DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: National topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12100--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: ecsmith2
Date: February 28, 2014, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> The out of pocket is never lower than the deductible and some
of these plans have a $12,700 deductible.
> In fact there is a perverse incentive for low income folks to
purchase the cheapest plan with the highest deductible as any
tax credit they do not spend on premiums is refundable.
>
> That $12.7K is roughly the entire annual income of a full
time (30 hour 9 dollar) employee at our Nation's largest
employer- Wal Mart. Think they'll come up with the cash? Or
will we still be paying for uncompensated care?
> Previously they might've at least qualified for Hill-Burton,
Community Care or several other programs for the indigent.
Since they now have "insurance", they don't.
>
--- End Quote ---
And that income level would put the person in the poverty level,
and would be getting Medicaid, not getting insurance off of the
exchange, and not paying any deductible. Funny how the law was
set up in a sensible way to avoid what you think will happen.
#Post#: 12109--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: February 28, 2014, 7:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ecsmith2 link ---
>
> And that income level would put the person in the poverty
level, and would be getting Medicaid, not getting insurance off
of the exchange, and not paying any deductible. Funny how the
law was set up in a sensible way to avoid what you think will
happen.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
If it was set up in a sensible way, the medicaid expansion that
covers these folks (in some states) would not have been
optional.
Instead it is optional and it was done that way intentionally
to give the dem's something to hammer republican governors with.
There is nothing sensible about setting up the law that way.
They knew some below the poverty line would be hurt. But that
didn't matter as much as politics did.
#Post#: 12110--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: February 28, 2014, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: trollslayer link ---
>
> The amount of Americans harmed by the lies of this
administration far surpasses the lies spread by any previous
administration.
>
--- End Quote ---
Shall we add in all the folks who lost their jobs, their homes
to foreclosure, the tripling of bankruptcy filings and in some
cases loss of their life's savings due to Bush's economic
collapse?
#Post#: 12111--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: February 28, 2014, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ecsmith2 link ---
>
> I would agree with your posting here, and add that shopping
the exchange for a crappy yet expensive plan is only because
they lost their inexpensive and crappier plan.
>
--- End Quote ---
Nope.
It's true that some really bad "insurance" policies were
banned- particularly the indemnity policies that paid flat rate
for services...$100 for a day in the hospital and such. But it
appears most of the cancelled policies were employer group
plans, NOT the indemnity crap.
Some were far better policies than anything the Exchanges offer,
condemned merely because they did not provide maternity care to
males or 60 year old women and similar nonsense.
The idea that they were all substandard is a White House talking
point with little to no basis in truth.
#Post#: 12115--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: February 28, 2014, 11:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> Shall we add in all the folks who lost their jobs, their homes
to foreclosure, the tripling of bankruptcy filings and in some
cases loss of their life's savings due to Bush's economic
collapse?
>
--- End Quote ---
Bush's economic collapse? I personally would have expected more
from you rapids. Bush happened to be president when the
perfect economic storm hit. Did his policies have something to
do with it? Probably. Was Bush responsible for the collapse of
the economies around the world? No. Was he responsible for the
price of oil hitting over $100 a barrel? No.
OTOH, is Obama responsible for the adverse effects from
Obamacare? The answer is pretty clear but you can answer that
question for yourself. Does that mean you're going to continue
to blame Bush for the weakest economic recovery in history on
Bush as well?
#Post#: 12117--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2014, 1:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nope. The pathetic recovery is Obama's fault. He's been in
office long enough to change the ship's direction and has not.
In fact some of his actions have made the recovery slower.
Same with Bush and the collapse. While there are plenty of
excuses being made, the fact is Bush was president for nearly 8
years before the collapse and did nothing to head off the
inevitable.
Of course nobody could have predicted that housing prices
wouldn't rise at double-digit rates forever and that
adjustable-rate mortgages written to the jobless would backfire,
right? Actually those exact predictions were made....and
ignored.
At some point the guy sitting at the top has to take
responsibility for what happened on his watch. Obama now and
Bush then.
#Post#: 12130--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: ecsmith2
Date: March 1, 2014, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> Nope.
> It's true that some really bad "insurance" policies were
banned- particularly the indemnity policies that paid flat rate
for services...$100 for a day in the hospital and such. But it
appears most of the cancelled policies were employer group
plans, NOT the indemnity crap.
> Some were far better policies than anything the Exchanges
offer, condemned merely because they did not provide maternity
care to males or 60 year old women and similar nonsense.
> The idea that they were all substandard is a White House
talking point with little to no basis in truth.
>
--- End Quote ---
None of those policies, in place for a company, were
"condemned". They could have remained in place had the employer
and the insured decided to maintain them. The company I work
for regularly changes the policy every year, because of the
rising cost that were being perpetuated by the insurance
companies.
Saying policies have been banned is moderately inaccurate.
regulation has been put in place to make it easier for consumers
to judge the value of policies. By making the policies all
cover the same things, the premium is a more accurate indicator
for the consumer.
There are some that believe that someone choosing not to have
insurance at all does not give that individual substandard
coverage, but allows them freedom of choice. What coverage
should be included is a subjective discussion that could be
happening in Congress if one side would not spend all its time
trying to derail it completely.
#Post#: 12140--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2014, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ecsmith2 link ---
>
>
> None of those policies, in place for a company, were
"condemned". They could have remained in place had the employer
and the insured decided to maintain them.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's another one of those "truths" reminiscent of Chicago gun
laws. It's technically true, but logistically not workable,
therefore may as well be false.
Sure they can keep those policies in place. Except they cannot
make any changes to them, including adding new employees to the
plan.
Thus they can either never hire again, or have to maintain two
sets of group health polices.
Cost of maintaining two group plans aside, last I checked a
health insurer would not offer a group policy if another insurer
already has one in place covering the same business. Concerns
about the 'other' insurer getting the healthy employees while
they get the sick, and so forth. They really can't rate on the
entire group anymore.
#Post#: 12146--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: Sheila
Date: March 1, 2014, 5:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
rapids_60: if you insist on writing sensible and civil postings,
you do run the high risk of being banned from the forum. This
place is like a smalltown, with a sheriff who is nothing like
Andy of Mayberry.
#Post#: 12149--------------------------------------------------
Re: GOP change to Obamacare would cost 1 million more workers
their insurance.
DIR By: Snickers
Date: March 1, 2014, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sheila link ---
>
> rapids_60: if you insist on writing sensible and civil
postings, you do run the high risk of being banned from the
forum. This place is like a smalltown, with a sheriff who is
nothing like Andy of Mayberry.
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course the alternative would be a site where a monitor will
post a lie about another member.
Falsely accusing him of posting a bigoted remark.
And then when that member questions what was supposedly bigoted
about his post he is muted for asking.
As was revealed later:
The monitor didn't like the member being critical of Obama.
That being Obama's lack of honesty.
No reference was ever made as to anyone's color of skin,
ethnicity, race, age, religion, etc.
The questioning of Obama's honesty was the only thing based on
the
accusation.
The questioning of the monitor's accusation was an embarrassment
for the monitor so the questioning member was muted and his
posts were quickly removed.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page