Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Obamacare Update: Far more people LOSING Insurance than Getting it

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Bush's fault. Got it.
    Please point where I said that ACA was Bush's fault? Your weak response indicates that you, like many on the right, cannot defend previous positions under the GOP President. Btw, turn off the conservative entertainment media. The costs of the website for ACA is a little more than $100 million as reported this week by the Washington Post. Your numbers include ALL Federal IT contracting awarded to CGI for years including it's original contract awarded under the previous Administration, Bush.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by jetssjumets View Post
    I saw that. It was in response from a reporter's question about calls from GOP congressional critics. By the way, she is correct. She works for the President, not Members of Congress [separation of powers]. HHS is an Ex. Branch agency.

    Besides, these calls for her resignation are not justified. Many of these GOP critics were the very same ones, on the record, defending the many of the same enrollment glitches ACA is currently experiencing during the rollout of the Bush/GOP Medicare Part D [prescription drug program]. But I am sure all of you critics here now against Obama were posting how Medicare Part D was a disaster too. By the way, the enrollment of Part D had website issues 3 years after the enrollment process. Finally, CGI received it's government contracting start under the previous Administration, Bush!
    :facepalm:

    Just :facepalm:

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Bush was a liberal as far as I am concerned.
    I am a moderate Dem -- conservative on business/fiscal issues but socially liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Agreed...the TSA is symbolic of BUSH. Spend billions on more govt, bureaucracy, federal employees etc.
    Did you say so at the time? Also, while a I have my issues with Obama [believe me I do], I hope you will agree that much of the spending under Bush was done under "emergency supplemental appropriations." That means it did not count against the budget. So all of his tax cuts, Medicare Part D and the wars did not count. Upon taking office, Obama counted all policies on budget -- no policy has been under "emergency supplemental." As you know, the Bush tax cuts have been extended several times and the wars were counted on budget since 2009. Yes, he has added spending -- $800 billion to boost the economy in early 2009 and ACA. But the inflating figures added by his political opponents is driven by politics. Many of those same critics help add to the spending under Bush and only became fiscal hawks in Jan 2009.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,218
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Agreed...the TSA is symbolic of BUSH. Spend billions on more govt, bureaucracy, federal employees etc.
    The reason why I give Bush a pass on a lot of things is that I don't know if anybody would have handled post-9/11 America well. He was under tremendous pressure. The entire country was paranoid as well as the gov't. Resulted in some poor decisions.

    The reason why I hammer Obama is b.c he was supposed to be better than Bush and he has been exposed as pure hype. Amateurish at times.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,218
    Quote Originally Posted by jetssjumets View Post
    I am a moderate Dem -- conservative on business/fiscal issues but socially liberal.
    Any moderate Dem would understand that the ACA is a complete disaster and we are quickly becoming a gov't dependent state. We have proof of the endgame right across the pond. It doesn't work.

    Do you think the ACA is a social issue?
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 10-26-2013 at 06:38 PM.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Any moderate Dem would understand that the ACA is a complete disaster and we are quickly becoming a gov't dependent state. We have proof of the endgame right across the pond. It doesn't work.
    Please stop with political generalizations. The website is not the program. Why is it a disaster when the enrollment process just kicked in a few weeks ago? Not one American has experienced the benefits yet?

    Democrats made the very same arguments against Medicare Part D. Today, the program enjoys wide popularity among seniors with a more than 90% approval rate. In fact, the reason the GOP has flipped seniors into their column as a reliable voting bloc over the past decade is directly attributed to Medicare Part D. I predict the same will hold true for ACA. 30-40 million people will receive a new benefit they previously did not have. The outcome will be no different than Medicare in the 60s and Medicare Part D in the early 2000s.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,218
    Quote Originally Posted by jetssjumets View Post
    Please stop with political generalizations. The website is not the program. Why is it a disaster when the enrollment process just kicked in a few weeks ago? Not one American has experienced the benefits yet?

    Democrats made the very same arguments against Medicare Part D. Today, the program enjoys wide popularity among seniors with a more than 90% approval rate. In fact, the reason the GOP has flipped seniors into their column as a reliable voting bloc over the past decade is directly attributed to Medicare Part D. I predict the same will hold true for ACA. 30-40 million people will receive a new benefit they previously did not have. The outcome will be no different than Medicare in the 60s and Medicare Part D in the early 2000s.
    Because if they can't get step 1 right why are we supposed to think they are going to get the next 10 steps right? Sure, there are people that have benefited but that needs to be weighed against what it has cost other people. Countries a fraction of our size can't afford these things, why should I believe we are different?

    Medicare Part D is not apples to apples. The ACA is much larger, about 3x the size (we spent $90B on Medicare Part D in 2010) . The original estimate from Barry was $900B. In 2012 the CBO projected the cost at $2.6T (these are 10 year projections). And as we all know, these things only increase.

    I suggest you do some research on the concept of adverse selection.



    Where I got my numbers from:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42692
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 10-26-2013 at 07:35 PM.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Because if they can't get step 1 right why are we supposed to think they are going to get the next 10 steps right? Sure, there are people that have benefited but that needs to be weighed against what it has cost other people. Countries a fraction of our size can't afford these things, why should I believe we are different?

    Medicare Part D is not apples to apples. The ACA is much larger, about 3x the size (we spent $90B on Medicare Part D in 2010) . The original estimate from Barry was $900B. In 2012 the CBO projected the cost at $2.6T (these are 10 year projections). And as we all know, these things only increase.

    I suggest you do some research on the concept of adverse selection.



    Where I got my numbers from:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42692
    I don't read right wing propaganda like the weekly standard. That publication is no different that Fixed News. Since you are quoting CBO, why don't you also say that CBO projects ACA will reduce the deficit?

    How is the expansion of Medicare Part D not comparable to providing HC to the uninsured? So let me get this straight, it was ok to expand covergae for seniors and not pay for it, but not ok to expand insurance for the uninsured? Oh, ok, I understand now.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,218
    Quote Originally Posted by jetssjumets View Post
    I don't read right wing propaganda like the weekly standard. That publication is no different that Fixed News. Since you are quoting CBO, why don't you also say that CBO projects ACA will reduce the deficit?

    How is the expansion of Medicare Part D not comparable to providing HC to the uninsured? So let me get this straight, it was ok to expand covergae for seniors and not pay for it, but not ok to expand insurance for the uninsured? Oh, ok, I understand now.
    The Weekly Standard article is based off the CBO numbers. The CBO is supposedly non-partisan. There is no need for them to spin. Just cold numbers. As for the ACA reducing the deficit that is pure "Washington math". We are talking about a reduction relative to running $1T dollar deficits.

    It is not OK b.c of the cost. The ACA is at least 3x the cost. That is the problem. Of course everyone wants to insure people and give health care but the issue at what cost. Of course these programs are popular. But we can't base everything off a popularity contest. Someone needs to be responsible. I am sure a gov't program that gave everyone a car would be popular too. Sooner or later China and others will stop lending us money and we will be forced to deal with these issues.

    I

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Bush's fault. Got it.
    Took only 14 posts to blame him, amazing...

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    The Weekly Standard article is based off the CBO numbers. The CBO is supposedly non-partisan. There is no need for them to spin. Just cold numbers. As for the ACA reducing the deficit that is pure "Washington math". We are talking about a reduction relative to running $1T dollar deficits.

    It is not OK b.c of the cost. The ACA is at least 3x the cost. That is the problem. Of course everyone wants to insure people and give health care but the issue at what cost. Of course these programs are popular. But we can't base everything off a popularity contest. Someone needs to be responsible. I am sure a gov't program that gave everyone a car would be popular too. Sooner or later China and others will stop lending us money and we will be forced to deal with these issues.

    I
    Speaking of "free" cars the Cash for Clunkers program was popular too. In a similar vain it was abused with people junking perfectly good cars for new ones that got slightly more mpgs. Then we saw the unintended consequences. Good cars were being crushed which hurt the used car business and reduced used car inventory which raise prices for consumers. The group it hurt most was the poor since they are the ones typically buying used cars. It also hurt the parts and repairs industry. All this for a minor, temporary and false boost to a failing US car industry since it really just accelerated purchases rather than created new ones.

    Yet another government program that was considered popular but was not a positive for the country. I will also add that many dealerships hated the bureaucracy and paperwork the program required.

    Add in the electric car subsidy that had people running for their free golf car. Never was intended but that is the problem with government solutions. Just like the thousands of people being DROPPED from their insurance because of AHA.

  12. #32
    Repost in appropriate thread.

    Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out

    Many middle-class Californians with individual health plans are surprised they need policies that cover more — and cost more.

    LA Times : http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...#axzz2j1ZoZnVR


    By Chad Terhune
    October 26, 2013, 7:42 p.m.

    Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

    These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.

    Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.

    PHOTOS: The battle over Obamacare

    "This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people," said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act."

    Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

    Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

    "It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

    On balance, many Americans will benefit from the healthcare expansion. They are guaranteed coverage regardless of their medical history. And lower-income families will gain access to comprehensive coverage at little or no cost.

    The federal government picks up much of the tab through an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to people earning up to four times the federal poverty level. That's up to $46,000 for an individual or $94,000 for a family of four.

    But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law.

    Some may elect to go without coverage if they feel prices are too high. Penalties for opting out are very small initially. Defections could cause rates to skyrocket if a diverse mix of people don't sign up for health insurance.

    Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

    "She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

    Nearly 2 million Californians have individual insurance, and several hundred thousand of them are losing their health plans in a matter of weeks.

    Blue Shield of California sent termination letters to 119,000 customers last month whose plans don't meet the new federal requirements. About two-thirds of those people will experience a rate increase from switching to a new health plan, according to the company.

    HMO giant Kaiser Permanente is canceling coverage for about half of its individual customers, or 160,000 people, and offering to automatically enroll them in the most comparable health plan available.

    The 16 million Californians who get health insurance through their employers aren't affected. Neither are individuals who have "grandfathered" policies bought before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted. It's estimated that about half of policyholders in the individual market have those older plans.

    Obamacare: News and analysis

    All these cancellations were prompted by a requirement from Covered California, the state's new insurance exchange. The state didn't want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

    Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, said the state and insurers agreed that clearing the decks by Jan. 1 was best for consumers in the long run despite the initial disruption. Lee has heard the complaints — even from his sister-in-law, who recently groused about her 50% rate increase.


    "People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn't have been part of the common risk pool," Lee said. "We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better."

    Lee said consumers need to consider all their options. They don't have to stick with their current company, and higher premiums are only part of the cost equation. Lee said some of these rate hikes will be partially offset by smaller deductibles and lower limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses in the new plans.

    Still, many are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul.

    "All we've been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it," said Deborah Cavallaro, a real estate agent in Westchester. "I'm infuriated because I was lied to."

    Supporters of the healthcare law say Obama was referring to people who are insured through their employers or through government programs such as Medicare. Still, they acknowledge the confusion and anger from individual policyholders who are being forced to change.

    Cavallaro received her cancellation notice from Anthem Blue Cross this month. The company said a comparable Bronze plan would cost her 65% more, or $484 a month. She doubts she'll qualify for much in premium subsidies, if any. Regardless, she resents losing the ability to pick and choose the benefits she wants to pay for.

    "I just won't have health insurance because I can't pay this increase," she said.

    Most Americans are required to have health coverage starting next year or pay a fine of $95 per adult or 1% of their income, whichever is greater. The fines increase over time.

    A number of factors are driving up rates. In a report this year, consultants hired by the state said the influx of sicker patients as a result of guaranteed coverage was the biggest single reason for higher premiums. Bob Cosway, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman Inc. in San Diego, estimated that the average individual premium in 2014 will rise 27% because of that difference alone.

    Individual policies must also cover a higher percentage of overall medical costs and include 10 "essential health benefits," such as prescription drugs and mental health services. The aim is to fill gaps in coverage and provide consumers more peace of mind. But those expanded benefits have to be paid for with higher premiums.

    The federal law also adjusts how rates are set by age, a change that gives older consumers a break and shifts more costs to younger people. Rates by age can vary by only 3 to 1 starting next year as opposed to 6 to 1 in some cases now in California. People in their 20s just starting their careers may earn so little they qualify for subsidies. But that might not be the case for consumers who are slightly older and earning more.

    "It has the effect of benefiting people in their 50s and 60s and shifting costs to people in their 20s and 30s," said Patrick Johnston, president of the California Assn. of Health Plans. "Benefits are being increased for all, but it's not government subsidies for all. Some will pay more."

    Rates would be going up regardless of changes from the healthcare expansion. The average individual premium will climb 9% next year because of rising healthcare costs and increases in medical provider reimbursement, according to Milliman's estimates.

    Some consumer groups have questioned whether insurers are inflating their rates under the guise of the healthcare law changes.

    "We believe the prices are higher than they should be," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. "This is giving a bad name to the Affordable Care Act."

    State regulators checked the insurance companies' math and underlying cost projections for next year, but they don't have the authority to deny increases. Under federal rules, insurers can be ordered to issue rebates if they don't spend a minimum amount of every premium dollar on customers' medical care.

    "The rates aren't going up because insurance companies are pocketing more money," Lee said. "That is what it takes to pay the claims and deliver the healthcare."

    Javier Lopez, 38 and a self-employed aerospace engineer in Huntington Beach, pays about $750 a month for an Anthem Blue Cross plan for his family of four. His premiums may rise nearly 20% next year for a new policy because his current plan is being phased out.

    Lopez says he's willing to absorb that one-year jump if it means the government can rein in future rate hikes.

    "I'm hoping with this reform," Lopez said, "we won't see big increases year after year."

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    File this under "the GOP never has alternatives" ???

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cobu...0/28/id/533450

    Republicans wrote an alternative healthcare bill in 2009, when the
    Democratically-led Congress drafted what would become Obamacare, but
    they were "never allowed" to vote on it, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn said
    Monday.
    "Myself and (North Carolina Sen.) Richard Burr had the Patient Choice Act,
    which we never could get a vote on," Coburn, a Republican, told MSNBC's
    "Morning Joe."
    Story continues below video.
    "They
    didn't want to vote on it, because they were afraid we would get more
    votes," Coburn said. "We were never allowed a vote on it."
    The Republican bill was similar to Obamacare, except healthcare would be
    managed by the private sector instead of the federal government, Coburn
    said.
    "Every aspect you're seeing that's positive in the Affordable Care Act was in
    that bill, except ours doesn't cost $2.6 trillion. Ours isn't run by the
    government. Ours is run by the private sector, with transparency, and
    mandates that you have to be transparent," he said.
    Calling Medicare "bankrupt," Coburn pointed to "incompetencies" in systems
    run by the federal government. He used the Obamacare rollout and
    subsequent website difficulties as an example.
    "Medicare is bankrupt. Twenty percent of everything that's spent in
    Medicare is defrauded from the government," he said. "We don't function
    effectively when the government does it
    "What you're seeing roll out with the Affordable Care Act is same incompetencies we see in large bureaucratic institutions. Not that the ideas are bad in the Affordable Care Act. We're incompetent to roll it out. And, we've proven that today."

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    If you get dropped and/or your rates go through the roof, and you voted this ahole back into office, GFY.

  15. #35
    The update over 300,000 dropped in Florida, change you can believe in. Three years and they still don't have anything to show for it.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    Glad to see this getting play on mainstream media. The bolded is my favorite spin.

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/29/cbs-news-more-than-2-million-americans-cannot-renew-current-health-insurance/


    CBS News: More Than 2 Million Americans Cannot Renew Current Health Insurance

    October 29, 2013 8:52 AM

    WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — Millions of Americans are reportedly having their current health insurance plans canceled due to President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.


    According to CBS News, more than 2 million people have learned they cannot renew their current insurance policies because of Obamacare. That is more than triple the number of people who are buying health care through the federal exchanges.


    This comes despite Obama previously pledging that no Americans would lose their current health care plans under the Affordable Care Act. The White House backtracked that line Monday.


    “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.


    Industry expert Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation says reality is finally starting to set in.




    “The winners outnumber the losers here, but because of all the website problems, it’s hard to find out who the winners are because they don’t even know it themselves,” Levitt told CBS News.


    NBC News reported Monday that the Obama administration knew that millions of Americans would lose their current health care plans.


    Obama will travel to Faneuil Hall in Boston on Wednesday as his administration continues to deal with issues related to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.


    Faneuil Hall is where former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney — Obama’s rival in the 2012 presidential election — signed the state’s landmark health care law in 2006, with top Democrats standing by his side.


    White House adviser David Simas tells The Boston Globe it’s the perfect setting to show how Democrats and Republicans can work together.


    Obama’s visit is planned on the same day Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testifies before Congress on problems with the government’s health care website.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566


    http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/white-house-finally-admits-obamacare-truth/


    The White House finally admitted Monday that President Obama is breaking his promise that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it under ObamaCare.
    “It’s true that there are existing health-care plans on the individual market that don’t meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, referring to plans nixed under the sweeping new law.
    NBC News reported Monday that sources deeply involved in ObamaCare concede that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to have coverage canceled in the next year.
    One expert said the figure could be as high as 80 percent.
    Obama administration officials knew when the regulations were written in 2010 that 40 to 67 percent of consumers on the individual market would lose coverage, NBC said.
    Carney insisted Monday that only “substandard” plans would be yanked under ObamaCare.
    “There are some that can be grandfathered if people want to keep insurance that is substandard,” Carney added.
    “What is also true: Americans who have insurance on the existing individual market will now have numerous options available to them, and six out of 10 will pay less than $100 per month in premiums for better insurance.”
    Obama has repeatedly pledged that his overhaul of the health-care system wouldn’t deprive Americans of their current insurance plans or doctors.
    “We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period,” he declared on June 15, 2009.
    The admission that some will, in fact, lose the plans they’ve got comes amid mounting ObamaCare headaches, including a day-long crash of the glitch-plagued Web sites where Americans are supposed to sign up for mandatory health-insurance plans.
    What’s more, a growing number of consumers are shocked to discover that the law has caused them to get hit with massive premium increases, lose their doctor or simply get dropped by their insurance company.
    Elderly New Yorkers were left reeling when they received notices that insurance companies were booting their doctors from the popular Medicare Advantage program because of ObamaCare, The Post recently revealed.
    “Obama had said I could keep my doctor. Now they’re doing away with my doctor. They kicked him out! After 20 years, that’s not right,” said Alfred Gargiulio, who has cerebral palsy and has been seeing the same doctor in Brooklyn since 1993.
    Nearly 900,000 elderly New Yorkers are enrolled in Advantage plans, which are Medicare HMOs run by private insurers.
    Other New Yorkers were floored when they learned they would have to pay 100 percent of the bill if they used a doctor outside their plan’s network — a harsh penalty not imposed by most plans before ObamaCare.
    The ObamaCare pain is throbbing in other states, as well.
    In Florida, at least 300,000 people have lost health coverage. And just one insurer in California, Kaiser Permanente, canceled policies for 150,000 people, CBS News reported.
    HealthCare.gov, the online federal exchange, crashed before dawn Sunday and didn’t come back online until 7 a.m. Monday.
    The outage affected not just the 36 Web sites run by the federal government, but also the 14 sites run by states.
    The crash occurred about a week after the administration promised a “tech surge” of the nation’s best computer geeks to fix glitches that have hobbled the Web site since its Oct. 1 launch.
    Officials said the site would be fixed by the end of November.
    The Department of Health and Human Services blamed the latest crash on an outage of a data-service hub run by Verizon Communication’s Terremark unit.
    Other glitches persisted, such as an agonizingly long wait for people trying to set up an account on the Web sites.
    “We are committed 24/7 to having our team dedicated to putting those fixes in place and moving forward,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs HealthCare.gov.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,218

    Obamacare Update: Far more people LOSING Insurance than Getting it

    You can already see the spin. The old plans didn't meet the new laws standards for minimum requirements. They are trying to tell that your plan wasn't good enough when in reality it was fine and just didn't cover abortions and other things that you didn't need.

  19. #39
    President: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor. It will reduce your premium by thousands!

    Worker: But I just lost my plan!! And they want to charge me $2,000 more, not less!

    President PR Guy: Well, of course you did, but you can get a BETTER plan with a new Doctor under the State Exchange Program! Since you are middle class, you need to pay more, but it's for the greater good!

    Worker: Um......

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    President: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor. It will reduce your premium by thousands!

    Worker: But I just lost my plan!! And they want to charge me $2,000 more, not less!

    President PR Guy: Well, of course you did, but you can get a BETTER plan with a new Doctor under the State Exchange Program! Since you are middle class, you need to pay more, but it's for the greater good!

    Worker: Um......
    At this point, I have no use for anyone who still supports this guy. What an utter disgrace. Some people really have absolutely no shame.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us