17
   

Obama may have lied, or "misspoke" after all

 
 
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 05:41 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z1
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 9,750 • Replies: 196

 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Oct, 2013 04:10 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Obama may have lied, or "misspoke" after all

In one respect, I'm being forced to get much less health insurance.

I currently have a traditional plan where I can be treated by anyone, without worrying about any "network" nonsense. And my maximum out of pocket costs are only $250 a year.

Now with Obamacare, the best plan available to me is a PPO with maximum out of pocket costs of $5100 a year.

However....

The fact remains that rescissions have now been outlawed. That is a HUGE improvement that I will gain over my current plan.

If I were given an opportunity to keep my current plan, but with the proviso that it will still be subject to rescission, I think I'd choose to switch to the Obamacare plan.
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Thu 31 Oct, 2013 08:33 am
@oralloy,
Although ACA will benefit most Americans and help police the health industry, it will do so invisibly and for the most part remain unpopular.
Thanks for pointing out the non-rescission benefits.
Good post
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 07:54 am
The insurance people will not be able to keep are the insurances below the

Quote:
minimum standards for health insurance coverage, requiring, for example, that all health plans carry mental health benefits, prescription drug coverage, vaccinations, dental and vision care for children, maternity care for women, and more. Coverage also must be available to all regardless of preexisting medical conditions. In effect, this outlaws many existing “bare bones” plans that were cheap, but didn’t cover all (or any) of the required benefits and were available to mainly healthy persons. Those plans are now outlawed, and not all who had them welcome better insurance at greater cost.

The large majority of Americans are not affected by these changes, since they get their coverage through comprehensive employer plans or Medicare or other government programs. But about 15 million Americans, or 5 percent of the population, currently purchase coverage on their own, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. An insurance industry-sponsored analysis pointed out that the law — starting in 2014 — will push premiums in the individual market up for some, down for others.


source

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 09:26 am
@mysteryman,
Yup. This is actually a consumer protection measure that's baked into Obamacare.

If you're paying for a junk healthcare plan, then you'll have to change plans.

I read an analysis of some of these "health insurance" plans that people are complaining about having to move off of, and the plans are basically scams. They take the person's money and provide extremely limited benefits. If the person were to get seriously sick, then the person pays everything out of pocket.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 09:47 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Yup. This is actually a consumer protection measure that's baked into Obamacare.

If you're paying for a junk healthcare plan, then you'll have to change plans.

I read an analysis of some of these "health insurance" plans that people are complaining about having to move off of, and the plans are basically scams. They take the person's money and provide extremely limited benefits. If the person were to get seriously sick, then the person pays everything out of pocket.

Nonsense. Many of the plans that are being forcibly cancelled are very high quality plans. Higher quality, if fact, than anything that is being offered on the health care exchanges.

Now, like I noted above, the fact that rescissions are being done away with is huge, so in my opinion Obamacare is an overall improvement.

But how about the Democrats stop trying to defend their plan with outright lies? (Especially since the Republicans are certain to pounce on those lies.)
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 09:53 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
But how about the Democrats stop trying to defend their plan with outright lies? (Especially since the Republicans are certain to pounce on those lies.)


I'm all for that and would be interested to see those outright lies.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 10:21 am
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
I'm all for that and would be interested to see those outright lies.

Note this morning's talking points that try to justify kicking people off their existing plans by pretending that all those plans are very low in quality.

Some of them might be low quality plans. But others are higher quality than anything that is being offered on the health care exchanges.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 11:28 am
the problem for D's who now own healthcare is that the statement" if you like your insurance you can keep it" is very different from " if we like your insurance you can keep it". Fanning the gathering mistrust of government by telling such a big lie was stupid.

this is going to be a repeat playing of Bush using a lie to sell a war, it will destroy his second term and his reputation as well as prove the vast uselessness of modern journalism because truth has long been known but no one has been telling it.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  6  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 11:55 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
But others are higher quality than anything that is being offered on the health care exchanges.


But how do you know this?
I'm not being a smartass, it's just that I've been repeatedly burned by Fox talking points.

Take for example a star witness against Obamacare on Fox: Dianne Barrette
Quote:
Last month, [Barrette] received a letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she’s being offered would run $591 a month, ten times more than what she currently pays. “What I have right now is what I’m happy with, and I just want to know why I can’t keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?” [says Barrette]


$5o a month? Are you kidding me? Her plan doesn't even cover hospitalization. It's described as a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick “plan.” One of the benefits of ACA is that it tries to minimize the billions that we taxpayers are covering for people whose plans don't cover hospitalization.
Another fact Fox forgot to mention is that she makes $30,000 a year and would be eligible for a subsidy that would bring her monthly cost down to $450 a month.
Paying 1.5% a year for good coverage doesn't seem exorbitant to me.

Show me some people who are genuinely hurt by ACA...somebody who is being forced to accept a low quality plan.

The "lies" are coming from Fox and brethren.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Nov, 2013 12:00 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
Show me some people who are genuinely hurt by ACA...somebody who is being forced to accept a low quality plan.
arguing that people are better off with what they got tricked into will not justify the telling of a lie, so the point is irrelevant.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 05:38 am
@hawkeye10,
Possibly, however, in the long run, once everything eventually gets worked out, may take a long time, it will have been well worth it and be remembered for it; like Social Security and other such programs that even tea partiers don't want touched. At least that is my hope.

Most of ya'll go on about the Israel being a great democratic state. I find it ironic that no one mentions Israel's national health care system where everyone there has to give a proportion of their money to the sick fund.

Quote:
On January 1, 1995, the National Health Insurance Law went into effect. The law sets forth the state's responsibility to provide health services for all residents of the country (not including tourists.) The law stipulates that a standardized basket of medical services, including hospitalization, will continue to be supplied by the sick funds. Sources for funding of health costs include progressive health insurance premiums paid by each resident, employers' health tax payments, National Insurance Institute funds, funds from the Ministry of Health budget and consumer participation payments. The insurance premiums are collected by the National Insurance Institute.

The law provides that:

Every resident must register as a member with one of the four sick funds.

The sick funds may not bar applicants on any grounds, including age and state of health.

Equal status is accorded to all four sick funds.

Health care services covered by the law include:

Medical diagnosis and treatment
Preventive medicine and health education
Hospitalization (general, maternity, psychiatric and chronic)
Surgery and transplants. If medical treatment is not available in Israel, treatment abroad will be covered.
Preventive dental care for children
First aid and transportation to a hospital or clinic
Medical services at the workplace
Medical treatment for drug abuse and alcoholism
Medical equipment and appliances
Obstetrics and fertility treatment
Treatment of injuries caused by violence
Medication, in accordance with an order issued by the Ministry of Health
Treatment of chronic diseases
Paramedical services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc.)


source
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 07:27 am
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
But how do you know this?

Because I am capable of comparing my existing plan with the plans being offered on the exchanges.

Currently I have traditional insurance where I can be treated by anyone, without bothering with any sort of "network" nonsense. And my maximum out of pocket expenses are only $250 a year.

There is no traditional insurance being offered on the exchanges. The closest thing I can get is a PPO where I will only be fully covered if I stay within a network. And that PPO has maximum out of pocket expenses of $5100 a year.

So that is simultaneously both less choice and less coverage for me.


PBS NewsHour also recently had a guy named Robert Laszewski on their show, and he also had a pretty good plan that is being canceled:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/healthcare_10-29.html

It sounds like his plan wasn't quite as good as the one I have, but still nice.



panzade wrote:
Show me some people who are genuinely hurt by ACA...somebody who is being forced to accept a low quality plan.

Low quality or lower quality?

I wouldn't say the exchange plans are low quality. Just that they are not as good as the plans that some people are being forced to give up.

I don't consider myself as being harmed by this. Like I said, I'm delighted that rescissions are being outlawed, and I'll gladly take this change. But the claim that only substandard plans are being eliminated, that is completely untrue.


If you want to see someone who is going to be hurt by this, look to the people joining up to expanded Medicaid. When poor people start losing their homes to the government instead of passing them on to their children when they die, that is going to devastate our lower middle class.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 08:28 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Because I am capable of comparing my existing plan with the plans being offered on the exchanges.

Currently I have traditional insurance where I can be treated by anyone, without bothering with any sort of "network" nonsense. And my maximum out of pocket expenses are only $250 a year.

There is no traditional insurance being offered on the exchanges. The closest thing I can get is a PPO where I will only be fully covered if I stay within a network. And that PPO has maximum out of pocket expenses of $5100 a year.

So that is simultaneously both less choice and less coverage for me.



Quote:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.[

source
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 09:32 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Quote:
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.

source

So when the Democrats say that something is so, it's against the rules to point out that the opposite is true?
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 12:51 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
So when the Democrats say that something is so, it's against the rules to point out that the opposite is true?


Nahhh ...
I think Rev was commenting on the fact that I had asked you to provide some news stories on how ACA was causing hardship for people having to change their plans and you repeated the story about your plan.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 01:38 pm
@oralloy,
"When poor people start losing their homes to the government instead of passing them on to their children when they die, that is going to devastate our lower middle class. "

poor people don't pass their homes on to their children.

they pass on an estate that must be liquidated to pay the medical bills left over from what medicaid does not cover...
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 01:41 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
oralloy wrote:
So when the Democrats say that something is so, it's against the rules to point out that the opposite is true?

Nahhh ...
I think Rev was commenting on the fact that I had asked you to provide some news stories on how ACA was causing hardship for people having to change their plans and you repeated the story about your plan.

Setting aside the fact that I also provided a link to a PBS NewsHour story, what is wrong with me pointing out my story (other than the fact that I am living proof that the Democrats are lying)?

Where is this hardship thing coming from? I am only pointing out that the claim that "only people with cheap plans have to give them up" is flatly untrue.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 01:50 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
poor people don't pass their homes on to their children.
they pass on an estate that must be liquidated to pay the medical bills left over from what medicaid does not cover...

Am I the only person who thinks that this is wrong and should be changed?

I don't mean changing it so the government gets to be the one to liquidate the estate. I mean changing it so their home, if they are lucky enough to have one, can be passed on to their children.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Nov, 2013 02:07 pm
@panzade,
Does it matter what plans people have? If they are happy with what they have shouldn't they be allowed to keep it? This sounds like an example of the govt once again telling us what is good for us whether we want it or not.

Does that sound like liberty to you?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama may have lied, or "misspoke" after all
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 10:18:41