14 Nov 13
Originally posted by whodeyI don't see why they should be allowed to keep their health insurance. The reason it is being changed is because their old insurance was substandard. Basically the government is forcing insurance companies to maintain a certain minimum standard.
First Bill Clinton comes out and says that Obamacare is poo because people should be allowed to keep their health insurance and now Senator McCain is saying the same thing.
So the question must be asked, is Washington still secretly run by racists?
Do you think people should be allowed to keep substandard insurance? If so, why?
14 Nov 13
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadExactly!
I don't see why they should be allowed to keep their health insurance. The reason it is being changed is because their old insurance was substandard. Basically the government is forcing insurance companies to maintain a certain minimum standard.
Do you think people should be allowed to keep substandard insurance? If so, why?
People just don't understand that what the government offers is so much better. So it boils down to racists, like former president Clinton, that think that people should be allowed to keep their substandard health care policy instead of being forced to choose something so much better.
Make no mistake, Clinton is seeing to it that Obama's legacy is tarnished simply because he is black. After all, Obamacare is the meat and potatoes of his legacy so seeing to it that it fails is like destroying his legacy.
So the question begs, when did Clinton turn into a racist, or was he always a racist?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis crap about "substandard" plans is weak tea. Who the hell do you think you are? The hubris is unbelievable.
I don't see why they should be allowed to keep their health insurance. The reason it is being changed is because their old insurance was substandard. Basically the government is forcing insurance companies to maintain a certain minimum standard.
Do you think people should be allowed to keep substandard insurance? If so, why?
Was Kirsten Power's plan substandard? She doesn't think so.
My blood pressure goes up every time they say that they’re protecting us from substandard health insurance plans,” Powers told Bret Baier. “There is nothing to support what they’re saying.”There's a video here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/medias-obamacare-supporters-vent-about-their-cancelled-health-plans/
“I have talked to about how I’m losing my health insurance,” she continued. “If I want to keep the same health insurance, it’s going to cost twice as much. There’s nothing substandard about my plan.”
“All of the things they say that are not in my plan are in my plan,” Powers lamented. “All of the things they have listed — there’s no explanation for doubling my premiums other than the fact that it’s subsidizing other people. They need to be honest about that.”
Or how about ALL of the government workers in the town of Bel Aire, Kansas? Was their plan substandard too?
Today, Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, released communications he received from Ty Lasher, the city manager of Bel Aire, Kansas, describing the terrible impact of the Affordable Care Act on city workers. Contrary to President Obama’s promise that “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep it,” the city manager of Bel Aire, Kansas, revealed that city's 30+ employees have just received notice that because of the Affordable Care Act, their current insurance will no longer be available. The text of the email is below:http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361251
“Bel Aire is a small city of approximately 7,000 residents. We have about 30 full-time employees and a number of part-time staff that are all very attached and dedicated to our organization. We just received notice that the health-insurance coverage employees receive through Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) is no longer available. Everyone liked that plan which had very good benefits.
“Now, BCBS offers other plans that we can choose from based on the government’s standards. All offer higher deductibles and the two closest to our old plan each cost more than what we were paying. In addition, because we are under 50 employees, we no longer get a ‘group’ rate so everyone is being judged as a single.
“We have some long-term employees who are older and seeing their rates double. We are also seeing families paying more based on the number of children they have. We had a couple of employees who worked 20 hours a week and the city still allowed them on our health coverage plan.
“Now, BCBS said they will not cover anyone unless they work more than 30 hours per week. Therefore, those part-time employees will now lose their health coverage. To top it off, we were told if more than 25% of our ineligible employees choose to go elsewhere for their insurance, they will drop us, and all of our employees will have to go to the insurance exchange.
“As you are probably aware, governments typically pay a lower wage in exchange for better benefits. Now, our health insurance benefits are being eroded which may lead to a larger turnover in employees.”
Lasher continued: “I simply wanted you to know the pain this is causing me and my staff in losing the terrific health coverage we had through Blue Cross Blue Shield in exchange for worse coverage at a higher price. As you know, it is difficult to present dedicated employees with declining health coverage with a higher premium.”
Congressman Pompeo, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, has been an outspoken critic of the law and its execution. During a recent hearing, he clashed with former Kansas Governor and current HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the claim that some insurance that people had and liked was not “true insurance.”
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK genius my wife happens to be one of the people not being allowed to keep her insurance and I'd like to ask you JUST WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?
I don't see why they should be allowed to keep their health insurance. The reason it is being changed is because their old insurance was substandard. Basically the government is forcing insurance companies to maintain a certain minimum standard.
Do you think people should be allowed to keep substandard insurance? If so, why?
You made up a lot of silly claims based on nothing but your imagination.
14 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15bwahaha, justice! and in actual fact there was a single claim.
OK genius my wife happens to be one of the people not being allowed to keep her insurance and I'd like to ask you JUST WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?
You made up a lot of silly claims based on nothing but your imagination.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe reason given is substandard. Perhaps you can give examples of how the standards have changed. As of yet I have never seen actual examples, simply the excuse.
I don't see why they should be allowed to keep their health insurance. The reason it is being changed is because their old insurance was substandard. Basically the government is forcing insurance companies to maintain a certain minimum standard.
Do you think people should be allowed to keep substandard insurance? If so, why?
14 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarSo here's the elementary question you should be asking: if there is no substantial difference between the plan someone had and the new plan on offer, then why are insurance companies asking three times the price? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, unless one of two things is true:
The reason given is substandard. Perhaps you can give examples of how the standards have changed. As of yet I have never seen actual examples, simply the excuse.
1) There are in fact substantial differences between old versus new plans. People were "happy" with their old plan simply because they've not yet had a serious medical emergency that revealed just how deficient the old plan was.
2) The insurance companies are gouging in the fashion they were wont to do even before the Affordable Care Act was ever conceived. Plans get changed on people all the time, every year. No one talks about it because everyone knows it. Someone will have a plan they're "happy" with, and then a year later the insurance company tells them either their premium is going to double or their plan is no longer available. Or both. Many individuals to whom this is happening right now would have had it happen to them whether the ACA was passed or not. For some, it is because of the ACA, but for many others (perhaps the majority) it's actually business as usual -- but hey, let's just blame Obamacare because we can.
This will all be old news six months from now. As I recall, the exchange system introduced in Massachusetts a decade ago (which now is quite popular and successful) also got off to a disastrous start because of glitches and other unforeseen snags. Anything so complex as health care reform is bound to be difficult to launch.
Still waiting for the Republican plan for health care reform. Is it still "Die Quickly"…?
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by SoothfastPerhaps you can list some of those substantial differences.
So here's the elementary question you should be asking: if there is no substantial difference between the plan someone had and the new plan on offer, then why are insurance companies asking three times the price? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, unless one of two things is true:
1) There are in fact substantial differences between old vers ...[text shortened]... h.
Still waiting for the Republican plan for health care reform. Is it still "Die Quickly"…?
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by EladarActually the ball was in your court. You're supposed to tell me why people are seeing their premiums triple if there are no substantial differences in plans. Why is that, Eladar? Can you explain why that might be? I offered up two possibilities: either you're wrong and the differences are big, or this is all just a big flap over something insurance companies have always been doing.
Perhaps you can list some of those substantial differences.
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by SoothfastI believe I asked my question in my original post. I simply want to know why the new policies are 'better'. Knowing how they are better would help me to understand why the prices need to go up.
Actually the ball was in your court. You're supposed to tell me why people are seeing their premiums triple if there are no substantial differences in plans. Why is that, Eladar? Can you explain why that might be? I offered up two possibilities: either you're wrong and the differences are big, or this is all just a big flap over something insurance companies have always been doing.
Right now I assume the prices need to go up to offset the cost of insuring other people at a lower rate.
14 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarA new plan must include mental health coverage, which should have only a minimal impact on premiums.
I believe I asked my question in my original post. I simply want to know why the new policies are 'better'. Knowing how they are better would help me to understand why the prices need to go up.
Right now I assume the prices need to go up to offset the cost of insuring other people at a lower rate.
A new plan cannot be revoked if a policyholder develops a serious health complication, nor can premiums be arbitrarily increased by vast amounts.
A new plan has more provisions for women's reproductive health care, I believe.
A new plan cannot have a coverage limit. Many old plans, if you read the fine print, have a "lifetime limit" of just a few hundred thousand dollars, which means they won't necessarily cover a series of major operations or a long-term hospitalization.
14 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastDo men need to pay more money so that women can have better reproduction health coverage?
A new plan must include mental health coverage, which should have only a minimal impact on premiums.
A new plan cannot be revoked arbitrarily if a policyholder develops a serious health complication, nor can premiums be arbitrarily increased by vast amounts.
A new plan has more provisions for women's reproductive health care, I believe.
A new plan ...[text shortened]... ars, which means it won't necessarily cover a series of major operations or a long-term illness.
Are people being forced to fund reproduction coverage that go against their religious beliefs?
Are the old policies being excluded because they had clauses that said if you get really sick we will no longer cover you?
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by Eladar1) If so, it's because the insurance company is being underhanded.
Do men need to pay more money so that women can have better reproduction health coverage?
Are people being forced to fund reproduction coverage that go against their religious beliefs?
Are the old policies being excluded because they had clauses that said if you get really sick we will no longer cover you?
2) That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
14 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastI'm just trying to understand why the old policies are so inferior to the new policies.
1) If so, it's because the insurance company is being underhanded.
2) That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Why are you so hesitant to question Obamacare? I think that questioning the limits of the Federal government is totally relevant to this discussion.
A new plan cannot have a coverage limit. Many old plans, if you read the fine print, have a "lifetime limit" of just a few hundred thousand dollars, which means they won't necessarily cover a series of major operations or a long-term hospitalization.
This point is valid, but I wonder what that change would actually cost the insurance companies which would then pass it on to consumers.