Yes, that is what this provision is saying.
It is hilarious that this is brought up as an issue.
Yes, that is what this provision is saying.
It is hilarious that this is brought up as an issue.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
And what if I don't want or "need" something better that will, inherently cost more?
But that is not the issue. The issue is that Obama is going out and blatantly lying to the American people and he know it.
But since I actually read the bill I must be a racist brown-shirt....
Translation of what obama is saying for you:
If your good insurance is better than the public option, keep it, nothing will change other than a possible tax on said insurance.
What you are arguing is:
What if my insurance is shittier than the public option, and for some reason i enjoy getting ripped off?
The answer is:
You must either upgrade to better private insurance plans that are above the minimum coverage of the public option. Or get the public option.
They are not trying to trick you. This provision is for your benefit.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Ah, so they know whats best for me, is that it?
Obama is telling the American people a bold faced lie and he knows that.
If your plan doesn't meet these new requirements YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP IT. PERIOD. EVEN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT. Now, how many videos of Obama do you think I can find on youtube saying the exact opposite?
The issue is not about what might be improved by implementing some minimum standards, the issue is that Obama is telling the American people a bold-faced lie and he knows that he is lying.
Oh ya, and how does this bring "more choice"? Sounds to me like you are taking away my current choice. Another bold faced lie.
EDIT
It is funny watching the Democrats try and change the subject when confronted with the actual text of the legislation.
Can you point me towards the section of the bill that details exactly how my coverage will be better or what those minimum standards are?
Quite frankly, I trust very few of those a-holes in washington so I am not at all comfortable with the "make the rules up AFTER we pass the bill". Even if you want a full government ran/controlled health system do you really want to give them the power to make up the rules as they go without at least a new bill being passed? Before you answer, consider that its likely that eventually the side you disagree with will be in control of making those rules.
Most Republicans I know where all for allowing the executive branch usurping more and more power when Bush was in office. Now, they are bitching and screaming that BhO is doing the same.
Why is it so much to ask that the details be provided before they pass the bill? How can we have a rational debate that everyone says they want to have without any real details? Do you really trust the government THAT much?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Pshaw,
This is easy. First offer upgraded public insurance with heavily subsidized premiums. The insurance companies will have to match it, then that puts them out of business and government get's complete control. Then they can do whatever they want, and the government expands it's powers. It's perfect.
This is easy. First offer upgraded public insurance with heavily subsidized premiums. The insurance companies will have to match it, then that puts them out of business and government get's complete control. Then they can do whatever they want, and the government expands it's powers. It's perfect.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Number 1: If your statement is correct, Obama should have said that if he wanted to be truthful. But he didn't. Quite likely he didn't say the (possibly) truthful statement because of the sh1tstorm/problems it would have caused. People would be looking around to see if their plan met the min standards to know if they'd get to keep it. But since those standards don't yet exist, no way to tell. That creates a lot of uncertainty, and even more problems for UHC.
Number 2: I keep reading that for any plan to qualify it can't discriminate (or whatever) against pre-existing conditions. I do not understand the implications of this, but I suspect it's a change that's going to render just about all current plans as non-qualifying (if plans already didn't discriminate there is no reason for that new rule, but we all know everyone has been complaining about such discrimination.) . I.e., might just be that no current plans will qualify. If that's the case, what Obama has said is flat-out 100% wrong and therefore a whopper of a lie.
Fern
Absolutely not. There are already large numbers of plans that do not discriminate against pre-existing conditions. They are from large risk pools such as employers.
Obama is simplifying the issue in a way that is only truthful for 99.99% of Americans, he's not lying in a Republican "death panels" way. But I suppose someone who hates the idea of UHC can say he is lying by omission to at least a tiny number of Americans out of the hundreds of millions.
Yes, there are a few people that will be working for the same employer in 5 years, where the employer still offers the same plan for 5 years, where that plan fails after 5 years to add the minimum requirements to match the government plan and so the plan will cease to exist.
Yes, there are a few people that will be working for the same employer in 5 years, where the employer still offers the same plan for 5 years, where that plan fails after 5 years to add the minimum requirements to match the government plan and so the plan will cease to exist.
.... or insurers will just add missing benefits to their plans. Why predict that given a 5-year warning they will do nothing and possibly lose all of their customers to another insurer? Does that really seem more likely to you?
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
It's kind of funny that so many people are crying about exclusions from pre-existing conditions, and yet here you say there are large numbers of plans that cover pre-existing conditions. So too many plans not covering pre-existing conditions is an argument for UHC when it's convenient, but there's lots of plans covering pre-existing conditions is an argument for UHC pre-qualifying conditions when it's convenient. Here's your cake, would you like a fork?
It's kind of funny that since this commitee doesn't even have any reforms, rules, or regulations laid out, and don't have to for 18 months, no one is even really voting for UHC, they are voting to give the government power to regulate it, and get into it. Want people to support it? Show us the reforms, plans, and regulations BEFORE you vote on it. Have an actual, at least theory, before turning the country on it's ear.
That's not my point in the slightest. Fern stated that it was possible that no plan could possibly meet the new standards because every plan had a pre-existing condition clause. That's simply false.
Pre-existing conditions are still a huge problem that requires immediate action because there are also large numbers of plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions, and people attempting to purchase private insurance are totally screwed. You tried to run WAY too far with what I wrote and it fell completely flat.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
It's not a matter of keeping your same insurer, who just switches to a plan that meets the minimums.
His statement is that you get to keep the same plan (not insurer).
And, look, the way you guys keep addressing this is "Oh Boy why complain, you're gonna get a better plan". I have to wonder why he didn't just say that?
But still, the OP's point stands, despite what Obama says people are NOT going to be able to keep their current plans (unless the minimum standards are so low as to be largely ineffective and leave the majority of existing plans untouched.)
Fern
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Hmmm...so Obama is lying when he says you get to keep your current plan?
so the truth is.... you don't?
and if a plan doesn't meet government standards how is that Obama/the Governments fault?
If reform is passed...and insurance standards are in place....and insurance companies are offering plans out of compliance with standards...then that isn't the fault of the US government....that is the fault of the Insurance company.
And if plans were out there that don't meet standards....why would anyone want those plans? Yeah sure that eliminates your options and to a certain extent your freedom to choose those plans that are below standard....so I guess you can express your faux outrage for this loss.
Now....fear mongering being what it is...the opposition wants to move the discussion into the paranoia realm....with grandma killing and all the like...that secret regulations and government conspiring to eliminate ALL health insurance competition... bla bla freakin bla! Seriously... the government is going to step in and say that NO current plans qualify?? you fear mongers are out of control.
But rational thinkers might lean towards the understanding that the government would offer a public option, to service the lowest level of need. That private insurers would continue to offer plans purchased by individuals and employers, that the government "lowest level need" would be turned into standards. and that nothing could be offered that would be below that standard. It can't be anymore complicated than that because it would cost A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED!!!!!
so the truth is.... you don't?
and if a plan doesn't meet government standards how is that Obama/the Governments fault?
If reform is passed...and insurance standards are in place....and insurance companies are offering plans out of compliance with standards...then that isn't the fault of the US government....that is the fault of the Insurance company.
And if plans were out there that don't meet standards....why would anyone want those plans? Yeah sure that eliminates your options and to a certain extent your freedom to choose those plans that are below standard....so I guess you can express your faux outrage for this loss.
Now....fear mongering being what it is...the opposition wants to move the discussion into the paranoia realm....with grandma killing and all the like...that secret regulations and government conspiring to eliminate ALL health insurance competition... bla bla freakin bla! Seriously... the government is going to step in and say that NO current plans qualify?? you fear mongers are out of control.
But rational thinkers might lean towards the understanding that the government would offer a public option, to service the lowest level of need. That private insurers would continue to offer plans purchased by individuals and employers, that the government "lowest level need" would be turned into standards. and that nothing could be offered that would be below that standard. It can't be anymore complicated than that because it would cost A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED!!!!!
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Interesting...NPR did a report on health care reform dating from 1915 to the present. EVERY single attempt to reform health care in this country was thwarted by fear mongering. The report gave specific attacks against the proposals of the time and in 99% of the cases, it was created from propaganda from the opposition...with it either "stretched" or completely untrue. There was a big discussion going on about fear used to drive an agenda...but I lost the signal while driving in Tennessee.
Obama is playing into the fear-monger's hands by trying to simplify his message.
Unfortunately it's lose-lose against short attention spans and fear-mongering:
Obama: you get to keep your plan
A) you're lying!!!!!!
Obama: you get to keep your plan, assuming the insurer wants to stay in the market and will update their plans to add any missing features that are in the cheapest bare-minimum government plan, within the 5-year window.
A) .... huh?
B) so I'm a gonna lose my plan!?! Keep your government out of my medicare!
Unfortunately it's lose-lose against short attention spans and fear-mongering:
Obama: you get to keep your plan
A) you're lying!!!!!!
Obama: you get to keep your plan, assuming the insurer wants to stay in the market and will update their plans to add any missing features that are in the cheapest bare-minimum government plan, within the 5-year window.
A) .... huh?
B) so I'm a gonna lose my plan!?! Keep your government out of my medicare!
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
Well Im starting to believe this reform process is just going to have to be a VERY VERY painful process we must go through. It is so silly and laughable to say ?now? that if you?re happy with what you got, keep it. Because is reform fails, companies will cease offering healthcare one by one. Or? what they do offer will be a total joke.
And at some point, soon, the people will cry ?WE WANT HEALTHCARE?.
Then? and only then will reform, REAL GOVERNMENT FORM, happen.
It is just sad so many people and families will have to suffer until we reach that point of reality awareness. YEP? that includes all the opponents.
And at some point, soon, the people will cry ?WE WANT HEALTHCARE?.
Then? and only then will reform, REAL GOVERNMENT FORM, happen.
It is just sad so many people and families will have to suffer until we reach that point of reality awareness. YEP? that includes all the opponents.
It's fine and dandy to say "you'll get more coverage" blah blah blah, but as Fern and others pointed out, that's irrelevant in terms of the president lying to the people about keeping their plan. The fact is that plans in their current incarnations will cease to exist.
Further, every plan will have to conform to "minimum" standards (which have not been defined yet). What people do not understand (or are not talking about), is that if the 'standard minimum' includes more coverage than what you currently have, the amount you pay -- either through direct payment or through taxes paid to the government -- will skyrocket. For example, my current plan does not cover pre-existing conditions, so I pay xyz per month. If the plan is forced to drop that provision, you'd better believe the plan will now cost xyz + $$$$$. In other words, I'll be forced to pay for coverage that I neither want nor need. Another issue that might apply for anti-abortion folks is that the "minimum" benefit list will almost certainly include abortion coverage. That means no matter what your personal opinion on the matter, you'll have to pay more in premiums so your plan can cover abortions for others.
Basically, either private plans as the currently exist will skyrocket in price, or the private option will go away and you'll be forced into government healthcare. The statements made by the president that you will be able to keep your plan if you like it is a flat out lie, no matter how you turn it.
Further, every plan will have to conform to "minimum" standards (which have not been defined yet). What people do not understand (or are not talking about), is that if the 'standard minimum' includes more coverage than what you currently have, the amount you pay -- either through direct payment or through taxes paid to the government -- will skyrocket. For example, my current plan does not cover pre-existing conditions, so I pay xyz per month. If the plan is forced to drop that provision, you'd better believe the plan will now cost xyz + $$$$$. In other words, I'll be forced to pay for coverage that I neither want nor need. Another issue that might apply for anti-abortion folks is that the "minimum" benefit list will almost certainly include abortion coverage. That means no matter what your personal opinion on the matter, you'll have to pay more in premiums so your plan can cover abortions for others.
Basically, either private plans as the currently exist will skyrocket in price, or the private option will go away and you'll be forced into government healthcare. The statements made by the president that you will be able to keep your plan if you like it is a flat out lie, no matter how you turn it.
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.
Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.
Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Just as there are those that don't mind losing manufacturing to other countries in lieu of the new "service economy", I really don't give a shit if we were to lose private insurance to a government run plan. To be honest, it couldn't be any worse or more difficult to deal with than those bastard fucks that run the insurance, period.
I fucking hate them with a passion!
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Yeah, people are waking up alright. They woke up and got rid of the GOP controlled house, senate, and potus Guess what, all the crying and lying done since then will only hasten your return to power. Get used to being on the sidelines for years to come. You know how fucked up you have become when the Dems still look 110% better than the GOP and your FUD bullshit. Keep talking, America is still listening. :thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter