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 : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote: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.
Unbelievable... You are an incorporated statist. The nerve it requires for you to call someone a nazi is off the charts.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote: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.
If you buy a house with a mortgage loan, the mortgage company requires insurance, not the government.    And neither the mortgage company or the government  requires you to pay for, let's say flood insurance, if your house is on a hill.    When you drive a car, the government doesn't require you to have insurance on your own car.



Last edited by Nekochan on 10/31/2013, 10:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nekochan

Nekochan

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote: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.
Unbelievable... You are an incorporated statist. The nerve it requires for you to call someone a nazi is off the charts.
LOL.

2seaoat



Unbelievable... You are an incorporated statist. The nerve it requires for you to call someone a nazi is off the charts.


LOL.......a statist who has workman comp insurance in my business, has title insurance policies on my properties, has liability insurance on my business and vehicles, and have my bank accounts insured. All reasonably regulated by government regulations.

However, let us talk about something dear to those of us who own real estate in Florida. A homeowners insurance product. Do you think citizens are rendered impotent to demand regulated products being sold which actually pay folks after a loss. Is it the state which is driving this regulation or people like Bob with a crap medical policy, or folks after Ivan who got cheated by insurance companies. No you are confused. In a democracy the people pass legislation which protects people, not crooks and unmitigated wealth which can simply steal from citizens without recourse.....you consistently deny the legitimate purpose of government, and somehow believe that human behavior in the absence of limits will behave in a civilized manner......you make me smile at how utterly incomplete and unwilling you are to give an alternative to government.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote: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.
Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGh2odJrivJDJ14-Ccd2wbM5HVxa3exWpBRkfhdm8naxbCAoc9aA

The government can regulate the insurance companies all they want if that's what you demand.

On the other hand forcing people to buy something from a private company just because they happen to be breathing is not regulating that's tyranny.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuSZaW02Q-M

Smile 

Yella

Yella

Nekochan wrote: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?”
Time will tell. If it works and Obama is correct the Republican Party will be destroyed and vice versa if the Republicans are correct. I personally believe both parties lie and the media is driven by Corporate money.

http://warpedinblue,blogspot.com/

Nekochan

Nekochan

Here's your "competition".

Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

2seaoat



Here's your "competition".

Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare


The use of opt out of Obamacare is not entirely accurate. Currently, providers can choose to not take customers who have certain insurance policies. In some states the policies accepted by some institutions are limited. If you go to those policies listed on an exchange which are accepted by that institution, nobody is opting out of anything. Again careless use of language by the article, but clearly it creates a panic, and in fact certain states have limited companies in that competition. When a public option is created, the choices and competition will be improved. However, many doctors do not take medicare right now. Should not the article also say hospitals and care providers are opting out of medicare............

The folks who have enjoyed a monopoly are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the realm of apple to apple comparison, and the blank check days are over.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.
Those are basic requirements that are not extra whether you use them or not. They are not paying extra for those coverages.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Here's your "competition".

Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare


The use of opt out of Obamacare is not entirely accurate.   Currently, providers can choose to not take customers who have certain insurance policies.  In some states the policies accepted by some institutions are limited.  If you go to those policies listed on an exchange which are accepted by that institution, nobody is opting out of anything.   Again careless use of language by the article, but clearly it creates a panic, and in fact certain states have limited companies in that competition.   When a public option is created, the choices and competition will be improved.  However, many doctors do not take medicare right now.   Should not the article also say hospitals and care providers are opting out of medicare............

The folks who have enjoyed a monopoly are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the realm of apple to apple comparison, and the blank check days are over.
The top hospitals cannot make it on what ObamaCare allows to be paid. Like Great Britain, Canada and Germany, we'll have two levels of care. Those who can afford the best...and the rest.

Markle

Markle

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.
Those are basic requirements that are not extra whether you use them or not. They are not paying extra for those coverages.
WOW, who pays for them? Earth to Dreamsglore, NOTHING IS FREE.

You really have no clue as to how insurance works do you?

2seaoat



The top hospitals cannot make it on what ObamaCare allows to be paid. Like Great Britain, Canada and Germany, we'll have two levels of care. Those who can afford the best...and the rest.


This is when real socialism will interface with this private insurance market. Currently in most states a hospital cannot just build a heart lung wing without state regulators allowing the expansion into that area......this state level regulation of provider services has been going on for forty years as medical boards approve the services and protect providers. When these providers fail to serve the public and exclude everybody but the wealthy, then we most certainly are going to see a socialistic response from government. Medicare is facing the same problem right now. This is a real problem, and unfortunately we do not want the solution.

Markle

Markle

[quote="2seaoat"The top hospitals cannot make it on what ObamaCare allows to be paid. Like Great Britain, Canada and Germany, we'll have two levels of care. Those who can afford the best...and the rest.

This is when real socialism will interface with this private insurance market.  Currently in most states a hospital cannot just build a heart lung wing without stregulation of provider services has been going on for forty years as medical boards ate regulators allowing the expansion into that area......this state level approve the services and protect providers.   When these providers fail to serve the public and exclude everybody but the wealthy, then we most certainly are going to see a socialistic response from government.  Medicare is facing the same problem right now.  This is a real problem, and unfortunately we do not want the solution.
[/quote]

That's right, we'll have the same months long to more than a year wait for surgeries.  Instead you'll get a pain pill.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.
Those are basic requirements that are not extra whether you use them or not. They are not paying extra for those coverages.
Let me get this straight....a man and a 55 year old woman who are required by Obamacare to have maternity coverage in their policy are not paying extra for that coverage?

dumpcare



When I see hospitals or doctor's opting out of obamacare I am thinking WTF. They may opt out of some regulations from CMS and not upgrade their systems's or opt out of other provision's of the law and live with any penalty's that may be imposed, but if they have signed a contract with an insurance company to accept patients in plan A, the reimbursement's are determined most likely by a TPA for the hospital or doc and provider relation's from the insurance company. How many of you really knew from the beginning or even now that Obamacare is not an insurance policy?

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.
Those are basic requirements that are not extra whether you use them or not. They are not paying extra for those coverages.
Let me get this straight....a man and a 55 year old woman who are required by Obamacare to have maternity coverage in their policy are not paying extra for that coverage?
No, the insurer pays for it.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
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?
Again, the govt. forced the insurance co.'s to provide adequate coverage. They had the choice to do that and don't want to. The govt. did not force them to cancel. You keep getting this mixed up. The govt. forces companies to abide by regulations that are beneficial to the public. If people choose not to do this then they have the choice to not be in business. It's quite simple. Your right to have freedom of choice does not supercede my right to have to pay for it whether emotionally or financially.
Like I said, if you own a house on a hill with a mortgage owed, no one, not even the mortgage company, requires you to have flood insurance. Adequate coverage, by any stretch of the imagination, is not requiring a man to have maternity coverage or a 55 year old woman to have maternity coverage.
Those are basic requirements that are not extra whether you use them or not. They are not paying extra for those coverages.
Let me get this straight....a man and a 55 year old woman who are required by Obamacare to have maternity coverage in their policy are not paying extra for that coverage?
No, the insurer pays for it.
The insurance company?

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:I refuse to carry on w/ a moron,GBB. It's not fair.
Hypocrite much? Remember this?







Dreamsglore wrote:

gulfbeachbandit wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:He should have been banned a long time ago.
You should have had your foot amputated a long time ago. Nasty Stupid reply as usual.
To match your personality. When will you learn to mind your own business? Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Just like I told you several times before. I leave your idiotic posts alone till you troll my posts, then I have to reply in kind.

Guest


Guest


Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Page 2 Z

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE

Wink 

If the lunch was free the drinks wouldn't be twice as high as other places.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

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