Tea party afraid Obamacare will be sucess

Show me that this is the case. I am against foreign aid. I have already said that.

 

ObamaSnare update


Mod edit: excessive images edited out

"you sure it's going to be fixed within weeks, Mr President? This is Obamacare website riddled with garbled messages today"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...despite-fixed-end-November.html#ixzz2k0yhR0HR

what geniuses!!

 

"you sure it's going to be fixed within weeks, Mr President? This is Obamacare website riddled with garbled messages today"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...despite-fixed-end-November.html#ixzz2k0yhR0HR
what geniuses!![/QUOTE]

What a joke, and this crap cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money. Obama should just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing quit.

 

The Media's Obamacare "Horror Stories" Continue To Collapse


http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/05/the-medias-obamacare-horror-stories-continue-to/196753



Following the October 1 rollout of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, media outlets hyped several anecdotal stories of people who will be negatively affected by the law. These stories have ranged from the misleading to the outright false.




Those planted stories sure are convincing people that many have lost their coverage - but many of those stories are outright lies.

No surprise considering the nature of the controlled right wing media.

 

And why would that be?

Can you explain why, if more people buy insurance, the corporate group premiums would go up?

 

Because pre-existing conditions are now covered, and big kids up to 26.

 

OK, and you can't drop people if they get sick, that costs money too.

So, who paid for that stuff before? Or did people just die?

But that is all for the individual markets.

My question was directed at company group insurance, why would group rates go up?
I'm in a group with a lot of baby boomers, and the rates go up because every year that group incurs higher costs, but group plans are usually rated on past actual costs incurred, so other than including dependents age 22-26 who weren't previously included, and who are the lowest cost demographic there is, some get on family plans, no additional premium, others bump people into larger premiums, most of whom pay more than actual costs incurred.

 

I'm 100 percent confident ObamaCare is going to be one of the most expensive and economically damaging disasters caused domestically. ObamaCare suceeding isn't on my list of worries, I can assure you.

 

Who caught me shaking in my boots and peeing my pants?!

The way it has been set up, Obamacare CAN NOT succeed as the majority will pay much more for insurance in a struggling economy...but nice try..OP....(but, not really)

 

I guess we'll see what happens in a year when the corporate mandate kicks in. New employees may have pre-existing conditions that otherwise may not have been covered, depending on the policy. This will increase the costs to the insurance companies.

 

Trickle down economics are what have powered this country since the industrial revolution. They certainly worked better then whatever you call what we're doing now.

As for ObamaCare, here's why I know it's a bad law.

1.) It's unconstitutional. And because of that, it would be a violation of any legislatures oath of office not to work diligently to see that it is delayed, repealed, or not enforced. (If you want to debate it's constitutionality, go here: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=331186 )

2. Mega-laws like this, especially entitlements that directly affect the entire population, are almost impossible to repeal after they have been implemented, good or bad.

3. We already know ObamaCare is a bad law. According to the CBO, It's going to cost triple what the president originally claimed it was. For pete's sake, the website that rarely works has cost us so far over half a billion dollars!

The national debt is $17,000,000,000,000.00 We should be repealing entitlements, not adding them!

4. It's full of crony capitalism. There's so many exemptions for big unions, multimillion dollar business, and congress... it's just not fair. Not to mention the website contractor (whose CEO happens to be friends with the first lady) was decided in a no bid contract.

5. It is impossible, I repeat impossible for it not to cause a decline in healthcare quality. Think about it. You are giving tens of millions more people doctors, without providing an avenue to increase the number of doctors. People will also be coming into the doctor much more frequently, because they can. This means a) the quality of your care will go down, and b) the price of care will go up.

These are just some of the reasons how I know it'll fail. Do you need more?

 

And my friend who has been a Health Actuary for 30 years, former Chief Actuary of a Blue Cross, one of the top experts on health insurance in the US, says that ObamaCare is an improvement over what we had, and that while it isn't perfect, it should work just fine.

Who should I believe???

 

Do you work for a company that is a "self Insured Employer"?

 

Of course it is going to great for BC/BS for it will increase their profit margins substantially with this mandate. The people that now have coverage won't think its so great when they find that their healthcare services were applied to their deductible and now have to pay for their healthcare.

 

So you still haven't answered the question, who pays for that stuff now?

Who pays for the treatment of the uninsured, or was it all just free before?

I know the cult chant is "It's going to cost a lot more".
But rational people want to know why you say that?
Are you suggesting that as a nation we are better off with a system like they have in Texas, where 852,000 children have no health coverage, or is the system which has been in place for six years now in Massachusetts, where every child is covered, more like the America you want to live in?

 

The only states that are going to be affected by the need for more doctors is states expanding Medicaid. Everyone else will avoid doctors as long as possible due to high deductibles.

 

We all do, but now that Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to pick up the tab, premiums are skyrocketing and/or people are getting dropped.

 

Great. I'm sure you could ask him this question, then:

With ObamaCare, tens of millions of new people are in the market for a doctor. Everybody else can now go into the doctors office for a much cheaper fee, and so they'll probably go there more often, ("my nose is running...am I okay?", that kind of thing). But ObamaCare doesn't provide an avenue to increase the number of doctors. So if demand is going up and yet supply is staying the same, either quality must go down or the price of healthcare must go up. That's not better then what we had before. What am I missing?

If he's so knowledgeable, I'd like to know how'd he'd defend his position here.

 

My wife worked for a Self Insured Employer for a long time, as a manager.
There was an understanding that people with chronic conditions and people who had family members with chronic conditions were top layoff candidates, that older workers were not to be hired, and laying off older workers and replacing them with young male single workers contributed to the bottom line.
This wasn't a written policy, there were no emails on the subject, but it was known by the managers that maybe if they didn't consider the bottom line, they might be good targets for a layoff.
And the company had regular layoffs and then hiring to fill positions vacated by layoffs, new hiring, not recalls.
This systemic discrimination against older workers and women is a part of the self insured employer system, and it remains in place with ObamaCare, it goes away the day we switch to single payer or government run health care.

 

A routine visit to the doctor is subsidized by an insurance plan, even ones with high deductables.

Everybody is going to be forced to have health insurance. So all states will be dealing with a sharp increase in demand for doctors.

 

I know a lot about self insured employers and what they do to discriminate you based on your health and age and it should be illegal for them to do this kind of behavior. People do not realize that those premium shares taken out of their paychecks that never used healthcare is profit in the bank for self insured employers. Once you get diagnosed with anything or are now in the age bracket when you now need to get healthcare, the employer finds a way to fire you. People are actually getting a cut in pay because they pay those monthly premium shares that can add up over the years of employment.

 

Under the exchange they are limited to 3 visits per year however if you require blood work, testing, or procedures it is going to be applied to the deductible.

 

There is no reason for premiums to rise except for greed. The health insurance companies have actually lowered the amount of money to be paid on claims by increasing the deductibles.

 

BC/BSs don't have profit margins, they're non-profit.
What ObamaCare does is make more people pay into the health care system.
Now that also means that more people are covered for health care services and so the demand for health care services will rise, and the cost of health care will increase.
But would you rather see children going without health care, as a means of keeping costs down?
That's what Texas does now, they have millions of people, 852,000 children, who don't have access to regular health care.
It reduces cost, it's a third world solution, and maybe some people think that America should be better than that.
Because isn't that the core of Liberalism, that we as a people should be better?
That we shouldn't allow people to starve to death, that we take care of our people, that we feed and clothe and shelter and provide health care to those who need it , because we are better than those who would let their people starve to death, let diseased children go untreated, let veterans die in the cold winter night.
That's what being a Liberal is all about. We don't think we can make the world perfect, but we do believe we can make the world better, and we have.

 

I'm not sure what your saying. How can you increase demand without increasing supply and expect the cost to say the same?