Someone is either too young or too stupid to remember what it was like when bush was in office. Whichever side has the office gets the most ****. Btw "Obama care' isn't a new concept. It's been debated and tried to be implemented for decades. When twits speak ...
and the forum warriors appear.... I do remember bush being in office. I wasnt very old but i remember it. However, unlike obama, the crap given to bush was warranted. He made spying on the american people legal. Back on topic, i admitted to not knowing that.
Black I'm not going to get into a big shouting match over this because well let's face it it's a forum and ur not going to really enlighten anyone on a forum of a game but .... Obama care on the surface looks great healthcare for all yay USA ... But in reality it open the door for insurance companies to jack up rates so much that now it's completely unaffordable to most of middle America to get health care at all let alone reasonable Heath care that will actually cover anything u are actually going to use on a regular basis My father in law runs a smaller business which my wife is head of human resources just under 50 employees not only did they have to drop the basically decent cover they had because insurance company's will no longer offer it the new laws allow for them to hike up and privatized Heath care they want to basically any point and since u are mandated by law to have it ur screwed ... Here's basic numbers for example total health care per month for family of 4 was around 1500 a month the company matched half (is was a decent plan with ok co-pays that were reasonable) now with new laws hidden in the Obama care plan a plan for the same family for far less cover and almost 10x the co-pay costs for routine care is well over 2200 a month ... The laws also deregulate the way company health care used to be calculated meaning before a company policy was based on the average age of employee helping curtail costs variations to employees Now the insurance company bases them off average age of each policy family average or just individual (Or individual and spouse only) which means an older couples or families get charged huge increased rates compared to same crap plan that a kid just out of high school pays Not only all of this but if like my father inlaws company who will have to stop matching Heath care costs because of the huge cost increases so not only does it cover less it costs more and now all the cost is passed onto the employees they could opt in for the government private option and just pay upwards of 10% of their yearly pre-taxed income for cut rate insurance plans that basically only cover major medical Anyway that's just knowledge from first hand experience passed on from my wife who had 16 years in the medical field dealing directly with insurance companies and another 7 years running human resources for a good sized small business Enjoy ur new improved crappier cover that costs u 2x as much if not more to anyone who actually try's to earn a living in middle class America
Yea this is why I don't vote lol hell I don't even watch the news I just work, pay bills, and enjoy the little things in life. I see it as less stress for me in a way until I can't pay those bills :/ but very interesting thread either way fun to read.
I'm not going to get into a big shouting match either, but I have a few problems with your story. Here's why. The ACA raised minimum standards for coverage. It didn't lower them. If your fathers insurance company wasn't able to offer the old polices it's because they didn't meet the new minimum standards. But you claim the new polices "cover far less more". If they can't offer the old policy because it doesn't meet the new coverage standards, how are they selling you a new policy that covers far less than the one they can't sell anymore? Something ain't sounding right. Same goes for "an older couples or families get charged huge increased rates compared to same crap plan that a kid just out of high school pays." The ACA does the opposite. It limits how much insurers can vary their premiums based on age. Before, if you were older you paid a lot more because you were a higher risk. Now insurers can only charge older people three times more than what they charge younger people. So I'm not buying that older couples are getting a huge increase in rates. One way the ACA does impact group rates though and increase costs in the mandate to cover dependents up to the age 26. Now those kids just out of school don't have to rely on crap plans. Like I said, something ain't sounding right. Have you considered your insurance company ain't telling you everything? Also have you look for better rates? There's an ACA web site for small businesses as well as individuals. https://www.healthcare.gov/small-businesses/ Open enrollment starts in 3 days.
Black wat ur misinformed about could fill a book a large one ... The minimum standard the aca raises are on major medical has absolutely nothing to do with primary care sure I get a heart attack or need to go to shock trauma or have to deal with cancer the minimum cover is a little higher ... Big whooptydo when the primary care visits and and minor injure illness visits minimum are there but not at wat percentage they have to cover so they double and tripled co-pays now that they can and they also raised the yearly deductible on every plan U miss understood my point about ages obviously these are individual rates these where corporate rates companies by buying rates for the entire group got discounted based on average age of the policy holders throughout the company now all policies are treated like individual policies so yes all older average families will have to pay higher premiums then they used to ontop of the over all increase in premiums costs that are now coming up About the insurance company coverage ... It's not that they don't offer the same plans any more they do but the old 1500 plan now costs 4700 ... A little outta everyone's price range .. With the new "minimum standards" the older policies that actually had good cover are now more valuable and cost more ... The new standard is based on wat they have to provide not wat they need to provide to be competitive ... And now wat they need to provide in the name of major medical for all is passed on in the cost of the everyday and preventative care that most of us actually use and use far far far more often those visits for seeing ur primary care doctor or seeing a specialist or even going in for an ear infection or flu will be raised My wife is very knowledgable about insurance and how to shop not just one companies policies but all the major providers and from over 2 decades of listening to her shop talk I've picked up enough to know wats crap and wats not Now instead of 40$ co-pay for minor illness visits it can be as high as 100-125 for the same COVERED visit when the cost of being cover is so high it's almost impossible to pay along with the increase in premiums and in out of pocket deductibles how many times do u think I'll have to make the choice if I really need to go get that lump under my arm checked out ... Cause if I do I won't be able to afford to take my kid when he gets an ear infection next week ... Doesn't matter if it turns out to be cancer .. Why should it my new insurance will cost more out of pocket to get checked early but once it's spread to 3/4 of my body then those new minimum standards will kick in and pay for the whole thing .....The new affordable health care act will end up costing me literally an arm and a leg If this doesn't sound right to u? Go talk to ur human resources lady or ur insurance providers and see wat they have to say cause trust me the media and the democrats are not the ones dealing with ur coverage or wat ur going to end up paying it's them
In my opinion what your insurance does and doesnt cover really isnt the issue. The base issue that no one is addressing ( to the best of my knowlege ) is the flat out cost of medical care. My brother was in a car wreck a few years ago. He was taken to the hospital via ambulance. That 15 min ride alone cost over 1500. He spent the night for observation while they ran a few tests. 1 night 1 ride. The bill was well over 20k. Thats the real issue.
One of the biggest, and best, improvements made by the ACA is the minimum standard of coverage. Previously, a health insurance company could write a policy with all the boilerplate, but lacking any real coverage, and get away with it. In the insurance defense industry, counsel now often look to see if a policy was written before the ACA, to determine how easy it will be to defend an insurance company's denial - most policies written before the ACA are easy to defend a denial because they could include language that excludes coverage. With the ACA, it is understood what is covered under each of the tiers, so health insurance companies can not claim their policy does not cover those events. Not that all insurance companies are bad. But in unregulated insurance industries (unlike most homeowners property insurance policies), there was a tendency to create policies which were practically judgment proof. (Side note - I, personally am against insurance fraud, and would love to see a [reasonable amount] of tort reform to protect insurance companies against the masses of bad claims stemming from people's own neglect of their property or bodies. However, even I can see how poor many of the health insurance policies were prior to the ACA).
Well weve had obamacare for about a year now. Last time my policy was up for renewal my rates went up but my health and dependent status didnt change. The "proof is in the pudding," as they say.
Since the creation of this thread, three more videos have come out catching the same man (the architect of the ACA, Gruber) commenting on the "stupidity of the American Voter" regarding Obamacare's passage. Any further thoughts?
Politics isn't about ideas. Politics is about power, and its a business. Was the American public lied to? Of course it was. I watched it all unfold from my comfy northern perch. The majority opposed the bill prior to its passage, and the majority STILL oppose it. Reid changed senate rules and used ethically challenged techniques to pass a bill that the people didn't want. I won't feign outrage, however. Politics is a dirty business. Its filled with scum bags in both parties. I need look no further than newt Gingrich for a republican scum bag. I won't run a list of democrat scum bags and republican scum bags because that is pointless. So, where do you, as an American go from here? Well, if politics is a business, and the politicians want to keep their power, then, they will ultimately follow the polls. How Obama care was passed is of little Importance any more. What's more important is "will the people tolerate it?" If Obama care is all that and a bag of chips, it will become self evident and the debate will die away. As it stands, the debate is strong, my read of the American public is they want it gone, so, the republican establishment will both try to repeal it, and will make political hay while they do so. This is a club that the republicans will use to best the democrats to death with, and, at the end of the day, I cannot feel bad, not because I am a conservative, but, because the bill had zip for bipartisan support. It was passed against the will of an American public using raw naked political power. Weather you agree with he bill or not, things need to have bipartisan support to get done and be accepted by the public. Failure to do this leads to a poisoned well and an angry electorate, as we now see here.
This was my issue with the bill the whole time. The lack of transparency, and advocates advocating a bill they obvisouly did not understand or read. It's was blind support. And that's speaks voulumes about the advocates.
Being someone raised by a world war 2 vet. Who carried golfs clubs as a kid at a congressional golf course outside of DC for Democratic Party members. A man who lived on a farm next to the presidents retreat in the 30's. A proud American under any circu mstance. A man who was a life long union member and democrat. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with integrity, honesty, and the people who politicians claim to serve. Served with lies is what we are served with. Thanks for advocating a bill you did not understand. We all know changes need made in leadership and how they go about business in general. Deception has no place when dealing with the people. Thank you for your time and patience with me. Good luck to you all. I hope some of the posters on here see their folly and promptly make a change for the better rather then continuing the facade. You should be ashamed, but that's up to you to feel and your own personal growth as a individual. DMV!!
Um, no. I watched it all unfold too, and that's not how it was passed. Two versions were voted on and passed while the Democrats had a super majority. Then Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected, which meant the Democrats had lost their super majority. Now normally, the versions would be merged, amended, and sent back for a vote on the amendments. What happened were the versions were merged, then sent to the President to sign. Rules weren't changed. There's no rule that says you have to allow amendments on a bill that's already been passed by the House and the Senate. You can choose to call it unethical if you want, but that's what parties do when they have power. Kind of like how Harper used to complain about time allocation limiting his party's debate when they were minority, but have now set records using it now that they're in the majority. And again, polls can be deceptive. They depend on how the questions are framed. A majority oppose it, but then that includes people who wanted more, not less. Here's a better indicator. Which is more unpopular: Obamacare or repealing Obamacare? "Despite the increase in the share with an unfavorable view of the ACA, a strong majority of the public continues to prefer that their representative in Congress work on improving the law (60 percent) rather than working to repeal and replace it with something else (35 percent), shares that have been consistent over the last several months. Even among Republicans and those with an unfavorable view of the law, about a third would prefer to see the law improved rather than repealed and replaced (32 percent and 36 percent, respectively)." http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-findi ... july-2014/ Got that? 60% say they favor keeping it and fixing it vs 35% who favor repealing it. And that's consistent with most polls. Buckeye's problem is that his side doesn't actually have anything to replace it with. Go figure.