped before they could get through the defensive lines north of Seoul. (BTW I haven't read any news reports that they have moved their offensive forces into place to conduct a cross border invasion but I have read one that they haven't done this). ---------- Post added April-5th-2013 at 10:04 PM ---------- Where did you read this?? I have first hand knowledge and this most definately is not true.

Transmission Link Broken How common is that? Mechanic wants to charge $230.

Well it does link to an actual PDF copy of the GAO report so are you saying the GAO is not a reliable source? By the Way here is are a couple of quotes from that report. "... the fenderal budget remains on an unsustainable path. .......... Under these assumptions, the long term outlook worsened slightly compared the pre PPACA January 2010 simulation" What they're saying is we have unsustainable spending problems and as bad as medical spending was prior to Obamacare, Obamacare has made it worse.

Look up the word projected in the dictionary. (Is that logical enough for your Asbury?)

Yeah it is still an unpopular program actually I believe it has gotten even more unpopular once the projected healthcare costs exceeded what the US citizens had been paying under no plan.

The Thing. Prequel to the 1982 "The Thing." Pretty much stayed true to that story and it was ok but I guess the premise wasn't as fresh as the 1982 version. Just not enough tension, although I did like how they discovered a new way of proving if someone was human but not who wasn't (ie the Thing). Did leave an unanswered question.