|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 25, 2013 11:53:44 GMT
I have a question. The original OP is about the number of people in Florida that will lose insurance for several reasons such as their existing policy didn't meet the minimum requirements of "Obamacare" or that the insurance companies decided to pull out of the state for financial reasons or whatever.
Does anyone know how many people in Florida are going to "fall through the crack" created by the Supreme Court decision that the states didn't have to expand Medicaid even though the federal government is going to initially pay 100% of the costs. These are people that don't earn enough money to qualify for a subsidy and earn too much to quality for Medicaid under the existing provisions. It was not anticipated that this "crack" would exist and was not a problem created by the law but instead was created by the Supreme Court ruling on the law.
These people are far worse off than those that already had insurance and can obtain subsidized insurance under "Obamacare" so what about them? Anyone know how many of them there are? We know nationally the number is over 5 million but I don't have any numbers on just Florida.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 25, 2013 16:59:25 GMT
Just read that in New York, they've placed almost 14,000 already onto Medicaid rolls.......after they tried to sign up for Obamacare, and were sent over to Medicaid to get their free insurance....paid for by taxpayers! And that's just in the first 3 weeks. So, I suspect a LOT of people are going to be getting their healthcare free now.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 25, 2013 17:01:48 GMT
I don't know why some people say, "Obamacare is here to stay" and must be fixed. Yes, it's law now....but it's apparent now it was an ill-conceived law and such laws have often gotten repealed.
Repeal and replace with something less massive and without the federal gov't running it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 26, 2013 14:54:27 GMT
I don't know why some people say, "Obamacare is here to stay" and must be fixed. Yes, it's law now....but it's apparent now it was an ill-conceived law and such laws have often gotten repealed.
Repeal and replace with something less massive and without the federal gov't running it.
In 1993 the Health Security Act was proposed to address the identical problem that "Obamacare" addressed in 2009. The Health Security Act was a bad plan (worse than Obamacare as I recall) so Congress rejected it and it never became law. The argument used against it was let's provide a better plan to address the problem. The problem remained and what action did the Congress take after that to address the problem? Not a damn thing for over 15 years.
So while it's easy to say "Repeal and Replace with something less massive and without the federal gov't running it" when will it be replace and with what? For over 15 years the Congress sat on it's ass and did nothing.
Republicans are not proposing "Repeal and Replace Obamacare with something better" because they haven't offered a single proposal that would be better. Instead Republicans are proposing "Repeal Obamacare so Congress can sit on it's ass and do nothing just like we did before."
If "Obamacare" is repealed then nothing will be created to replace it unless, once again, the Democrats managed to take control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Virtually every American with 1/2 a living brain cell knows this because we know that Republicans don't want to address the problem, period! They're flat out lying when they state that they would address this problem if "Obamacare" was repealed and history proves that they're lying. They had 15 years to make a proposal that would have been far better than "Obamacare" and they didn't. Why on Earth would we believe them today?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 26, 2013 15:10:30 GMT
Just read that in New York, they've placed almost 14,000 already onto Medicaid rolls.......after they tried to sign up for Obamacare, and were sent over to Medicaid to get their free insurance....paid for by taxpayers! And that's just in the first 3 weeks. So, I suspect a LOT of people are going to be getting their healthcare free now.
If a person attempts to sign up for private health insurance on the exchange but their income level is below the minimum for the subsidies then they're covered by the expansion of Medicaid. The website will advise them of this which is why they signed up for Medicaid instead. These people actually fall into a financial situation where their income is so low that the federal subsidy for the private insurance would have to be 100% of the cost so they're covered "for free" (no personal cost) under Medicaid. At the same time their income was too high for the prior Medicaid medical benefits which left them without any means of obtaining health care services.
Basically the expansion of Medicaid was so it would meet it's original Mission Statement from the 1960's to provide health services for those that couldn't afford them that was never adequately funded by the co-funding of the federal/state partnership.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 26, 2013 17:22:22 GMT
I don't know why some people say, "Obamacare is here to stay" and must be fixed. Yes, it's law now....but it's apparent now it was an ill-conceived law and such laws have often gotten repealed.
Repeal and replace with something less massive and without the federal gov't running it.
In 1993 the Health Security Act was proposed to address the identical problem that "Obamacare" addressed in 2009. The Health Security Act was a bad plan (worse than Obamacare as I recall) so Congress rejected it and it never became law. The argument used against it was let's provide a better plan to address the problem. The problem remained and what action did the Congress take after that to address the problem? Not a damn thing for over 15 years.
So while it's easy to say "Repeal and Replace with something less massive and without the federal gov't running it" when will it be replace and with what? For over 15 years the Congress sat on it's ass and did nothing.
Republicans are not proposing "Repeal and Replace Obamacare with something better" because they haven't offered a single proposal that would be better. Instead Republicans are proposing "Repeal Obamacare so Congress can sit on it's ass and do nothing just like we did before."
If "Obamacare" is repealed then nothing will be created to replace it unless, once again, the Democrats managed to take control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Virtually every American with 1/2 a living brain cell knows this because we know that Republicans don't want to address the problem, period! They're flat out lying when they state that they would address this problem if "Obamacare" was repealed and history proves that they're lying. They had 15 years to make a proposal that would have been far better than "Obamacare" and they didn't. Why on Earth would we believe them today?
There's two reasons the Dems were able to do it.....
1) mentioned above.....they were willing to pass a totally 100% partisan bill against the wishes of 1/2 the nation and with totally ignoring Republicans.....and those who were against a massive federally-run government healthcare program.
2) They got the kind of majorities they had because they were hell-bent on electing a president BECAUSE he was black and they wanted a first black president, no matter how little he knew about running a country. He had a "rock star" following of young people who couldn't even tell you what the capitol of the country is if they were asked. However, he could croon a little and he hangs out with Jayzee.....all the important qualities of being president.........  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 27, 2013 9:06:41 GMT
So, you actually believe that sometime in the last 15 years that Republicans could have pushed a health care plan without Democrats blocking it?
If a Republican submitted proposal that ensured that ALL Americans would receive quality health care I seriously doubt that it would have been opposed by Democrats. There is always the caveat that if the bill contained unrelated proposals that were objectionable, that legislators from both parties are notorious for doing, the other provisions might have prevented Democrats from endorsing it but if it limited to just ensuring health care for all Americans it would have been supported.
Former President Bush did make proposals many of which were good proposals related to health care and making insurance more affordable. He knew the problem existed and made a limited effort to address affordability for many Americans.
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/an-examination-of-the-bush-health-care-agenda
The problem is that with all that Bush proposed tens of millions of Americans still wouldn't have had access to medical services because they couldn't afford the insurance, would choose not to purchase health insurance, or didn't qualify for Medicaid. That was the problem because the elephant in the living room were those that simply couldn't afford insurance and didn't qualify for Medicaid.
Is making health insurance more affordable a good thing? Absolutely but it doesn't address anyone that still can't afford the insurance or that would choose not to purchase it. With all that Bush proposed it would have still left over 30 million Americans uninsured and that was the problem. It wasn't comprehensive but instead was a piecemeal approach that didn't fix the problem of millions going without necessary health care services and tens of thousands dying because they didn't have insurance (private or public) that would pay for their medical needs.
A comprehensive health care proposal that would have ensured that ALL American would receive quality health care would have been supported by Democrats but was never proposed by Republicans in over 15 years between 1993 and 2009. It wouldn't have been "Republican" legislation but instead it would have been bi-partisan legislation because the Democrats would have supported any comprehensive plan to ensure that ALL Americans would receive the health care services they needed.
The very Mission Statement of Medicaid (created by Democrats) to ensure that ALL Americans would receive the health care they needed but couldn't afford had existed since the 1960's and that was the "Democrats" position on health care. As I've noted time and time again if Medicaid had been fully funded so that it would have fulfilled it's Mission Statement there wouldn't have been a health care crisis in America to begin with. The estimated 30 million plus uninsured Americans in 2009 would have been covered by Medicaid if it's Mission Statement had been fully funded.
On a final note I've been reviewing statements made by Senator Ted Cruz and so far I haven't read him ever state that his goal was to "Repeal and Replace" Obamacare. He's not offering to replace it with anything either now or in the future from what I can find. Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen that. His position seems to really be just what I stated, "Repeal and Do Nothing."
Out of curiosity is "Repeals and Do Nothing" really acceptable to the rank and file "Tea Party" movement member?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 28, 2013 22:33:33 GMT
"If you like your healthcare plan, you get to keep it.......period."
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor......period."
"No one is going to take either of these from you."
Barack Obama.....2009, when he was trying to "sell" Obamacare.
Look for clips of him saying that in ads starting next summer......
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 28, 2013 23:04:43 GMT
"President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 4, 2013 13:19:25 GMT
Obama knew he was speaking to your basic American 'low information voter'. He did not bother to add any "caveats". Just straight up clear cut unequivocal definitive statements. He's the all time Gold Medal winner of Presidents telling blatant lies. He doesn't care. Simple as that. He knows the MSM AKA his Pravda will always cover for him. That's all that matters.
The bottom line is Obamacare is a Socialist 'redistribution' plan. IMO Obama never intended it to work. What's the next move? Single payer.
Bottom line. The healthy and young in the middle class are being told to pay for the poor and the sicks' health coverage.
You can 'spin' it anyway you want but that is the fact of the matter.
It's Socialism.
Every cell in Obama's body is Socialist. I wonder how Obama would have turned out had his father had not abandoned him. His father was a well known Socialist/Communist/Marxist as was his mother, when she wasn't posing for 'stag photos'.
I believe, like so many children who's fathers abandon them at an early age there is always the feeling that "what did I do to make my father leave? I know. I'll try to be just like him so he will 'approve' of me and 'love' me and maybe he'll come back home." Very very common reaction. IMO Obama has been 'looking for his father's approval since childhood. Ironically, his father would likely not be that impressed with his son. Not far enough. Never far enough to the Left.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 13:44:21 GMT
So let's clarify the issues.
1) President Obama did not add caveats to his statements about people that might lose coverage because their policies did not meet the minimum standards under the ACA.
That is true and there is no denying it. Most informed Americans knew that policies that didn't meet the ACA requirements would be "no good" under "Obamacare" so we knew that the "promise" was limited even though the President didn't address the "exceptions" for those policies that wouldn't comply with the ACA requirements. This a condemnation of President Obama for not clarifying something informed Americans knew at the time but that uniformed Americans were obviously unaware of. It is not a condemnation of the ACA but instead what the President said.
2) The ACA didn't prohibit private insurance companies from cancelling existing insurance policies.
That is also true but I don't see any Republicans endorsing that such a provision should have been included in the ACA. Sort of hard to complain about something that you wouldn't support to begin with.
3) As many as 300,000 people in Florida will lose their "existing" coverage because their health insurance policies didn't meet the minimum benefit requirements of the ACA or because their insurance company decided to end those policies based upon financial considerations of the insurance company.
This is also true but every one of these 300,000 people can enroll for new private health insurance though the ACA often with government subsidies to help pay for their premiums so they pay less for superior coverage. The only ones that will be worse off would be those that would have qualified under the expansion of Medicaid and they won't have any insurance because Florida rejected the expansion of Medicaid that is funded by the federal government. So if anyone actually loses health care coverage we need to blame the State of Florida and not the Federal government or the ACA.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 4, 2013 13:55:26 GMT
There is now no question that Obama knowingly lied to the American people. That's a given. What is now at stake for him is his legacy. He has a number of challenges ahead if he ever expects to be remembered as, at this point, even your 'average' President. To be frank the possibility he will go down in history as one of the 'great' Presidents petered out when the first 'promises' he made were not fulfilled. Anyway he gambled that the 'entitlement society' that put him, and his Socialist agenda in the White house would support him in his efforts. Didn't happen. He had two years of total control of the House and Senate and accomplished SFA. 'Cash For Clunkers' indeed. Then there's the fact that he had to prove that yes he was elected solely on the color of his skin but he was still made of 'the right stuff' to be the CEO of the most powerful/wealthiest country on earth. So far that hasn't turned out so great. Time is running out for him. If Obamacare fizzles he will go down in history as a slightly embarrassing Presidential experiment/'footnote'. Someone the Dems would rather not speak about. "How bout those Red socks". What Obama has definitely accomplished is to pretty much guarantee no Black man will ever be the President again. His personal failure/s not withstanding. The changing demographic in America ensures that there will be many White women/Asians/Hispanis/ East Indian descendants who will have their opportunity to sit in the Oval office and put their heels on the desk for millennia to come. Lets hope none of them had a father who was a Socialist/Communist/Marxist who abandoned them. www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/will-insularity-incompetence-and-lies-doom-obamacare-20131104 |
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 4, 2013 14:23:35 GMT
I think this 'OP' is worth reading: "So there is a serious gap between the simplicity of the message that sold Obamacare and the complexity of the law's outcomes. And the karmic consequences for the president and his party are considerable. First, Obama's credibility is undermined. "If you like your health care plan," he said, "you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period." It was the most emphatic, unqualified, high profile public policy promise since "Read my lips" -- and its violation is at least as discrediting. Second, Democrats have muddied their central political appeal of siding with the middle class. Some in that large, elastic category will come out ahead. Others will see their premiums dramatically increase without qualifying for subsidies. One self-employed pregnant woman who has recently lost coverage is quoted in the Los Angeles Times: "It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else." Democrats will be forced to answer: It depends on what you mean by middle class. Third, these challenges are beginning to divide the Democratic coalition. Many unions, already unhappy about Obamacare fees on group plans, are not rallying to defend the law. And many Democratic politicians will be tempted to distance themselves from Obamacare as dysfunction extends from weeks to months. This face plant, after all, took place on the first hurdle. It is far from clear whether the exchange risk pools will be large enough and diverse enough a year from now to work properly. These last few weeks offer some hard lessons for Democrats: Those who pass a partisan health law, own it. And those who believe in government are not necessarily capable of running one." Read more: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/04/democrats_ditch_the_middle_class_120555.html#ixzz2jgXb7d7a Follow us: @rcp_Articles on Twitter I wonder how many 'middle class' soccer moms who made sure they voted for Obama will be as interested in 014/016 after getting the cancellation letter then finding out their premiums where going up? The Dem back-room boys in Chicagoland must be wondering the same thing. I give this fiasco about a month before we hear from the President: "Everything was perfect. It was the REPs who sabotaged the roll-out. They all want you to die in the streets." Or something similar. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 15:27:15 GMT
The "Obama" legacy is a interesting thing to consider. In 10 years all of these little insignificant problems such as the sign-up problems or a couple million people changing insurance carriers will have been long since forgotten or even what President Obama might have said. Even the "cost of Obamacare" will be forgotten because it will have become a "necessary" expenditure of government over time and people will get used to it..
What will be remembered is that tens of millions of Americans are being provided with quality health that wouldn't have received that health care without the Affordable Care Act. Hell, in five or ten years perhaps even Republicans will address the 5 million that they've decided to not provide quality health care to by declining the expansion of Medicaid. I know, I might be holding my breath for a long time over that happening.
Personally what I'd like to see is someone to pragmatically address how the tens of millions of Americans can better be served by incremental changes to "Obamacare" that dramatically reduce costs while improving their access to quality health services. Sadly this would predominately have to come from Republicans IMO and they have no interest in doing that. Their position seems to be "Lets go back to having tens of millions of people without quality health care that results in tens of thousands dying annually" and it might take decades for them to get over this position.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 6, 2013 13:44:13 GMT
Don't you think it's a bit childish to claim all 'Conservatives' don't believe in scientific studies? Are all DEMs 'gay'?
I think Obama ought to have spent some money on an on-line and phone-in service with registered nurses available to assist in initial medical inquires. But that was way to simple and logical and easy and cost effective. Instead he handed out no-bide contracts to his political friends and look what happened. He ought to have hired Ron Jerome instead. Notice every porn website works perfectly.
Obamacare is soon becoming a word meaning: This is what happens when a bunch of 'Takers' put a Socialist with zero experience in the Oval office because he promised them 'free stuff' with disastrous effect on the country.
Oh yeah. He also had the right skin color.
|
|
