MOST DISHONEST PRESIDENT EVER Caught in Another Major Lie… This Time on Hillary’s Personal Email

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:Knot, if you really want to see those law degree's kick in just go to FB. Everyone instantly becomes a legal scholar.

LOL, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do FB! My wife enjoys it but it is not for me . . . .  

You ought to see the thread on weartv page going on right now about obamacare. So many misinformed and some just outright lying. I almost had to post but I don't there. One woman stated that her deductible was $10,000 to $20,000.

That is entirely possible with many of the low priced policies.

Many folks have lost their insurance and are unable to afford insurance so they are forced into no coverage and paying the tax penalty.

Not paying much attention are you?

Sorry but it is absolutely impossible to have a compliant health plan with a deductible like she stated. She outright lied, which now makes me think you use a different persona on FB and it was probably you.

$10,000.00 might be a bit of a stretch, I don't know about all parts of the country.  But if all you can afford is the Copper plan, over $6,000 might as well be $100,000. for all it's use.

Another ObamaCare Shock Is Coming: 2016 Deductibles
Investor's Business Daily - Fri Oct 09, 4:42PM CDT

ObamaCare costs will jump next year for exchange customers, one way or the other. Premiums are set to spike by more than 20% in at least 16 states. But, for many, the real sticker shock will be soaring deductibles that mean they'll get few benefits until they've racked up huge bills.

Low-end bronze plans have deductibles hitting $6,850 in 2016. Now insurers are hiking silver-plan deductibles as high as $6,500 as a way to keep a lid on premiums. The downside isn't just more out-of-pocket costs for patients; it also will have a ripple effect of reducing taxpayer subsidies for cheaper plans.

Take Indiana, where average premiums are set to rise just under 1% on average, tied for the lowest in the nation, according to ACASignups.net. The cheapest silver plan in Indianapolis will actually fall by 6%, but that doesn't necessarily mean customers will get a better deal.

This year's cheapest silver plan, from CareSource, has a $3,500 deductible. But in 2016 the cheapest plan, from Ambetter, will have a $6,500 deductible -- an 86% jump.

Nationally, individual market premiums will rise 12.5% on average, according to an analysis by Charles Gaba of ACASignups.net. Yet customers in many states will be able to avoid big premium hikes by switching plans. That's because some of the biggest increases are coming from plans that attracted a lot of customers by setting rates too low to cover the medical costs.

http://www.barchart.com/headlines/story/11375791/another-obamacare-shock-is-coming-2016-deductibles

PkrBum wrote:I still think a better solution is to separate the govt programs from the private system. The big drag is the "free shit".

ppaca wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I still think a better solution is to separate the govt programs from the private system. The big drag is the "free shit".

It would be a better solution but you still have to account for  about 40% of the people who have been declined or certain exclusion rider's placed on policies for pre X or something that happened 10 + years ago.

You cannot take everyone and not have high premium's in the private sector.

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:Knot, if you really want to see those law degree's kick in just go to FB. Everyone instantly becomes a legal scholar.

LOL, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do FB! My wife enjoys it but it is not for me . . . .  

You ought to see the thread on weartv page going on right now about obamacare. So many misinformed and some just outright lying. I almost had to post but I don't there. One woman stated that her deductible was $10,000 to $20,000.

That is entirely possible with many of the low priced policies.

Many folks have lost their insurance and are unable to afford insurance so they are forced into no coverage and paying the tax penalty.

Not paying much attention are you?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:Knot, if you really want to see those law degree's kick in just go to FB. Everyone instantly becomes a legal scholar.

LOL, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do FB! My wife enjoys it but it is not for me . . . .  

You ought to see the thread on weartv page going on right now about obamacare. So many misinformed and some just outright lying. I almost had to post but I don't there. One woman stated that her deductible was $10,000 to $20,000.

That is entirely possible with many of the low priced policies.

Many folks have lost their insurance and are unable to afford insurance so they are forced into no coverage and paying the tax penalty.

Not paying much attention are you?

Markle, it really can't be dumbed down for you anymore than this.  The net result of the ACA is that people gained insurance, not lost it.  Do you understand how to read graphs?  Yes?  OK.  This one represents uninsured Americans.  See how the % of uninsured Americans began to plummet when the ACA was implemented?   Yes?  That means that your comment that I just quoted is objectively wrong.   The ACA resulted in millions of Americans gaining health insurance.  This is an objective fact.

When you refuse to accept that fact and even go as far as to promote the alternative case as being true, you effectively lose all credibility in any discussion of healthcare regulation.

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:Seriously do you drink heavily in the evenings? What the hell is a copper plan?

The deductible you quoted yes may seem like it's $50 or 60 thousand, but she was there posting spewing hatred, sort of like you.

What is it?  Bronze?  Whatever, lets say 1, 2 or 3.

Simple, people hate Obamacare.

If people can only afford the cheapest insurance plan, a $6,000.00 deductible is impossible for them.

Next year, 2017, it will be higher and then higher....

Not if she were diagnosed with a catastrophic disease then she would be ecstatic!

ppaca wrote:Ok somewhere here I guess I'm not understanding you.

What I am saying is take the govt out of the equation and go back to underwriting a health insurance policy, 40% or maybe more now will get turned down or permanent exclusion's for some part of their body that may have happened one time and never again.

But while I was typing this one thing came to mind.  The rates could come with the present system by eliminating the 10 minimum essential coverage's that are mandated. Still take the uninsured.  But you still have the govt involved and taxpayer's footing the bill for subsidies.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:Knot, if you really want to see those law degree's kick in just go to FB. Everyone instantly becomes a legal scholar.

LOL, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do FB! My wife enjoys it but it is not for me . . . .  

You ought to see the thread on weartv page going on right now about obamacare. So many misinformed and some just outright lying. I almost had to post but I don't there. One woman stated that her deductible was $10,000 to $20,000.

That is entirely possible with many of the low priced policies.

Many folks have lost their insurance and are unable to afford insurance so they are forced into no coverage and paying the tax penalty.

Not paying much attention are you?

Markle, it really can't be dumbed down for you anymore than this.  The net result of the ACA is that people gained insurance, not lost it.  Do you understand how to read graphs?  Yes?  OK.  This one represents uninsured Americans.  See how the % of uninsured Americans began to plummet when the ACA was implemented?   Yes?  That means that your comment that I just quoted is objectively wrong.   The ACA resulted in millions of Americans gaining health insurance.  This is an objective fact.

When you refuse to accept that fact and even go as far as to promote the alternative case as being true, you effectively lose all credibility in any discussion of healthcare regulation.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:Knot, if you really want to see those law degree's kick in just go to FB. Everyone instantly becomes a legal scholar.

LOL, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do FB! My wife enjoys it but it is not for me . . . .  

You ought to see the thread on weartv page going on right now about obamacare. So many misinformed and some just outright lying. I almost had to post but I don't there. One woman stated that her deductible was $10,000 to $20,000.

That is entirely possible with many of the low priced policies.

Many folks have lost their insurance and are unable to afford insurance so they are forced into no coverage and paying the tax penalty.

Not paying much attention are you?

Markle, it really can't be dumbed down for you anymore than this.  The net result of the ACA is that people gained insurance, not lost it.  Do you understand how to read graphs?  Yes?  OK.  This one represents uninsured Americans.  See how the % of uninsured Americans began to plummet when the ACA was implemented?   Yes?  That means that your comment that I just quoted is objectively wrong.   The ACA resulted in millions of Americans gaining health insurance.  This is an objective fact.

When you refuse to accept that fact and even go as far as to promote the alternative case as being true, you effectively lose all credibility in any discussion of healthcare regulation.

What good is the insurance if people cannot afford to use the product?  Middle income people who have to spend $6,500. out of pocket before they get a dimes worth of help from their insurance?

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:Ok somewhere here I guess I'm not understanding you.

What I am saying is take the govt out of the equation and go back to underwriting a health insurance policy, 40% or maybe more now will get turned down or permanent exclusion's for some part of their body that may have happened one time and never again.

But while I was typing this one thing came to mind.  The rates could come with the present system by eliminating the 10 minimum essential coverage's that are mandated. Still take the uninsured.  But you still have the govt involved and taxpayer's footing the bill for subsidies.

I'd like to see where 40% of applicants for major medical policies are rejected or have significant exceptions.

I have several, minor, one possibly not so minor, pre-existing conditions.  I've never been rejected for any health insurance policy I applied for or life insurance policies.

ppaca wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:Ok somewhere here I guess I'm not understanding you.

What I am saying is take the govt out of the equation and go back to underwriting a health insurance policy, 40% or maybe more now will get turned down or permanent exclusion's for some part of their body that may have happened one time and never again.

But while I was typing this one thing came to mind.  The rates could come with the present system by eliminating the 10 minimum essential coverage's that are mandated. Still take the uninsured.  But you still have the govt involved and taxpayer's footing the bill for subsidies.

I'd like to see where 40% of applicants for major medical policies are rejected or have significant exceptions.

I have several, minor, one possibly not so minor, pre-existing conditions.  I've never been rejected for any health insurance policy I applied for or life insurance policies.

Well if you would like to see  I suggest you do some research of the underwriting days. That's going to take some days on your part so get back with me. And no where did I mention life insurance. You always manage to add things that pop in your head that has nothing to do with a thread.

I don't claim to know anything about real estate but you like to think you know everything about any subject when in fact you're just insignificant  jerk off.

Is this your quote?

What good is the insurance if people cannot afford to use the product?  Middle income people who have to spend $6,500. out of pocket before they get a dimes worth of help from their insurance?

I thought you pugs were for personal responsibility, now you want every thing paid for.

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:

Markle wrote:

ppaca wrote:Ok somewhere here I guess I'm not understanding you.

What I am saying is take the govt out of the equation and go back to underwriting a health insurance policy, 40% or maybe more now will get turned down or permanent exclusion's for some part of their body that may have happened one time and never again.

But while I was typing this one thing came to mind.  The rates could come with the present system by eliminating the 10 minimum essential coverage's that are mandated. Still take the uninsured.  But you still have the govt involved and taxpayer's footing the bill for subsidies.

I'd like to see where 40% of applicants for major medical policies are rejected or have significant exceptions.

I have several, minor, one possibly not so minor, pre-existing conditions.  I've never been rejected for any health insurance policy I applied for or life insurance policies.

Well if you would like to see  I suggest you do some research of the underwriting days. That's going to take some days on your part so get back with me. And no where did I mention life insurance. You always manage to add things that pop in your head that has nothing to do with a thread.

I don't claim to know anything about real estate but you like to think you know everything about any subject when in fact you're just insignificant  jerk off.

Is this your quote?

What good is the insurance if people cannot afford to use the product?  Middle income people who have to spend $6,500. out of pocket before they get a dimes worth of help from their insurance?

I thought you pugs were for personal responsibility, now you want every thing paid for.

So, bottom line is that you have nothing to support your statement.  Why is that not surprising.

Where did I state that the government should pay for everything?  Yes, I strongly support personal responsibility.

You're touting Obamacare as a successful in insuring millions more people but I still contend, how is that useful if they cannot afford to pay the deductible or their medical costs come below that figure each year.  As it would with young healthy people.  Those the system needs to survive.

Thank you for proving I am right by stooping to name calling, it always suits Progressives well.