Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare

+3
2seaoat
dumpcare
Nekochan
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Nekochan

Nekochan

And now the ball drops.  93 Million Americans. Like I have been saying for the last few days, I don't believe that only 5% of Americans will lose their current health insurance. I've been saying that we don't know what will happen with Americans on employer sponsored plans.  And so here is a Forbes article, talking about this. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled
But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in theFederal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of theRegister. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.
How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.
Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?
President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.
Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”
But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”
But his plan is being canceled. His new, Obamacare-compatible plan has a $500 higher deductible, and a narrower physician and hospital network that restricts out-of-town providers. And yet it costs 66 percent more than his current plan. “Mr. President,” he writes, “I really like my health plan and I would like to keep it. Can you help me out here?”

Guest


Guest

Saw this on drudge earlier but couldn't post .... So almost 1/3 of America will get the shaft

dumpcare



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/this-is-why-obamacare-is-cancelling-some-peoples-insurance-plans/

2seaoat



This is not real difficult. If you have a policy which is in compliance with the state's liability policy on your auto, it will renew and you should not have a rate increase in your auto insurance. If a insurance provider is selling policies which are not in compliance with the law, their product must be substituted by the consumer to be in compliance with the liability requirements in automobile policies, or you will get a notice that the liability coverage has increased and you will have an increase in your policy when it renews.

Now apply the same principles to health insurance, understanding that society has passed laws which protect the public from the uninsured. It is outrageous to think we are paying for folks who choose to disobey the law......the penalties should be increased. I am tired of people driving cars without insurance, and people who are not responsible and carry health insurance. There are no excuses with the subsidies being offered, and if a person persists and does not want to be insured.....the penalties are not that big.......YET!

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:This is not real difficult. If you have a policy which is in compliance with the state's liability policy on your auto, it will renew and you should not have a rate increase in your auto insurance. If a insurance provider is selling policies which are not in compliance with the law, their product must be substituted by the consumer to be in compliance with the liability requirements in automobile policies, or you will get a notice that the liability coverage has increased and you will have an increase in your policy when it renews.

Now apply the same principles to health insurance, understanding that society has passed laws which protect the public from the uninsured. It is outrageous to think we are paying for folks who choose to disobey the law......the penalties should be increased. I am tired of people driving cars without insurance, and people who are not responsible and carry health insurance. There are no excuses with the subsidies being offered, and if a person persists and does not want to be insured.....the penalties are not that big.......YET!


NAZI..!!

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:This is not real difficult.   If you have a policy which is in compliance with the state's liability policy on your auto, it will renew and you should not have a rate increase in your auto insurance.   If a insurance provider is selling policies which are not in compliance with the law, their product must be substituted by the consumer to be in compliance with the liability requirements in automobile policies, or you will get a notice that the liability coverage has increased and you will have an increase in your policy when it renews.

Now apply the same principles to health insurance, understanding that society has passed laws which protect the public from the uninsured.  It is outrageous to think we are paying for folks who choose to disobey the law......the penalties should be increased.  I am tired of people driving cars without insurance, and people who are not responsible and carry health insurance.  There are no excuses with the subsidies being offered, and if a person persists and does not want to be insured.....the penalties are not that big.......YET!

EPIC FAIL....like yourself.

Guest


Guest

President "You can keep your insurance if you want" Obama....told a doozy

VectorMan

VectorMan

The libtards live and breath lies like their lives depended on it. And, they may well. Are there any missing libtards?

Even some of Obama's libtard cohorts are turning on him. Even from the liberal media. LOL. He has really screwed up now. And so it goes.

Stay tuned for even more fantastical lies. Believe me, they're coming.

If Obama and his wife and kids don't have to get ObamaCare he can kiss my ass.

Guest


Guest

Let me find a simple analogy to sum up the "you can keep your plan" Obama comment.

You can do the job anyway you want to, as long as its my way. If not then you can not keep this job and its your fault because I told you, you could do it anyway you wanted, as long as it was my way. see? Laughing 

Nekochan

Nekochan

America was lied to.  Simple as that.  And for anyone who says that Obama didn't know and it's the insurance companies' faults -- what do you think should be done before a complete overhaul and change of a system is forced on businesses and insurance companies?  A HUGE part of the job of the people who set this damn system up was to anticipate what would happen under these new rules.

Guest


Guest

No, they weren't lied to. You just have misinformation and want to pursue false rhetoric. This is really a republican issue that they have beat for years about making people responsible. Now they are being held responsible for their own healthcare and you all are trying to beat that down. What is it you want? Do you think you or I should have to pay for those who choose not to have healthcare? Do you think people should have cell phones and cable TV and not have healthcare so we pay for it when something happens?

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

This from the party that brought us "pro choice"?

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:No, they weren't lied to. You just have misinformation and want to pursue false rhetoric. This is really a republican issue that they have beat for years about making people responsible. Now they are being held responsible for their own healthcare and you all are trying to beat that down. What is it you want? Do you think you or I should have to pay for those who choose not to have healthcare? Do you think people should have cell phones and cable TV and not have healthcare so we pay for it when something happens?  
Who do you think pays for the subsidies?  Taxpayers.  
The system could have been improved without the government forcing people to pay for coverage that they will never medically need. 

We still do not know what is going to happen to the entire market over the next 5 years or so.  If you think that Obama couldn't have known that millions would lose their insurance, then how can anyone know what this will mean for any of us 2 years, 5 years down the road?

Guest


Guest

gulfbeachbandit wrote:This from  the party that brought us "pro choice"?
Do you want to pay for those babies who's parents can't support them? What does pro choice have to do w/ anything? If you can't debate anything kindly don't bring in any issues that are not relevant.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:This from  the party that brought us "pro choice"?
Do you want to pay for those babies who's parents can't support them? What does pro choice have to do w/ anything? If you can't debate anything kindly don't bring in any issues that are not relevant.
I only meant that I wish you made another choice. A part time walmart employee is about a half a step above a street beggar. Right mom?
Lets not talk about the other idiot alcoholic offspring you spit out. mommy dearest. 0 for 2. Not a good record, mommy. And why are you still working at your age? Bad planning?

Replied in kind. As I said before.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:No, they weren't lied to. You just have misinformation and want to pursue false rhetoric. This is really a republican issue that they have beat for years about making people responsible. Now they are being held responsible for their own healthcare and you all are trying to beat that down. What is it you want? Do you think you or I should have to pay for those who choose not to have healthcare? Do you think people should have cell phones and cable TV and not have healthcare so we pay for it when something happens?  
Who do you think pays for the subsidies?  Taxpayers.  
The system could have been improved without the government forcing people to pay for coverage that they will never medically need. 

We still do not know what is going to happen to the entire market over the next 5 years or so.  If you think that Obama couldn't have known that millions would lose their insurance, then how can anyone know what this will mean for any of us 2 years, 5 years down the road?
I mean your argument doesn't make any sense. Who pays for the medical care of the people who have none? Taxpayers.
You must really think Obama is a psychic? He knew people would lose coverage. He said so. Did he know how many? Of course not. How could he? If you believe in the free market then this will drive costs down due to competition. Everyone knows we've been fleeced for years by this so called healthcare. People like Chrissy don't like it because her employer won't be able to gouge people like they've been doing. LOL!

Guest


Guest

gulfbeachbandit wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:This from  the party that brought us "pro choice"?
Do you want to pay for those babies who's parents can't support them? What does pro choice have to do w/ anything? If you can't debate anything kindly don't bring in any issues that are not relevant.
I only meant that I wish you made another choice.  A part time walmart employee is about a half a step above a street beggar.  Right mom?
Lets not talk about the other idiot alcoholic offspring you spit out.  mommy dearest.  0 for 2.  Not a good record, mommy.  And why are you still working at your age?  Bad planning?

Replied in kind.  As I said before.
How old am I? You couldn't hold a candle to my offspring financially or intellectually and that's a fact, Jack.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
gulfbeachbandit wrote:This from  the party that brought us "pro choice"?
Do you want to pay for those babies who's parents can't support them? What does pro choice have to do w/ anything? If you can't debate anything kindly don't bring in any issues that are not relevant.
I only meant that I wish you made another choice.  A part time walmart employee is about a half a step above a street beggar.  Right mom?
Lets not talk about the other idiot alcoholic offspring you spit out.  mommy dearest.  0 for 2.  Not a good record, mommy.  And why are you still working at your age?  Bad planning?

Replied in kind.  As I said before.
How old am I? You couldn't hold a candle to my offspring financially or intellectually and that's a fact, Jack.
You aborted the wrong babies. That's why you are the way you are.
You put the good ones in the vagina blender and kept the bad ones. More bad decisions by you.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:No, they weren't lied to. You just have misinformation and want to pursue false rhetoric. This is really a republican issue that they have beat for years about making people responsible. Now they are being held responsible for their own healthcare and you all are trying to beat that down. What is it you want? Do you think you or I should have to pay for those who choose not to have healthcare? Do you think people should have cell phones and cable TV and not have healthcare so we pay for it when something happens?  
Who do you think pays for the subsidies?  Taxpayers.  
The system could have been improved without the government forcing people to pay for coverage that they will never medically need. 

We still do not know what is going to happen to the entire market over the next 5 years or so.  If you think that Obama couldn't have known that millions would lose their insurance, then how can anyone know what this will mean for any of us 2 years, 5 years down the road?
I mean your argument doesn't make any sense. Who pays for the medical care of the people who have none? Taxpayers.
You must really think Obama is a psychic? He knew people would lose coverage. He said so. Did he know how many? Of course not. How could he? If you believe in the free market then this will drive costs down due to competition. Everyone knows we've been fleeced for years by this so called healthcare. People like Chrissy don't like it because her employer won't be able to gouge people like they've been doing. LOL!
Maybe I'm wrong, but here is what I see happening.....if I'm wrong, you can't blame me, just like you don't blame Obama for not knowing what would happen with the system that was named for him.    What I see is this: 
We're going to have more people than ever on Medicaid.  Companies are going to drop coverage for employees because it cost them too much because of all of the stuff they're now forced to cover.  These employees, who had been getting insurance at no expense to the taxpayers are going to end up with Obamacare and with taxpayer subsidies--which cost the taxpayer.  Young people are going to opt out of Obamacare and the system really needs a lot of younger, healthier people paying for insurance in order to pay for all the older, sicker people.   Many people  who were happy with their plans are going to be forced into plans that cost more with higher deductibles.  And those with really good plans are going to end up paying a tax.

Guest


Guest

I refuse to carry on w/ a moron,GBB. It's not fair.

Guest


Guest

You don't understand competition. When Walmart went w/ $4 prescriptions other companies went w/ free prescriptions like Publix. Now we have a whole slew of reasonable drugs due to competition.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Walmart and Publix did what they did without the government forcing them to.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Walmart and Publix did what they did without the government forcing them to.
The govt.didn't force the insurance co.'s to cancel policies. Why don't you get that?

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Walmart and Publix did what they did without the government forcing them to.
The govt.didn't force the insurance co.'s to cancel policies. Why don't you get that?
The government under Obamacare forced the companies to require specific types of coverage whether the consumer wants it or not. Does the government force Walmart and Publix to sell certain types of items?

2seaoat



The government under Obamacare forced the companies to require specific types of coverage whether the consumer wants it or not. Does the government force Walmart and Publix to sell certain types of items?


I think we need to step back and start to think. People are acting like government regulation of insurance products is something new. It is not. When you buy a house in America, and there is a loan, you can bet you are buying title insurance. This is one of the heaviest regulated insurance industries products. When you drive a car, you are mandated to have insurance. That insurance is heavily regulated and includes liability and medical in many states. When you have somebody work on your roof, you check to see if they have their workman comp insurance. Workman comp is again highly regulated and people have policies mandated....there is little choice. The insurance on your savings deposit is not a free choice of getting higher interest, and getting a lesser amount insured....no government mandates coverage.

In each of these regulated insurance markets people are continuously screaming that the regulation does not go far enough, or it goes too far. This naive idea that somehow government suddenly has over stepped its role is simply without context and ill informed.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum