Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Bliz]

I kinda don't understand how you come to this conclusion.   I mean, in order to expand Medicaid, it had to be funded.  We can't pay for the Medicaid program that exists today.   As a Federal Program, Medicaid is not very efficient.   However, the GOP was and is in favor of making Medicaid a State Run Program.   It's not the GOP who is blocking this. 

 

I seem to have accidentally omitted a few words, trying to post from my phone.  Not expanding Medicaid was exceedingly stupid.  It cost us a lot more dollars (broad view) to refuse than it would have to expand.

 

Not setting up a state exchange was contrary to what should be conservative ideals, in the name of poking a finger in Obama's eye. 

[Wrong Direction]

Could you quote me that clause? The one that mandates that insurance companies cancel people's insurance?

 

Let me get this straight.

 

1. Obama passes law saying Insurance plans can only exist under certain conditions.

2. Obama writes regulations defining those conditions.

3. Millions get canceled because their plans don't fit Obama's conditions.

4. The other poster is somehow wrong because he can't cite the line of the law.

 

For those who haven't understood Chipwich's posts in this thread, you should start reading some of the articles out there the last few days. It's becoming increasingly clear that the massive small business market was more or less spared for this year only, and that the vast majority of people getting coverage from a small business will be canceled next year absent a stay from Obama or change in the law.

 

But the law doesn't explicitly cancel those policies, so it's clearly the insurance company's fault.

[Larry]

Let me get this straight.

 

1. Obama passes law saying Insurance plans can only exist under certain conditions.

2. Obama writes regulations defining those conditions.

3. Millions get canceled because their plans don't fit Obama's conditions.

4. The other poster is somehow wrong because he can't cite the line of the law.

 

 

 

Let me get this straight. 

 

1.  Poster makes the claim that "the truth of the matter is that the law was written so that insurance companies would have to cxl plans.".

2.  Second poster asks for support of that claim. 

3.  First poster moves goalposts, says "Insurance plans can only exist under certain conditions.". 

 

I didn't ask you to substantiate a claim of "The ACA mandates that insurance must meet minimum standards".  I'm well aware of that.  (I'm even of the opinion that at least some of the "standards" look a lot like political pandering, to me.) 

 

I asked you to support your claim that the ACA demands that insurance be cancelled.  In fact, your claim that this was the intent of the law.  (At least, that's what "was written so that" looks like, to me.) 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

Larry no one has claimed that the ACA demands that insurance be cancelled

 

I certainly claim they knew it would happen and that ACA is the force behind the cancellations

 

Would they be occurring w/o ACA....YES or NO

[mikered30]

When will self insured companies be targeted?  Seems like they are a loop hole, so to speak. 

[Larry]

Would they be occurring w/o ACA....YES or NO

Would Trayvon Marttin still be alive if Zimmerman didn't follow him?

 

You mean, "what if?" games don't prove that X is the person responsible for Y? 

 

----------

Congress (at various levels) pass regulations all the time. And then people make decisions, based on those regulations.

I was told (decades ago) that Virginia law mandates that auto insurance policies are required, by law, to cover

1) The person named on the policy.

2) That person's immediate family.

3) Any person living with that person.

4) And any person who the insured voluntarily allows to operate the vehicle.

Those mandates didn't demand that auto insurance be cancelled. It demanded that auto insurance must meet those standards.

Every single person being cancelled, today, could keep their existing insurance. All the insurance company has to do, is meet the standards. (Well, or they could have kept the policy the same as it was, before the law went into effect. But the insurance company already decided not to follow that part of the law.)

----------

But, we've moved the goalposts a whole lot of times, since your original claim that started this whole thing.

Your claim that Obama knew all along that people wouldn't be allowed to keep their insurance.

You know. "Obama lied for years".

Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

[twa]

The govt knew, the CBO knew,Obama knew.....why do you think he kept repeating that theme?

 

It's not a word game to the millions losing their old coverage, nor to the millions more to come.

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/11/19/the-5-percent-lie-justice-dept-defends-hhs-in-court-filing-openly-saying-100-million-insured-will-lose-group-coverage/

 

"So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year."

[Larry]

Now, I suspect that yes, the administration has intentionally chosen to adopt really narrow rules of what's allowed to be grandfathered, under the law. 

 

(I believe it, simply because I haven't seen anybody dispute it.  And I'm pretty sure that, if it were untrue, somebody would have disputed it.) 

 

But, there's part of my point you keep pretending to not have seen.  Maybe if I make it bigger. 

 

Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

[twa]

 

Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

 

I cannot prove Obama is not fool...it is too much for even my talents 

 

What part of keep your plan =the ins company complying w/o changing the plan to you?

 

Do you seriously believe he thought ins companies would add the mandated coverage w/o cancelling the old ones?

 

Do you not know that changing the plans to comply removes the grandfather status?

[twa]

When will self insured companies be targeted?  Seems like they are a loop hole, so to speak. 

 

already included in the mandated coverage levels,pre-existing requirements ect, they are excluded from the ins plan payout (80% of premiums to pay claims ect)

though with the employer mandate delay the company itself has some time.

 

 

Cali joins the crowd rejecting the Obama fix....which is why a law is needed instead of Presidential directives(but he probably knows that too)

http://www.latimes.com/business/healthcare/la-fi-mo-covered-california-cancellations-20131121,0,996608.story#axzz2lKJ7aqqd

\

Spurning President Obama’s plan for canceled policies, California's health insurance exchange voted against any extension for about 1 million policyholders in the state.

The five-member board of the exchange voted unanimously to keep its current requirement that insurers terminate most individual policies Dec. 31 because they don't meet all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

The decision ends a weeklong drama over what would happen for policyholders who will lose their existing coverage at year-end and face finding replacement insurance that may cost them substantially more in many instances.

Covered California, the state exchange, considered allowing renewals into 2014 as Obama proposed or a short-term extension through March to give people more time to shop.

But state leaders ultimately rejected those options. They expressed concerns about further confusing consumers and worried that widespread renewals could keep too many healthy customers out of the broader risk pool that will shape future rates.

"We know this transition is difficult and some people will be hurt," said Covered California board member Susan Kennedy. "But delaying the transition won't solve a single problem."

 

I have no clue how that red got in there    

[chipwhich]

Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

 

Wow Larry, even by your own standards I can't believe this is your platform by which you protest.

[sacase]

Now, I suspect that yes, the administration has intentionally chosen to adopt really narrow rules of what's allowed to be grandfathered, under the law. 

 

(I believe it, simply because I haven't seen anybody dispute it.  And I'm pretty sure that, if it were untrue, somebody would have disputed it.) 

 

But, there's part of my point you keep pretending to not have seen.  Maybe if I make it bigger. 

 

Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

 

Umm aren't they cancelling the policies by complying with them?

[Wrong Direction]

 

Those mandates didn't demand that auto insurance be cancelled. It demanded that auto insurance must meet those standards.

.

 

The difference between health and auto is the effect on pricing.

 

The ACA will give small businesses a choice next year. Offer your 1 employee much more expensive insurance which excludes their families, or just don't offer it at all.

 

The choice is obvious for many families. Take the massive subsidies over the huge deductibles and premiums they'd have to accept under a new version of small business insurance.

 

 

To be 100% obvious, I've had some conversations in the last few days that make me wonder if the subsidies and risk corridors can't be rich enough to prop this up over the short run. However, my conclusion from those conversations is that 1) politically, the massive cancellations to come in 2014 will be a political calamity of epic proportions for Ds, if allowed, 2) the massive subsidies it will take to get satisfaction high enough to prop up the bill as written are fiscally unsustainable over time and 3) because of 1 and 2, there will be either another huge delay to the grandfathering provisions next year (e.g., not forcing the cancellation of 50 to 100 million policies) or significant legislative changes. 

 

That last point is the biggest point of ambiguity. I have very little confidence that R's would offer O something he can support, so a delay seems most likely, with 2016 being the election that will determine OCare's fate. 

[Larry]

What part of keep your plan =the ins company complying w/o changing the plan to you?

So, Obama promised that your plan would not change in any way whatsoever?

You mean, other than the changes which your insurance company has already made, right? Cause, if your plan hasn't changed, then it's grandfathered, and therefore exempt from the regulations. But you're going to say that those changes, that your insurance company made, well, they don;t count as violations of "you will be able to keep your plan". But any other changed, well, then, if they happen, then "Obama lied"?

"I hereby promise that, in 2013, your insurance, which will have changed, in ways I cannot predict, and will will have no control over, will not change."

  

 

Do you seriously believe he thought ins companies would add the mandated coverage w/o cancelling the old ones?

Given my personally low opinion of government agencies, and their verbosity, I'm under the impression that every insurance policy sold in Florida is probably subject to thousands of pages of regulations, right now.

And yet, those regulations and mandates don't cause every insurance policy in Florida to be cancelled. The companies simply comply with the regulations.

 

Do you not know that changing the plans to comply removes the grandfather status?

Oh, now, there's a good one.

The insurance companies, which lost their grandfather status, because they changed their policy, (after a law was passed which stated that, if they change their policy, it loses grandfather status), just couldn't change their policy to comply with the regulations, because if they change the policy which they've already changed, they would lose the grandfather status which they've already lost.

You think of that one yourself?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Larry

[Larry]

Umm aren't they cancelling the policies by complying with them?

Having trouble figuring out what you're saying. (Unless it's the same thing twa tried to push, in which case, see above.)

 

----------

 

The ACA will give small businesses a choice next year. Offer your 1 employee much more expensive insurance which excludes their families, or just don't offer it at all.

Really? The ACA mandates that business coverage must exclude families?

Learn something new every day, here in Tailgate.

And here I thought all it said was that any policy, in order to count as being covered under this law, had to meet certain minimum requirements. That the policy, if it didn't cover this or that, had to add coverage.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

So, Obama promised that your plan would not change in any way whatsoever?

 

He promised you could keep your old plan,doctors and providers....but he is just a victim of forces beyond his control,a sightseer on the pathway of life

 

meanwhile in the real world

 

The five-member board of the exchange voted unanimously to keep its current requirement that insurers terminate most individual policies Dec. 31 because they don't meet all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

 

 

buckle up cupcake

add

the next lie...it will reduce prices LOL

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/older-capitol-hill-aides-obamacare-affordable-care-act-prices-health-insurance-100226.html

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.

“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/older-capitol-hill-aides-obamacare-affordable-care-act-prices-health-insurance-100226.html#ixzz2lNlSFeTI

Edited November 22, 2013 by twa

[Larry]

He promised you could keep your old plan,doctors and providers....but he is just a victim of forces beyond his control,a sightseer on the pathway of life

Obama promises that his law won't change your existing policy.

Obama signs a law which states that it does not apply to existing policies.

Before his law even starts to go into effect, employers choose to cut the money they spend on health insurance. (And pocket the money for themselves.)

Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever.

Republicans howl. "Obama did this!"

Before his law even goes into effect, insurance companies raise rates.

Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever.

Republicans howl. "Obama did this!"

Next year, the law still hasn't gone into effect. Some other employers decide to reduce coverage, and pocket the money.

Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever.

Republicans howl. "Obama did this!"

The law still hasn't gone into effect, and insurance companies raise rates again.

Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever.

Republicans howl. "Obama did this!"

After 4-5 years of this, part of his law finally starts to take effect.

The "grandfather clause" in his law is still in full effect. But the insurance companies have chosen to do things which make their plans ineligible for grandfather status. They were told that, if they changed the plans, then they wouldn't be grandfathered, and they chose to do that. (Obama didn't choose that. The insurance companies did.)

 

(Or, in some cases, the decision to change was made by somebody else. The insured chose to change plans. Or their employer chose to change plans. The decision which renders a person's policy unable to be grandfathered could have been made by any of several people, not just by the insurance company. But none of them was Obama.)

Since the insurance companies have chosen to throw away their grandfather status, they have only two choices, instead of three. They can comply with the new law, or they can stop selling that insurance.

The insurance company chooses the second option.

Obama did not make this decision. His law did affect this decision, by forcing the company to make a choice. (More on that, later.)

Republicans howl. "Obama did this!"

In fact, they howl that "He lied when he made that speech, 6 years ago! Obama promised me that my employer would not change my plan, at any time over the next four years! He promised me that employers would not choose to change the plan they offer their employees! He promised me that health insurance would not go up in price during the years before his law went into effect!"

In fact, they go so far as to announce that "His law was written for the purpose of causing all of these other people to make these decisions!"

----------

Now, is it possible for a law, which does not explicitly mandate that insurance be cancelled, to actually be responsible for insurance being cancelled, anyway? Certainly.

Just because a law does not explicitly mandate cancellation, doesn't prove that it didn't cause it.

To pick an intentionally ludicrous example, if Obama passes a law mandating that health insurance companies must provide all insured with a free pony, every year, for the life of the insured, and pay all of the costs associated with said pony(s), and do so without any rate increases, ever, for the life of the insured, . . . .

And a bunch of companies say "I can't comply with that law, and still make money. I'll go out of business, first.", then yeah, Obama's law certainly can be blamed for forcing said companies to make that decision. Even though the law does not actually explicitly mandate that they shut down.

On the other hand, if Obama passes a law mandating that health insurance companies must provide free condoms, . . . .

And Acme Industries decides to cut the amount which the company pays for employee health care by $500 a month (and make the employees pay $500/month, instead), . . . .

Then that does not mean "Obama made my health insurance go up $500 a month!".

 

----------

 

Yeah, it's certainly possible that there's some mandate or other, in ACA, which is so burdensome that it implicitly forces companies to cancel insurance rather than comply with whatever onerous burden it imposes. Even though it doesn't explicitly mandate it.

But, I'm not seeing a single person so much as attempt to make that case.

All I've seen, for years, is "A private individual made a decision to do something, and I blame Obama for it!". Or, lately, the even better one "Obama lied, because he promised me that no private individual would make a decision which affects me!"

 

[Popeman38]

Larry, it is very simple. Obama looked into the camera and told the American people, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period." Well, some people who liked their insurance, did not get to keep it. Since Obama made an absolute statement, he (whether intentionally or unintentionally, lied. Just like the "Read my lips: no new taxes" statement from George HW Bush. He never implemented a new tax, but that line was an albatross around his neck. He got hammered over and over about that statement and how he lied. No matter how you try to state it/spin it/doctor it, there is film from as many as 4 years ago of Obama telling America that his law would not affect them if they liked their insurance. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Larry, it is very simple. Obama looked into the camera and told the American people, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period." Well, some people who liked their insurance, did not get to keep it. Since Obama made an absolute statement, he (whether intentionally or unintentionally, lied. Just like the "Read my lips: no new taxes" statement from George HW Bush. He never implemented a new tax, but that line was an albatross around his neck. He got hammered over and over about that statement and how he lied. No matter how you try to state it/spin it/doctor it, there is film from as many as 4 years ago of Obama telling America that his law would not affect them if they liked their insurance. 

 

Didn't he just fix that though?  I mean, he was wrong, I agree.  But it seems like when it became evident he was wrong, he went about changing that.

 

Is it his fault that private insurance companies now don't want to offer those plans?  They didn't have to re-offer them before Obamacare passed either.  Should the government force insurance companies to offer certain plans?

[twa]

Didn't he just fix that though?  I mean, he was wrong, I agree.  But it seems like when it became evident he was wrong, he went about changing that.

 

Is it his fault that private insurance companies now don't want to offer those plans?  They didn't have to re-offer them before Obamacare passed either.  Should the government force insurance companies to offer certain plans?

 

A fix that is being rejected,will not fix anything and is non-binding is not a fix....it is attempted ass covering

 

it is amusing to watch him crawfish though

 

 

 

Larry's little problem that 1,000 word posts cannot change is that it is now the Dems howling 

[Popeman38]

Didn't he just fix that though?  I mean, he was wrong, I agree.  But it seems like when it became evident he was wrong, he went about changing that.

 

Is it his fault that private insurance companies now don't want to offer those plans?  They didn't have to re-offer them before Obamacare passed either.  Should the government force insurance companies to offer certain plans?

It is not his fault that insurers canceled. It is not his fault that insurers/states are deciding not to accept his proposed fix. And I don't blame him for trying to reform healthcare. It was done in a giant leap vs small steps, but at least he addressed the issue. He gets credit for that, at least from me.

 

However, as a President, when you stand in front of the camera and repeat the same absolute line over and over again and it turns out (as always) the stated absolute isn't exactly absolute after-all, well that falls squarely in his/his teams lap.

[Larry]

Larry, it is very simple. Obama looked into the camera and told the American people, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period." Well, some people who liked their insurance, did not get to keep it.

If "some people who liked their insurance did not get to keep it", because their employer decided to change companies, then did Obama lie?

[Popeman38]

If "some people who liked their insurance did not get to keep it", because their employer decided to change companies, then did Obama lie?

When he added "Period" he made his statement absolute. There were no exceptions. That is a massive failure on his speech writers for allowing that to get through. He should never have been allowed to go on record with an absolute statement. It is now a soundbite, and one he is now back-peddling from and for which he is apologizing. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

EDIT: And I agree with you to a certain extent, but he made his statement absolute.  

Edited November 22, 2013 by Popeman38

[twa]

we are going with the clueless idiot defense?

[Larry]

Question:

If a bill is introduced, today, to grant "grandfather" status to every insurance policy which existed on Nov 1st. (Provided that it doesn't change, after that).

Instead of saying that, to be grandfathered, the policy has to have been unchanged for the last four years, make the "grandfather date", the day the standards went into effect.

Reactions? Hypothetical discussions as to the effects? Chance of such a bill passing? (Chance of the House even allowing a vote on it?)

----------

When he added "Period" he made his statement absolute. There were no exceptions. That is a massive failure on his speech writers for allowing that to get through. He should never have been allowed to go on record with an absolute statement. It is now a soundbite, and one he is now back-peddling from and for which he is apologizing. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

EDIT: And I agree with you to a certain extent, but he made his statement absolute.

So, you're going with "when Obama made that statement, he guaranteed that he would not permit anybody else to make any decisions which affect you?

Did he guarantee that I wouldn't get laid off from work, too? Cause I liked my insurance when I had a job.

Or did he just guarantee that, if I got laid off, my employer (or somebody else) would continue paying for my health insurance, even though I don't work there, any more?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Larry