Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!

With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

Source

Just to add some balance to the hate parade against Obama and the ACA. From Fox News no less. My opinion on the ACA is still up in the air. Working in the healthcare field I know things are about to get crazy. What the end result will be though I have no idea. That same experience however lets me know that the current healthcare system is broken. It may be easy to blame Obama and the Democrats but at the end of the day the whole system is to blame for the current situation. Unfortunately that same system is what prevents us from making any meaningful change.




posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Didn't Obama blatantly lie about keeping your plan or doctor?

Didn't he do this again and again and again and again when he knew it was a complete lie? I thinks that's pretty good grounds for the anger going around.


edit - He knew what would happen with the insurance companies. It was part of the plan and he was well aware of it too. This is his baby and passing the buck doesn't cut it.
edit on 833pm4242pm12013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The insurance companies are NOT to blame. Insurance is being cancelled BECAUSE the existing plans do not meet the ACA requirements, even if you liked them. The new governmental requirements forced insurance companies to cancel plans that did not meet them. In most cases the insurance companies are offering new plans that are more expensive. Why are they more expensive? Because they cover those new required areas that weren't in the old plans. My insurance will double, but I will be very content to know that it now includes coverage for pregnancy. As a 64 year old male I had thought I could get away with a cheaper plan that did not cover that, but hey!

The government knows best.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


It' a no-brainer why the insurance companies are cutting contracts.

If you have to pay out 10,000 a month for someone paying you $200 a month in premiums, aren't you going to take any chance to try to break that contract?

Enter the ACA.

Oh, you mean we can break this contract if we make even the slightest change to the policy?

Done.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
He's a liar.....period. If it makes you feel any better we all know that it doesn't matter who is in office, they all suck equally.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Xcalibur254

Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!

With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

Source

Just to add some balance to the hate parade against Obama and the ACA. From Fox News no less.


The President did promise something that was not realistic and as such is a lie. I do believe he did not intend to lie but circumstances (insurance company positioning) and law (a base line for insurance policies) conspired to make him a liar.

That said, it's a personal attack on the President and has no bearing whatsoever on the value of the Affordable Care Act.

It's just more noise. It's a distraction.

The question, whether ACA, is good for 'most' US residents has been decided in the Legislation and the Courts as provided in the Constitution, Article I, Section I.


Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.



www.archives.gov...

Those opposed, clearly, do not respect the Document nor do they comprehend how a republic works.

It's unrealistic to judge a new Law by it's implementation ( I'm horrified at the digital rollout - the only benefit being drawing attention to overly complex legislation and other points). Valid complaint - very valid. Means the program it's self is bad - No.

Judging a program, a national program, by specific peoples experiences, is also not a valid measure of a programs worth and benefit to the Nation.

I hear horror stories about every system (private - when have you heard someone praise a telecom co? or public - Medicare has many holes) but that doesn't speak to the value of the service.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
If you voted for Obama and do not know who to blame?

Go find a mirror...



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Thus my wait and see position. I know that I will have a lot more paperwork to do in the coming months. However that doesn't mean the program is a failure. Could it be better? Undoubtedly yes. However, is it worse than what we had? Well we just have to see.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
ACA

Another
Cancellation
Acquired



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


And what if you didn't vote for Obama? While this law was Obama's pet project, it was written and altered many times by Congress under the influence of Big Insurance. The fact that corporations and industries as a whole have such a hold over our lawmakers is much more of an issue than a single man in office.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by imawlinn
 


Extinction
Level
Event
Nibiru
Is
Near

See how fun and truthful anagrams can be?



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Those opposed, clearly, do not respect the Document nor do they comprehend how a republic works.


Apparently you don't understand this document nor comprehend how it works.
Where is the legislative power granted to the US congress to enact this legislation? It clearly says they have limited powers and they are not granted the power to force people to buy health insurance.

This is a State matter or if they don't enact anything then it's the people's right. This is how a republic works the States govern themselves and the federal govenment deals only with a limited set of responsibilities enumerated in the constitution.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by IncognitoGhostman
 


It's Constitutional.

The Supreme Court said it is, so that makes it so.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I have yet to see a single post from any of the PPACA's rabid detractors--and I've been posting in a lot of PPACA threads--that even acknowledges that we have a problem with healthcare costs and coverage in this country let alone offering a single solution to fix it.

Even those who think coverage gaps don't need to be addressed should at least be cognizant of the fact that lowering the cost of healthcare is a win for all of us.

It's easy to passionately denounce any attempt at a solution when you can't even admit there's a problem to begin with.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Actually the real culprit here was the interest groups that all had to lobby in required coverage of their pet “disorders”. While I am not knocking that these various issues are important, not everyone runs a risk for them, and not everyone needs that type of coverage. By forcing it on everyone, we all get to pay for things we will never use. As the interest groups know that their “pet” disorder may only apply to a small percentage of Americans, but as everyone has to pay for it, they ensure there is tons of funding there to cover the few that it does apply too.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


It's only constitutional because its a tax, the only way. Besides the Supreme Court is wrong congress didn't have the power in the first place to enact this. They all know it along with 90% of all federal laws. Only if 3/4 of state legislatures enact it then it is the law of the land. It is impossible for this to happen so even the president is wrong when he says "it's the law of the land"!



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

theantediluvian
I have yet to see a single post from any of the PPACA's rabid detractors--and I've been posting in a lot of PPACA threads--that even acknowledges that we have a problem with healthcare costs and coverage in this country let alone offering a single solution to fix it.

Even those who think coverage gaps don't need to be addressed should at least be cognizant of the fact that lowering the cost of healthcare is a win for all of us.

It's easy to passionately denounce any attempt at a solution when you can't even admit there's a problem to begin with.



I'm not a fan of PPACA for -exactly- the reasons you've laid out.

PPACA subsidizes a failed system in Nixon's HMOA.

I want PPACA to fail so that we can keep on truckin'.

This is the closest we've ever been to real change in Healthcare.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

IncognitoGhostman
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


It's only constitutional because its a tax, the only way. Besides the Supreme Court is wrong congress didn't have the power in the first place to enact this. They all know it along with 90% of all federal laws. Only if 3/4 of state legislatures enact it then it is the law of the land. It is impossible for this to happen so even the president is wrong when he says "it's the law of the land"!


How could the founding fathers empower Congress to provide for something that wouldn't exist for over 150 years? In the 1700s the same guy that cut your hair was the one you went to for general surgery and anesthesia was a swig of whisky and a stick to bite down on.

Instead they built an extensible framework that could be built upon to accommodate the future needs of the people. Consider the things that they did make provisions for, communication (post offices), transportation (roads and navigable waterways) and defense (army and navy). These were men who were equally concerned with an individual's freedom and the common good.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

MichaelPMaccabee

theantediluvian
I have yet to see a single post from any of the PPACA's rabid detractors--and I've been posting in a lot of PPACA threads--that even acknowledges that we have a problem with healthcare costs and coverage in this country let alone offering a single solution to fix it.

Even those who think coverage gaps don't need to be addressed should at least be cognizant of the fact that lowering the cost of healthcare is a win for all of us.

It's easy to passionately denounce any attempt at a solution when you can't even admit there's a problem to begin with.



I'm not a fan of PPACA for -exactly- the reasons you've laid out.

PPACA subsidizes a failed system in Nixon's HMOA.

I want PPACA to fail so that we can keep on truckin'.

This is the closest we've ever been to real change in Healthcare.


I only support the PPACA because I see it as a transitional step toward socialized healthcare. So yeah, I see it as this administration getting the ball further down field in the hope that another administration will be able to get it into the end zone.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

IncognitoGhostman
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


It's only constitutional because its a tax, the only way. Besides the Supreme Court is wrong congress didn't have the power in the first place to enact this. They all know it along with 90% of all federal laws. Only if 3/4 of state legislatures enact it then it is the law of the land. It is impossible for this to happen so even the president is wrong when he says "it's the law of the land"!


Nah, it's only Constitutional because the Supreme Court has declared it to be. Nothing you are saying actually matters unless the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Sadly, your opinion, or even The People's opinion doesn't matter on what is or isn't Constitutional. We have delegated that duty to the Court.






top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join