It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Threatens Veto Of Upton's Obamacare Bill - We Don't Want You To Keep It!

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Good ol Barry is going to be public enemy #1. I predicted that he will eventually hit about 28% in the polls and well, this will be his moment to shine in this respect.

Now I saw this one coming... I even mentioned this at ATS. He has threatened to veto the republican bill, that allows you to keep your health insurance, on the grounds that it destroys Obamacare. So he is saying that he doesn't want Americans to keep their insurance if they like it. Period!

Now I have to ask, what about the democratic bill sponsored by Landrieu? I saw no mention of her bill. If Upton's republican bill that allows you to keep your insurance for two years is bad, than what about hers? Landrieu's bill is much better and provides a permanent ability to keep your insurance, much better than Obam's unconstitutional plan or Upton's.

Obama wants what he wants, and not what Americans want, period.




The White House issued a formal veto threat Thursday night of a bill offered by House Republicans that would allow insurance companies to continue offering health plans that existed before the beginning of the new year. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), is coming up for a vote on Friday. ADVERTISEMENT In a statement from the Office of Management and Budget, the administration argues the law is intended to “sabotage” ObamaCare.


White House threatens veto of Upton bill

edit on 14-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Didn't the man himself come on TV today and allow it for a year?



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 



S&F...

I just posted this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... concerning a woman with cancer who is getting her insurance cancelled in the middle of her cancer treatment...

How many sad children will be holding signs and saying Obamacare killed my parent?

Coming soon from the looks of it, and the Obama Administration isn't planning on doing anything about it!



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by elouina
 


Didn't the man himself come on TV today and allow it for a year?


Yeah, he DICTATED a year and just enough to temporarily take the heat off himself, and get the Dems past elections. What difference will a year make? It will just create more expense and misery. A year is not permanent, he doesn't want you to keep your insurance. Keeping your insurance goes against his idea of what Obamacare is. This is a load of crap.

This one will destroy his career. Mark my words.
edit on 14-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by elouina
 


Didn't the man himself come on TV today and allow it for a year?


Guess I'll see come Jan. 10th.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
it doesn't matter, the damage has been done.

the insurance market has been destroyed, and nothing they do or say will bring it back. period.

of course that was the plan all along.

isn't the point of obamacare, to force everyone to buy obamacare?
if nobody buys it, whats the point of it?

so yeah of course he will veto anything that nullifies his legacy.

despotism is the name of the game folks, get used to it.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


From your source, an excerpt of the statement:


“[The bill] rolls back the progress made by allowing insurers to continue to sell new plans that deploy practices such as not offering coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, charging women more than men, and continuing yearly caps on the amount of care that enrollees receive,” the statement said.


What about Mary Landrieu's bill?


So enter Sen. Mary Landrieu's fix to this issue (see here and here for details). In short, it would allow people to keep their crappy individual insurance policies, but insurance companies would be unable to keep selling them to new customers, and they'd have to let their customers know why the government considers their policies crap and point them to the exchanges for other options. The idea may not be a home run on the policy side, but Democrats don't have the benefit of perfect policy having botched this thing so badly (from original passage to implementation). But even on the policy, it's not terrible.


source

text of bill can be found here



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

theantediluvian
reply to post by elouina
 


From your source, an excerpt of the statement:


“[The bill] rolls back the progress made by allowing insurers to continue to sell new plans that deploy practices such as not offering coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, charging women more than men, and continuing yearly caps on the amount of care that enrollees receive,” the statement said.




Which is the same exact coverage those people have now and Obama wants to extend for a year. Except it wants the offerings made to even new subscribers. But what about when the 2 years is up? Will no one have any of those plans? So do the new offerings make any difference in 2 years? No.


theantediluvian
reply to post by elouina
 


What about Mary Landrieu's bill?


So enter Sen. Mary Landrieu's fix to this issue (see here and here for details). In short, it would allow people to keep their crappy individual insurance policies, but insurance companies would be unable to keep selling them to new customers, and they'd have to let their customers know why the government considers their policies crap and point them to the exchanges for other options. The idea may not be a home run on the policy side, but Democrats don't have the benefit of perfect policy having botched this thing so badly (from original passage to implementation). But even on the policy, it's not terrible.




Like I said, I would go for this plan. But still, I wonder if already insured self pay Americans should be given the freedom of choice to buy a new plan later on. They are the ones paying for this. The idea is to help the uninsured not cause distress to the already insured.
edit on 14-11-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

bjax9er
it doesn't matter, the damage has been done.

the insurance market has been destroyed, and nothing they do or say will bring it back. period.

of course that was the plan all along.

isn't the point of obamacare, to force everyone to buy obamacare?
if nobody buys it, whats the point of it?

so yeah of course he will veto anything that nullifies his legacy.

despotism is the name of the game folks, get used to it.

I think there was a very distinct possibility that the wells of yesterday's insurance giants had already run dry. No way would the Republicans have walked off into the night so quietly if they weren't already on the verge of financial collapse.

I have been looking for the 'why' answer ... and that's the best I could come up with.

Of course, I'm one of the skeptics who doubts there's any gold in Fort Knox too.


**Note to elouina: Keep at 'em, girl. You've got your teeth in almost to the jugular.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
REPEAL OBAMACARE.

I mean damn- Even McCain of all people pulled a 180 on his position.

Obamacare= Gravediggers payday.


We need to get rid of it- and we need to impeach this fraudster.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

elouina

Now I have to ask, what about the democratic bill sponsored by Landrieu? I saw no mention of her bill. If Upton's republican bill that allows you to keep your insurance for two years is bad, than what about hers? Landrieu's bill is much better and provides a permanent ability to keep your insurance, much better than Obam's unconstitutional plan or Upton's.


Here I think is what is wrong with Landrieu's bill, well according to Barry.

If he were to allow that, it means those who are young and healthy who just
want minimum coverage, wont sign up through the exchanges. This will
cause the cost of coverage through the ACA system to skyrocket, remember
they were counting on an offset with the young to buy coverage.

And, the longer folks could keep the old policy, the higher the premiums
would need to go, for those who buy from an exchange.

And, to top it off, already State of Washington insurance commisioner
has told Barry NO, he will not allow folks to keep their plans. LOL, he just
did this. It is CHAOS.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I say the House will pass Upton's version and send it to the Senate.

Then the Senate changes it to some like Landrieu's.

Then maybe the House passes that.

In the meantime, what will Obama say ?

He is real bitter right now, and very dangerous.

And still we don't know what that will add to the 'old' policy costs.




posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Well, here is an idea for ol Barry, Why don't we just GIVE inexpensive insurance to the working poor (no bells and whistles), get rid of the earned income credit to help pay for this partially, never try to implement a health plan, never try to build a website, never hire companies to promote it, never pay anyone one red cent. Then require all insurers to insure those with preexisting conditions. Lastly, look into measures that could help lower costs for Americans. Ya know, get a task force of congressman together. I betcha it would have been cheaper in the end without all this mess.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by elouina
 


I say the House will pass Upton's version and send it to the Senate.

Then the Senate changes it to some like Landrieu's.

Then maybe the House passes that.

In the meantime, what will Obama say ?

He is real bitter right now, and very dangerous.

And still we don't know what that will add to the 'old' policy costs.



I feel he is very dangerous right now also. I can read people very well and he is aimlessly shooting in all directions. Feeling like a boxed rat. Very angry and spiteful. Unpredictable. He is not the happy man he pretends to be.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Just a small point, but as was noted, Sen. Landrieu's bill requires

they'd have to let their customers know why the government considers their policies crap and point them to the exchanges for other options.

So the insurance company has to send out a letter saying "Our policy is sub-standard, why don't you go to our competitor, healthcare.gov to get a good one?"

Again, I find myself saying "How can the White House do that?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

charles1952
Again, I find myself saying "How can the White House do that?
Because Dictatorship has it's privileges!



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


There was a post somewhere here recently.
The member worked for an insurer, I believe.

And basically said what you said here:
The insurance companies were/are hurting financially and needed the influx of cash/new customers that ACA provided.

and, even in all this, no mention of what is really needed:
tort reform
cap on drugs, or containment of increases
cap on costs, or containment of increases



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Let the lawyers deal with it . They know whatever is on the ad HAS to be. Just let it implode only high risk people are signing up so far



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

People have unrealistic expectations of healthcare. TPTB are playing this to their advantage. No one wants to suffer or die ... and they're willing to pay for a measure of r/belief.

Politics reduced to it's absolutely lowest common denominator ... is all about separating people from their earnings. How or why is irrelevant at the lowest common denominator (what).

There are not enough healthcare providers to see to the needs of Americans. Why only 15% of applicants to medical school are accepted 'should' be the only question on people's lips in America. Instead, we are distracted by an insurance debacle.

Who would buy insurance if healthcare was 'really' affordable?

Q: How do you keep healthcare from being affordable in America??
A: Limit the number of doctors.

Q: How do you make healthcare affordable?
A: Increase the number of participants (competition) in the medical field.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 

Dear Snarl,

Thanks a lot, you've brought up a good issue. Obamacare is health insurance, not health care. It's nice to be able to pay for it, but if you can't find a doctor, then it doesn't matter. Surveys of doctors have told us than many are retiring early because of the constraints of the new system, but we have to find a way to replace them and obtain still more.

There's one school of thought that says it's the government's fault for not spending enough money on medical training. Here's an article which takes that position:

One major reason: The residency programs to train new doctors are largely paid for by the federal government, and the number of students accepted into such programs has been capped at the same level for 15 years. Medical schools are holding back on further expansion because the number of applicants for residencies already exceeds the available positions, according to the National Resident Matching Program, a 60-year-old Washington-based nonprofit that oversees the program.


www.bloomberg.com...

The same position, with more detail, can be found here:

www.aamc.org...

As reasonable as that sounds, I am getting a little tired of hearing "We have a serious problem and we need Bazillions of dollars of taxpayer money to fix it." Some other proposals have included having nurses do doctor's work, and reduce the number of emergency room visits for minor ailments.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, I just don't know enough to have a worthwhile opinion. But you raise an important question. Unfortunately, it seems that Washington doesn't know how to deal successfully with important questions.

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join