And they wonder why most people think they are crazy?
It's wild. If it were not real, it would be unbelievable. It is indeed insane! But it is real.
New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
And they wonder why most people think they are crazy?
It's wild. If it were not real, it would be unbelievable. It is indeed insane! But it is real.
LOL, you just won't let little things like reality and reason interfere with your right wing fantasies.
Can the Obamacare rollout get even worse?
Seeing the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, one has to wonder, how much worse can it get? With millions of Americans receiving cancelation notices because their insurance plans are not Obamacare compliant and possibly unable to sign up for new policies on the exchanges, the answer is.......a lot.
Seeing the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, one has to wonder, how much worse can it get? With millions of Americans receiving cancelation notices because their insurance plans are not Obamacare compliant and possibly unable to sign up for new policies on the exchanges, the answer is.......a lot.
I'm sure this bureaucratic mess will be much much more efficient than the free market. Oh, by the Gods, it must be wonderful to send the kick backs and bribes all over the place.
My advice, try not to get sick. Just imagine this FUBAR of a Healthcare system in 30 years time. Think of your average government funded crack-whore Public Housing slum Project - multipy this by 10000 = your local government run Public Healthcare and crack-Hospital.
Oh, and according to the authors, this is about 1/3 of the way done. So you can tack on another 2/3 and imagine what we have here.
My advice, try not to get sick. Just imagine this FUBAR of a Healthcare system in 30 years time. Think of your average government funded crack-whore Public Housing slum Project - multipy this by 10000 = your local government run Public Healthcare and crack-Hospital.
Oh, and according to the authors, this is about 1/3 of the way done. So you can tack on another 2/3 and imagine what we have here.
Are you on the right site?
Obama is doing it so that everyone can experience what having no healthcare provision was like.
Couldn't Possibly Be Deliberate, Right?
See, you're not even actually trying to make an argument, just posting propaganda and apparently accidental misinformation.
I mean, it must be accidental, right? Since you're so informed, but post such uninformed trash? I mean, it's not a deliberate choice to be dishonest, right? Your appearance of posting hack propaganda is just a coincidence, isn't it?
There are two sentences in the paragraph I quoted above; neither one is accurate.
What's your excuse?
Madanthonywayne said:
See, you're not even actually trying to make an argument, just posting propaganda and apparently accidental misinformation.
I mean, it must be accidental, right? Since you're so informed, but post such uninformed trash? I mean, it's not a deliberate choice to be dishonest, right? Your appearance of posting hack propaganda is just a coincidence, isn't it?
There are two sentences in the paragraph I quoted above; neither one is accurate.
What's your excuse?
Not quite sure what the inaccuracies are.
1. The roll out has been disastrous. Perhaps an exaggeration, but it has been problematic.
2. Millions of Americans are receiving cancellation notices on their old policies. Again an exaggeration, but it has been hundreds of thousands.
See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-canceled-policy-fixes-obama-clinton/3509073/
3. People finding it difficult to log on use the online exchange system. That's true isn't it?
A big problem for Obama is that he has broken a promise on letting people keep their old policies.
People don't like that. They feel like they are being cheated, especially when he pretends that he said something different.
Even Clinton has spoken up about it:
"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, that the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got," Clinton said.
1. The roll out has been disastrous. Perhaps an exaggeration, but it has been problematic.
2. Millions of Americans are receiving cancellation notices on their old policies. Again an exaggeration, but it has been hundreds of thousands.
See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-canceled-policy-fixes-obama-clinton/3509073/
3. People finding it difficult to log on use the online exchange system. That's true isn't it?
A big problem for Obama is that he has broken a promise on letting people keep their old policies.
People don't like that. They feel like they are being cheated, especially when he pretends that he said something different.
Even Clinton has spoken up about it:
"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, that the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got," Clinton said.
On the General and Particular
It's a website launch, not the rollout of Obamacare. To call it the "Obamacare" rollout is a deliberate political sleight intended to ignore the positive results we've already seen, including falling premiums, closing coverage gaps, and reducing doughnut hole expenditures.
I posted my policy letter and asked for people's assessment of what it says. None have answered.
There's a reason none have answered, and it's the talking point you noted.
There is no scrutiny of how we're counting those millions, just as there is no scrutiny of blaming Obamacare for the conduct of private corporations.
As a general proposition, it doesn't make sense; if they were privately-owned toll roads, would our libertarian neighbors complain when the rates went up to pay for the CEO's vacation house? Or is it just taxes, and if it's a private-sector thing, it's just fine?
In this specific proposition: Why is it that everyone is so mad at Obamacare when they haven't accounted for the fact that the private companies are constantly changing your coverage?
If you like your plan? That whole argument was poorly deployed against the oft-repeated lie—even finding its way into the inquisition against Secretary Sebelius, such that facts don't seem to matter to Republicans—that people are being "forced into Obamacare".
But certain plans were grandfathered into the new standards. If you like that plan, you can keep it. If your insurance company changes it, however ...?
So your insurance company changes your plan. It is no longer compliant with the PPACA. That plan is no longer available to you. Sure, the insurance company made the changes that exposed it to cancellation, but it's Obamacare's fault they changed the policy? Sure, the insurance company made changes to your plan between 2010 and now that make it insufficient to meet the basic standards like not disrupting your entire life in order to see a specialist, or providing more than nominal insurance coverage in exchange for your premium, but it's somehow President Obama's fault that they made these decisions.
Circle back to the letter from Assurant.
There's a reason I want people's assessment; the thing is that even as the general public discourse about this issue goes on, the hardline critics aren't reconciling their criticism to the first-wave counterpoint; they're not actually rebutting the next point in the discussion, but simply reiterating their original argument as if there is nothing else to consider.
And therein lies the problem. The devastating indictment against the PPACA website deflates to a more appropriate context.
Partially irrelevant. Partially a result of politics in funding. Partially a result of Republican refusals to help fix identified problems with the law. And, yes, partially a result of government being government. However, do none of these critics have a thing to say to the Republican-controlled states that have refused to do anything but complicate the PPACA for their citizens?
I do not pretend our neighbor ignorant of these points. That's the thing. For years, if his posts are to be taken as honest, I need to presume he's one of the most gullible idiots in our society. So what's the bigger insult, here? That he's sinister or stupid? Or maybe that he keeps playing this game.
Consider there are three players to account for in this political maneuver:
See, when he plays this superficial game, he is participating in an effort to cause real harm to his fellow Americans in order to achieve some figure on an abstract political scoreboard.
Our neighbor and I have a running dispute in which he continues to complain about my constant plinking at his integrity and I continue to fire away every time I catch him trolling the discourse.
In the larger context of why this sort of dishonesty is important to me:
The larger effect, both here at Sciforums or in the world around us, is that people are trying to minimize effort while maximizing their influence over the political discourse.
It is not that there is no truth in the notion that some people are losing their coverage, but the only identifiable pathway we've found to blame Obamacare for millions of cancellation notices is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a fallacy. So I would propose to you that we might juxtapose two methods:
I don't wholly disdain the latter, but our neighbor routinely excludes the former.
And that's an important difference to me.
Captain Kremmen said:
It's a website launch, not the rollout of Obamacare. To call it the "Obamacare" rollout is a deliberate political sleight intended to ignore the positive results we've already seen, including falling premiums, closing coverage gaps, and reducing doughnut hole expenditures.
I posted my policy letter and asked for people's assessment of what it says. None have answered.
There's a reason none have answered, and it's the talking point you noted.
There is no scrutiny of how we're counting those millions, just as there is no scrutiny of blaming Obamacare for the conduct of private corporations.
As a general proposition, it doesn't make sense; if they were privately-owned toll roads, would our libertarian neighbors complain when the rates went up to pay for the CEO's vacation house? Or is it just taxes, and if it's a private-sector thing, it's just fine?
In this specific proposition: Why is it that everyone is so mad at Obamacare when they haven't accounted for the fact that the private companies are constantly changing your coverage?
If you like your plan? That whole argument was poorly deployed against the oft-repeated lie—even finding its way into the inquisition against Secretary Sebelius, such that facts don't seem to matter to Republicans—that people are being "forced into Obamacare".
But certain plans were grandfathered into the new standards. If you like that plan, you can keep it. If your insurance company changes it, however ...?
So your insurance company changes your plan. It is no longer compliant with the PPACA. That plan is no longer available to you. Sure, the insurance company made the changes that exposed it to cancellation, but it's Obamacare's fault they changed the policy? Sure, the insurance company made changes to your plan between 2010 and now that make it insufficient to meet the basic standards like not disrupting your entire life in order to see a specialist, or providing more than nominal insurance coverage in exchange for your premium, but it's somehow President Obama's fault that they made these decisions.
Circle back to the letter from Assurant.
There's a reason I want people's assessment; the thing is that even as the general public discourse about this issue goes on, the hardline critics aren't reconciling their criticism to the first-wave counterpoint; they're not actually rebutting the next point in the discussion, but simply reiterating their original argument as if there is nothing else to consider.
And therein lies the problem. The devastating indictment against the PPACA website deflates to a more appropriate context.
Partially irrelevant. Partially a result of politics in funding. Partially a result of Republican refusals to help fix identified problems with the law. And, yes, partially a result of government being government. However, do none of these critics have a thing to say to the Republican-controlled states that have refused to do anything but complicate the PPACA for their citizens?
I do not pretend our neighbor ignorant of these points. That's the thing. For years, if his posts are to be taken as honest, I need to presume he's one of the most gullible idiots in our society. So what's the bigger insult, here? That he's sinister or stupid? Or maybe that he keeps playing this game.
Consider there are three players to account for in this political maneuver:
(1) The "aggrieved" consumers, who need a route through this mess.
(2) The Democrats in government, who want to help them through this mess.
(3) The Republicans in government, who want to sabotage everything and then blame Democrats.
(2) The Democrats in government, who want to help them through this mess.
(3) The Republicans in government, who want to sabotage everything and then blame Democrats.
See, when he plays this superficial game, he is participating in an effort to cause real harm to his fellow Americans in order to achieve some figure on an abstract political scoreboard.
Our neighbor and I have a running dispute in which he continues to complain about my constant plinking at his integrity and I continue to fire away every time I catch him trolling the discourse.
In the larger context of why this sort of dishonesty is important to me:
(1) The Vitter Amendment — When the law was being fashioned, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley tried to skewer Majority Leader Reid by proposing that Congressional staff be booted off the Congressional health plan and sent to the exchanges. Reid enthusiastically agreed. A drafting issue left serious question, however, about whether the employer contribution remained intact. Because "Obamacare is the law of the land", Republicans have been refusing legislative fixes to make the law work better. Facing such a climate, lawmakers from both parties quietly appealed to the Obama administration to do something. And the administration did. OPM found a way to read the rule as written to include the employer contribution. This was a relief to Grassley and other advocates of the staff insurance change. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) decided this was a linchpin, and began trying to hold up all legislation in the Senate until it included his Amendment to kill the employer contribution to Congressional staff health insurance. Because, in his mind, it is unfair that OPM found a way around House Republicans, and it is an unfair exemption to treat federal employees like any other employees. To be clear, the Vitter amendment is a Republican-crafted idea, pushed by the hardliners, to cancel the employer contribution to their own employees' healthcare. Why? Because the mistake that even Grassley wanted the administration to fix didn't have to go through Congress to be fixed, and that means something wrong with the PPACA got fixed.
Do you understand, this is how they're playing ball on this one?
(2) The Family Glitch — Remembering that Obamacare is the law of the land, and therefore some Republicans will block any changes to fix identified problems with the PPACA, of course I'm going to call our neighbor out for complaining about certain circumstances when he and the people getting his political sympathies have argued against fixing the problem. This could have been taken care of months before he raised his complaint, except for Congressional Republicans, so it really is a bit like throwing one's integrity in the gutter and then pissing all over it to trot that one out.
The thing is he's not playing honest ball, and he knows it, and this is what he chooses. And part of what he's relying on is that someone will come along behind him and write the post you did. I don't knock your inquiry, but this how he plays the game.
Do you understand, this is how they're playing ball on this one?
(2) The Family Glitch — Remembering that Obamacare is the law of the land, and therefore some Republicans will block any changes to fix identified problems with the PPACA, of course I'm going to call our neighbor out for complaining about certain circumstances when he and the people getting his political sympathies have argued against fixing the problem. This could have been taken care of months before he raised his complaint, except for Congressional Republicans, so it really is a bit like throwing one's integrity in the gutter and then pissing all over it to trot that one out.
The thing is he's not playing honest ball, and he knows it, and this is what he chooses. And part of what he's relying on is that someone will come along behind him and write the post you did. I don't knock your inquiry, but this how he plays the game.
The larger effect, both here at Sciforums or in the world around us, is that people are trying to minimize effort while maximizing their influence over the political discourse.
It is not that there is no truth in the notion that some people are losing their coverage, but the only identifiable pathway we've found to blame Obamacare for millions of cancellation notices is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a fallacy. So I would propose to you that we might juxtapose two methods:
• Learning the facts in play, that we might understand the situation.
• Argue in political hyperbole, that we might feel better about ourselves for having made our best effort to log some points on the cosmic scoreboard.
• Argue in political hyperbole, that we might feel better about ourselves for having made our best effort to log some points on the cosmic scoreboard.
I don't wholly disdain the latter, but our neighbor routinely excludes the former.
And that's an important difference to me.
Seems he fell into a trap of his own making when he made that promise.
He made the promise multiple times, without caveats, following it with the word "period".
ie, no ifs and no buts.
Now the Insurance companies are guarding their profit margins.
Is that really such a surprise?
If they could make money legally by herding people over cliffs, they's do it.
However he's going to do it, Obama now has to do what he said he'd do.
It doesn't affect me, as I am in a country with a National Health Service, paid for by general taxation.
I'll watch with interest.
He made the promise multiple times, without caveats, following it with the word "period".
ie, no ifs and no buts.
Now the Insurance companies are guarding their profit margins.
Is that really such a surprise?
If they could make money legally by herding people over cliffs, they's do it.
However he's going to do it, Obama now has to do what he said he'd do.
It doesn't affect me, as I am in a country with a National Health Service, paid for by general taxation.
I'll watch with interest.
Did he? If I talk to someone about economics or business do I have to give them a 4 year education first to ensure they will not misunderstand something I might say? The same applies here. This is an over legalization of the issue. At some point you have to assume people have common sense. At some point you have to assume people have a brain and can use it.
These insurance companies that are cancelling their so called insurance are not doing it because of Obamacare. Insurance companies can write these policies into next year. What is happening here is insurance companies are voluntarily terminating the policies and wrongly blaming Obamacare. And surprise, surprise, Republicans are using the misinformation to further mislead and anger people.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And what has become completely lost in all this is that about 40 million people have no healthcare insurance at all. Ironically, when those people get sick, they still get health care (in ER) but it is the taxpayer who foots the bill. So instead of a more or less self supporting insurance system where everyone is covered, no one seems to care that their taxes are being used anyway to provide healthcare for the poor, some who might well be able to pay a small premium into the general pool.
Personally I am for single payer system as seems to work quite well in Europe, but we don't want "socialism" do we?
But keep your government hands off my Medicare. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Does that include those who lost their insurance due to ObamaCare and/or can't use the web site?
I heard the loophole for the ObamaCare law is something called self insurance. Self insurance excludes you from the law and all the penalties. It was included by the Republicans to avoid the scam. Self insurance is where you cut out the middleman (insurance companies) and you pay directly as you go.
If you are young and healthy you would put your premiums into you own account to collect the interest,and then pay as you need. You save the 10% middleman fee, the inflated government add ons, plus gain interests on the principle. This may not work for the liberal hypochondriacs, doom and gloomiers and all those from both parties oversold the perception of medical need. It is enough to mess up ObamaCare, since it can excludes the main givers and over proportions the liberal takers until the system is fourth world. The Democrats are working at trying to plug the loophole since it needs to rape these youth healthypeople or it can't get enough funding.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No one has lost their insurance due to ACA. That is a myth. Lots of people lost their healthcare or could not get it before ACA, health insurance always has been at the mercy of the insurer.
I agree, the roll-out was a disaster. But there has not been a lot of cooperation by those who are opposed to it. Several states who embraced the program seem to be doing well.
Why are you yelling about a few hundred thousand people who's policies were cancelled because they did not meet ACA standards. Why are we not yelling about 40 million who never were insured, while every Canadian is covered and is able to buy US made drugs at half the price we pay in the US ? The rest of my family live in Canada and they don't feel scammed by their government, on the contrary, they are bemused by this entire ridiculous affair down south..
We have been scammed by insurance companies all this time!! They only insure you if you are healthy and they can make a profit. ACA seeks to bring a little fairness.
And as a general question about receiving value for premiums paid. Since when does an insurance company return your unused premiums, even if you have never used the insured services?
Let's wait until March, before we pass judgment.
So, it looks like in the fist MONTH of Oblahma's $1 billion dollar Healthcare.Gov website (the one he gave kickbacks to his Chicago donor buddy for helping to build) has signed up a Grand Total of ....
*drum roll*
just over 26,000 people.
Yeah, take a really really really GOOD LOOK AT DETROIT. Forty years of unbroken, uninterrupted, Social Progressive Democrat rule turned the World's richest city into a shit-hole where Public "Servants" were being paid a 13th month bonus every year and 47% of the GRADUATING students could not read and understand what the funny looking squiggles meant after over a decade of Public "Education". Never mind most didn't bother with graduating at all and now live in a Public Slum Project on Public Welfare. When you're waking up in hospital missing a leg for a toothache you wanted checked out and the illiterate doctor is putting an unwashed anal probe in your mouth to check your pulse - do try and recall these conversations.
*drum roll*
just over 26,000 people.
Yeah, take a really really really GOOD LOOK AT DETROIT. Forty years of unbroken, uninterrupted, Social Progressive Democrat rule turned the World's richest city into a shit-hole where Public "Servants" were being paid a 13th month bonus every year and 47% of the GRADUATING students could not read and understand what the funny looking squiggles meant after over a decade of Public "Education". Never mind most didn't bother with graduating at all and now live in a Public Slum Project on Public Welfare. When you're waking up in hospital missing a leg for a toothache you wanted checked out and the illiterate doctor is putting an unwashed anal probe in your mouth to check your pulse - do try and recall these conversations.
Here's another, encouraging children to have accidents just so they can claim insurance.
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Here's another, encouraging children to have accidents just so they can claim insurance.
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/
Hooray, the people have won the battle against the uninsured. Time to celebrate.
That's right.
Stop stealing rich peoples' money or you'll get some more of the same, you little beggars.
Here's a young Obama, training for presidency.
The Pumpkin represents the wealth of hard working Americans, who he hated even as a boy.
"Take that Industrious America! I'm going to carve this Pumpkin and give it to poor people."
Stop stealing rich peoples' money or you'll get some more of the same, you little beggars.
Here's a young Obama, training for presidency.
The Pumpkin represents the wealth of hard working Americans, who he hated even as a boy.
"Take that Industrious America! I'm going to carve this Pumpkin and give it to poor people."
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's right.
Stop stealing rich peoples' money or you'll get some more of the same, you little beggars.
Here's a young Obama, training for presidency.
The Pumpkin represents the wealth of hard working Americans, who he hated even as a boy.
"Take that Industrious America! I'm going to carve this Pumpkin and give it to poor people."
You should change your nick to Captain Crow.
http://thehumanist.org/january-february-2012/corporations-or-people-restoring-the-common-good/
To the more reasonable audience, this is actually a pretty good article on the current relationship between corporate and labor.