Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[Ban Hammer 13,594]

Yeah, people should be able to hedge their bet and not get health insurance. I mean, they probably won't get sick or hurt right?

And then if they get hurt/sick, the can opt for medicaid. SWEET, a way to apply the Vegas money making schema to people's lives. Maybe you get sick/hurt, maybe not. Who knows right?......... go ahead and take a chance, its cheaper if you stay lucky. Even if you do roll snake eyes, you can always get handouts right?

F the government for making me responsible for my own healthcare. THAT'S MY RIGHT TO TAKE A RISK AND F EVERYONE ELSE OVER FOR MY SHORT TERM BENEFIT.

nowhere near what i was talking about.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

ooooooooh. i see. you think i don't have enough wealth to be considered a real time player in the game. it's true that i do not have any wealth. but that doesn't mean i don't know the game. you're dead wrong there, cleo.

i've been paying for my health insurance for sixteen years. i've never gone on any sort of assistance my entire life. my parents could have, many times, growing up - but they didnt' either. why don't you climb down off that high horse and tell me how is aca made for me and folks like me? i don't need anything from you, and honestly i'd rather die from a curable disease than take anything that i haven't worked for or earned.

as far as your kool aide nonsense..you've been chugging from your own doomsday cup. i was simply offering a different flavor.

You have been paying for the employee portion of your health insurance for years

[decocker 7,198]

You have been paying for the employee portion of your health insurance for years

you got me. i pay my portion and my employer pays his.

your point?

Edited October 30, 2013 by val erie

[GandD 5,966]

nowhere near what i was talking about.

What choice would you like for them to have Charlie Boy? (Can I call you Charlie boy?)

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

you got me. i pay my portion and my employer pays his.

your point?

My point is that Insurance is out of control and adding a lot of the cost of Medicine

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2013/06/06/Pay-for-health-care-CEOs-exceeds-all-other-industries

Using the survey results, Equilar ranked 2012 median CEO pay by industry:

Health care ($11.1 million);

Industrial goods ($11 million);

Services ($10.9 million);

Financial ($9.8 million);

Consumer goods ($9.5 million);

Basic materials ($9.3 million);

Technology ($9.2 million); and

Utilities ($7.5 million).

[decocker 7,198]

My point is that Insurance is out of control and adding a lot of the cost of Medicine

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2013/06/06/Pay-for-health-care-CEOs-exceeds-all-other-industries

Using the survey results, Equilar ranked 2012 median CEO pay by industry:

Health care ($11.1 million);

Industrial goods ($11 million);

Services ($10.9 million);

Financial ($9.8 million);

Consumer goods ($9.5 million);

Basic materials ($9.3 million);

Technology ($9.2 million); and

Utilities ($7.5 million).

believe me, i'm well aware. it's disgusting.

[Teddy B 17,252]

What choice would you like for them to have Charlie Boy? (Can I call you Charlie boy?)

If I can't call him Chuck, you can't call him Charlie Boy.

Neener neener.

[Ban Hammer 13,594]

What choice would you like for them to have Charlie Boy? (Can I call you Charlie boy?)

reread it again. and no.

[B_J 2,752]

So, you're saying the government gives between 8-10k a year and you don't have to work? Wow, why didn't I know about this?

I've shopped in grocery stores outside of the commissary, and the folks who use WIC or food stamps never get the good stuff, from what I've seen.

I've had money taken out of my check since I was 15, yet if it goes to support those who can't work, who am I to judge?

You never know why folks are in the positions they are in. If it bothered me as much as it does folks that complain about it all the time, they should ask these people in line buying the good stuff why. You might get more than you bargained for.

Wow, you did that really well. Way to claim I said some thing that I never did.

I never said they didn't work. But I do feel a family with one person working making around $10/hr shouldn't be having more kids. This family just added their 4th and 5th child in two years. They manage to give their kids smart phones and they participate in lots of after school activities (soccer, dance class, etc. ). They have enough money for all these extras, yet still receive hundreds in food stamps. And yes, they receive thousands of dollars from the gov't each year.

The money they take out of my check doesn't only support those who can't work; it also supports those who won't work. It also supports those who won't work harder because they are satisfied making a little and getting the rest handed to them. I'm okay with helping those who can't work, but I'm tired of helping the others.

And I do know why many folks are in the positions they are in. I know these people very well. So, if you really want to know; you can just ask me.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Wow, you did that really well. Way to claim I said some thing that I never did.

I never said they didn't work. But I do feel a family with one person working making around $10/hr shouldn't be having more kids. This family just added their 4th and 5th child in two years. They manage to give their kids smart phones and they participate in lots of after school activities (soccer, dance class, etc. ). They have enough money for all these extras, yet still receive hundreds in food stamps. And yes, they receive thousands of dollars from the gov't each year.

The money they take out of my check doesn't only support those who can't work; it also supports those who won't work. It also supports those who won't work harder because they are satisfied making a little and getting the rest handed to them. I'm okay with helping those who can't work, but I'm tired of helping the others.

And I do know why many folks are in the positions they are in. I know these people very well. So, if you really want to know; you can just ask me.

I just took what you wrote and shared my personal experience with it.

So, do we get to decide what is the proper amount of money someone makes before they get to have a certain amount of kids? I say this because I find it interesting it bothers folks so much what they do with their money or what they recieve from govt assistance. Personally, I am not for handouts, but I know there are circumstances that folks don't share with everyone and it's the reason they are on the govt teet as folks love to throw around here.

I don't know why folks are in those positions. Like I said, I don't judge. I know some freeloaders, and they get nothing but my comtempt. At the end of the day, they have to live with themselves, and that is punishment enough in my book.

[B_J 2,752]

I just took what you wrote and shared my personal experience with it.

So, do we get to decide what is the proper amount of money someone makes before they get to have a certain amount of kids? I say this because I find it interesting it bothers folks so much what they do with their money or what they recieve from govt assistance. Personally, I am not for handouts, but I know there are circumstances that folks don't share with everyone and it's the reason they are on the govt teet as folks love to throw around here.

I don't know why folks are in those positions. Like I said, I don't judge. I know some freeloaders, and they get nothing but my comtempt. At the end of the day, they have to live with themselves, and that is punishment enough in my book.

Here's the problem.

You find it interesting that I'm bothered by freeloaders yet you admit contempt for them as well. You feel that "having to live with themselves" is punishment enough. I would rather have no freeloaders. You say you are not for handouts and neither am I. But "having to live with themselves" won't stop freeloaders.

Again, I know many of these people. I know them personally. There are a lot of freeloaders. And they are quite happy with themselves. Your contempt means nothing to them. Not every person on gov't assistance is a freeloader; but those who are freeloaders are enjoying their life and see no reason to improve their life. Why work for something when you can get it for free?

[SMOKE 1,426]

reread it again. and no.

how about Chuckie? it is Halloween & all

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan

Rated as big lie

hat means that no matter how we reform health care, 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’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
– President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health care law was being written.)
“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”
– Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health care law was signed into law.
“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”
– tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew “millions” could not keep their health insurance.
Many readers have asked us to step back into time and review these statements by the president now that it appears that as many as 2 million people may need to get a new insurance plan as the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, goes into effect in 2014. As we were considering those requests, one of the president’s most senior advisers then tweeted a statement on the same issue that cried out for fact checking.
The Facts
The president’s pledge that “if you like your insurance, you will keep it” is one of the most memorable of his presidency. It was also an extraordinarily bold — and possibly foolish — pledge, unless he thought he simply could dictate exactly how the insurance industry must work.
At the time, some observers noted the problems with Obama’s promise.
After Obama made his speech before the AMA, the Associated Press ran a smart analysis — “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee” — that demonstrated how it would be all but impossible for the president to keep that pledge. The article noted that the Congressional Budget Office assumed that 10 million Americans would need to seek new insurance under the Senate version of the bill.
Meanwhile, in the Republican weekly address on Aug. 24, 2009, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a doctor, made this point: “On the stump, the President regularly tells Americans that ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.’ But if you read the bill, that just isn’t so. For starters, within five years, every health care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage — one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.”
One might excuse the president for making an aspirational pledge as the health-care bill was being drafted, but it turns out he kept saying it after the bill was signed into law. By that point, there should have been no question about the potential impact of the law on insurance plans, especially in the individual market.
As we have noted, a key part of the law is forcing insurers to offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
For some plans, this would be a big change. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services noted: “62 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for maternity services; 34 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for substance abuse services; 18 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for mental health services; 9 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for prescription drugs.”
The law did allow “grandfathered” plans — for people who had obtained their insurance before the law was signed on March 23, 2010 — to escape this requirement and some other aspects of the law. But the regulations written by HHS while implementing the law set some tough guidelines, so that if an insurance company makes changes to a plan’s benefits or how much members pay through premiums, copays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status.
If you dig into the regulations (go to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One provision says that if copayment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the copay could not increase by more than $5.20.) Another provision says the coinsurance rate could not be increased at all above the level it was on March 23, 2010.
While one might applaud an effort to rid the country of inadequate insurance, the net effect is that over time, the plans would no longer meet the many tests for staying grandfathered. Already, the percentage of people who get coverage from their job via a grandfathered plan has dropped from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013.
In the individual insurance market, few plans were expected to meet the “grandfathered” requirements, which is why many people are now receiving notices that their old plan is terminated and they need to sign up for different coverage. Again, this should be no surprise. As HHS noted in a footnote of a report earlier this year: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”
Indeed, at least six states — Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Wyoming and Kansas — require insurance companies to cancel existing policies, rather than amend them, if the grandfathered coverage lapses.
Now, it’s important to note that many people — perhaps a large majority — are receiving notices that they have lost their insurance plan because they were never grandfathered in the first place. In other words, they got a plan after the bill was signed into law back in 2010. If that’s the case, they have no option but to accept the more fulsome insurance mandated by the law.
Still, it’s worth remembering that insurance companies pressed throughout the health care debate to allow people to keep the policy they had effective at the end of 2013. The consequences of the unusual March 23, 2010, cut-off date are now being felt. HHS, when it drafted the interim rules, estimated that between 40 and 67 percent of policies in the individual market are in effect for less than one year. “These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered,” the rules noted. (See page 34553.)
Moreover, it’s certainly incorrect to claim, as some Republicans have, that people are losing insurance coverage. Instead, in virtually all cases, it’s being replaced with probably better (and possibly more expensive) insurance.
In recent days, administration officials have argued that the plans that are going away are “substandard” and lacked essential protections — and that many people may qualify for tax credits to mitigate the higher premiums that may result from the new requirements.
“Now folks are transitioning to the new standards of the Affordable Care Act which guarantee you can’t be denied, you won’t be kicked off of a policy because you developed a problem, you may be eligible for tax credits, depending on your income,” said Marilyn Tavenner, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “So these are important protections that are now available through the Affordable Care Act.”
Or, as White House spokesman Jay Carney put it: “It’s correct that substandard plans that don’t provide minimum services that have a lot of fine print that leaves consumers in the lurch, often because of annual caps or lifetime caps or carve-outs for some preexisting conditions, those are no longer allowed — because the Affordable Care Act is built on the premise that health care is not a privilege, it’s a right, and there should be minimum standards for the plans available to Americans across the country.”
But such assertions do not really explain the president’s promise — or Jarrett’s tweet. There may be a certain percentage of people who were happy with their “substandard” plan, presumably because it cost relatively little. And while Jarrett claimed that “nothing” in the law is forcing people out of their plans “unless insurance companies change plans,” she is describing rules written by the president’s aides that were designed to make it difficult for plans to remain grandfathered for very long.
As the HHS footnote mentioned above stated: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”
The Pinocchio Test
The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.
The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.
The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”
Four Pinocchios

pinocchio
(About our rating scale)

[Ban Hammer 13,594]

how about Chuckie? it is Halloween & all

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Here's the problem.

You find it interesting that I'm bothered by freeloaders yet you admit contempt for them as well. You feel that "having to live with themselves" is punishment enough. I would rather have no freeloaders. You say you are not for handouts and neither am I. But "having to live with themselves" won't stop freeloaders.

Again, I know many of these people. I know them personally. There are a lot of freeloaders. And they are quite happy with themselves. Your contempt means nothing to them. Not every person on gov't assistance is a freeloader; but those who are freeloaders are enjoying their life and see no reason to improve their life. Why work for something when you can get it for free?

I've seen some people freeloading to the point it makes my stomach turn. Married dude, 4 kids, 3 ex wives, he doesn't work, his wife works 3 jobs to support him and his son, doesn't pay child support for any of his kids, doesn't bother with the kid he has with his current wife, brags about this to anyone who listens to him. I've told him to his face, I hate he does this because it hurts those who actually need help, instead of just being a lazy slob.

All I know is I pay my bills, I take care of my wife and kids, I do what's right. I don't complain about other folks because they have their lives to live. If the system changes and they could weed out all the freeloaders, I'm all for it.