Preimums rise faster under Obamacare than in piror 8 years combined!

[SpatiallyAware]

That's exactly the point. Obama and the Democrats try and do something good for the country, and the other party makes it their mission to destroy the health care plan and this president. It's treasonous. And yet many Americans support the anti-American Republican party.

Rofl!!

So typical of the modern progressive left... Force their ideas down everyone's throats for the 'greater good' and when they don't work, just like everyone said would happen, it is then the "other guy's" fault.

It's so indicative of the childish mentality so prevalent with this generation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

William Pitt is an editor and lead columnist at Truth Out, a progressive site. He used to love Obamacare. Now...not so much. November is coming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

What I've learned about the Affordable Care Act

What I've learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes. But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions. The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife's multiple sclerosis medication. We're "covered," to the tune of $700 a month...just not for what she really needs.

A cozy loophole, that.

Fuck you, insurance industry.

Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman.

From my heart and soul, fuck you.

I helped, in my own small way, to promote this thing, because of the pre-existing conditions aspect that would benefit my wife. I feel like a fucking dupe.

On edit: I AM a fucking dupe. Last time that happens.

 

[Jhhnn]

William Pitt is an editor and lead columnist at Truth Out, a progressive site. He used to love Obamacare. Now...not so much. November is coming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault that the guy didn't do his homework, find out if current meds were covered under the policies he could choose from. A different carrier could have yielded different results. A different carrier could have yielded the same results under the old system, as well.

Not that concepts like personal responsibility matter when you've got a rant going... or that "free market" nutjobs can't rave about free market features in the ACA.

 

[fskimospy]

William Pitt is an editor and lead columnist at Truth Out, a progressive site. He used to love Obamacare. Now...not so much. November is coming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

What do you think is going to happen in November? There will be mild to moderate Democratic losses most likely, in line with most midterm elections. (assuming the Republicans are smart enough not to shoot themselves in the foot again). Even if the Republicans take the Senate the ACA isn't going anywhere.

Even if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016 and somehow retain the Senate (very unlikely) the ACA still won't be going anywhere. There are simply too many millions of people who are already invested in its success. Continued demographic shifts will only make it more and more impossible to remove in the future.

The November you guys needed to worry about was November 2008. Even then, it was only a matter of time. If it hadn't been November 2008 it would have been November 2016 or something else.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault that the guy didn't do his homework, find out if current meds were covered under the policies he could choose from. A different carrier could have yielded different results. A different carrier could have yielded the same results under the old system, as well.

Not that concepts like personal responsibility matter when you've got a rant going... or that "free market" nutjobs can't rave about free market features in the ACA.

If someone doesn't like it due to a free market aspect of the ACA conservatives will embrace that too (despite wanting even more free market aspects of it). Remember the goal is to attack the Hated Obamacare first, ideological consistency is secondary.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault that the guy didn't do his homework, find out if current meds were covered under the policies he could choose from. A different carrier could have yielded different results. A different carrier could have yielded the same results under the old system, as well.

Not that concepts like personal responsibility matter when you've got a rant going... or that "free market" nutjobs can't rave about free market features in the ACA.

It's a problem with the way the law was written. Now that we have passed the bill...people like William Pitt are starting to find out what is in it the hard way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5571ce-636e-11e3-aa81-e1dab1360323_story.html

Two problems that could undermine the Affordable Care Act

<snip>

The second alarming development concerns reports that insurance companies might be using backdoor methods to dissuade ill — and therefore expensive — patients from enrolling in their plans. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurers simply rejected applications from people with preexisting conditions. Now that’s illegal, which is one of the law’s centerpiece achievements. So, patients rights groups worry, insurers are limiting access to important pharmaceuticals, such as anti-HIV drugs, to push the ill away.

We don’t know how widespread this practice will be. So far, we have only anecdotes about suspiciously designed coverage plans for prescription drugs. Over time, regulators could try to crack down on the practice if it becomes a problem.

In the first few years, the law’s design should limit the benefits that companies could realize by screening out sick customers. But the fact that insurance companies have any opportunity to do this is the result of state and federal officials deciding to leave a number of decisions about drug coverage to insurance companies, instead of taking a prescriptive approach more akin to the rules that govern Medicare’s Part D drug program.

<snip>

 

[fskimospy]

It's a problem with the way the law was written. Now that we have passed the bill...people like William Pitt are starting to find out what is in it the hard way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5571ce-636e-11e3-aa81-e1dab1360323_story.html

Except of course you realize the excerpt you quoted says the law's design would prevent such sort of deliberate selection right now. So which one of the two guys you quoted is wrong?

It is also very strange to me that you guys seem to think the law would have been perfect as written right out of the gate. Every major federal program that has come out like this has required many changes as time went on. Like, every single one. I'm not aware of a single liberal who thought it wouldn't need to be changed as time went on. Like, a single one.

So why is the idea that changes may need to be made down the road at all notable?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Except of course you realize the excerpt you quoted says the law's design would prevent such sort of deliberate selection right now. So which one of the two guys you quoted is wrong?

No...it doesn't say that at all. The article says that the law&#8217;s design should limit the benefits that companies could realize...the law does not prevent this practice.

It is also very strange to me that you guys seem to think the law would have been perfect as written right out of the gate. Every major federal program that has come out like this has required many changes as time went on. Like, every single one. I'm not aware of a single liberal who thought it wouldn't need to be changed as time went on. Like, a single one.

So why is the idea that changes may need to be made down the road at all notable?

Republicans thought the law was far from perfect before it got out of the gate and did everything they could do to block its passage. So it strikes me as very strange that "you guys" would assume they expected perfection.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a problem with the way the law was written. Now that we have passed the bill...people like William Pitt are starting to find out what is in it the hard way.

So, uhh, are you contending it was different before the ACA, or what?

Or has your team moved the goalposts so many times that you're dizzy?

 

[fskimospy]

No...it doesn't say that at all. The article says that the law’s design should limit the benefits that companies could realize...the law does not prevent this practice.

If you don't get much of a benefit, you don't do it.

Republicans thought the law was far from perfect before it got out of the gate and did everything they could do to block its passage. So it strikes me as very strange that "you guys" would assume they expected perfection.

You miss my point. No legislation like this is ever perfect from the start, including plenty of legislation that Republicans have voted for in large numbers. The idea that it wasn't perfect wasn't the reason why they went all out in opposition and you know that.

If you are pointing out flaws in a law and yet are unwilling to do anything to fix those problems other than schedule your 50th repeal vote in the House, you are either expecting perfection or you are unserious about governance. Which one do you think it is?

 

[WackyDan]

No, I just think you are a prick for blaming those who brought forward ideas to fix our health care system while completely ignoring those who have been standing in the way of implementing and trying to improve the law.

As I pointed out in the article I linked to, it gave a reason, you didn't like it. That's fine but what are you doing to fix the issue? Is your one issue more important than the millions of people the law was meant to help? Of course to you it is but if you were a politician what would have more weight and be a larger concern?

You can continue whining all you want but that just makes you look like a spoiled brat. Was that your goal?



Isn't that pretty much your attitude? "Fuck all these other people, I want mine!"

The sane and more rational person would be asking, "how can we help everyone".

Maybe you can take some money out of your 401k.

No...The article did not answer why. Maybe you should read it.

"Maybe you can take some money out of your 401k."

There it is again. You just can't control yourself. So if I understand you correctly.. Job, 401k, employer provided healthcare with FSA option = spoiled rich guy.

Your life must be pretty fucked to hold that much of a grudge against other people trying to get by.

You are also quite the leftist shill for cheering on a piece of shit bill written one sided and in large part written by big pharma and health insurers. I suppose you believe Harry Reid when he claims everyone with an ACA hardship claim is telling lies?

Yet I suggest I'm for a form of single payer and that my daughter had Medicaid coverage until she was three, and yet somehow you find me a prick for finding fault with the ACA when I have lived on both sides of that fence.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>

There it is again. You just can't control yourself. So if I understand you correctly.. Job, 401k, employer provided healthcare with FSA option = spoiled rich guy.

<snip>

These different factions used to be divided between the inherited rich against the working class.


It is now the working class against people riding the handout train.

Working people are "bad". They make the train riders look bad. Culturally they are shunned.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you don't get much of a benefit, you don't do it.

You stated that the law prevents this type of selection practice. It doesn't. It just limits benefits in an attempt to discourage this activity, it doesn't actually (or effectively) prevent this activity.

You miss my point. No legislation like this is ever perfect from the start, including plenty of legislation that Republicans have voted for in large numbers. The idea that it wasn't perfect wasn't the reason why they went all out in opposition and you know that.

If you are pointing out flaws in a law and yet are unwilling to do anything to fix those problems other than schedule your 50th repeal vote in the House, you are either expecting perfection or you are unserious about governance. Which one do you think it is?

False dichotomy. Come on...you're smarter than this.

 

[TerryMathews]

Considering there is no provision for denial based on age anywhere in the ACA or any Medicare/Medicaid regulations, what are you basing this on?

However there is a provision to set a ceiling for reimbursement of specific procedures arbitrarily correct?

 

[fskimospy]

You stated that the law prevents this type of selection practice. It doesn't. It just limits benefits in an attempt to discourage this activity, it doesn't actually (or effectively) prevent this activity.

You have absolutely no idea if it effectively prevents this activity and you know it.

False dichotomy. Come on...you're smarter than this.

No, it's a perfectly valid dichotomy. If a law has been passed and you refuse to make any adjustments to it you are either saying that the law is perfect as passed or you are deliberately electing not to make improvements to laws for personal advantage. ie: you aren't being serious about governing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, uhh, are you contending it was different before the ACA, or what?

No. I'm contending that ACA was ill-conceived, poorly implemented, and dishonestly sold to the public as "affordable". And now we find out that its signature promise to adequately cover preexisting conditions has a major loophole that is currently being exploited. Democrats have botched this badly...this is what I'm contending.

 

[fskimospy]

No. I'm contending that ACA was ill-conceived, poorly implemented, and dishonestly sold to the public as "affordable". And now we find out that it's signature promise to adequately cover preexisting conditions has a major loophole that is currently being exploited. Democrats have botched this badly...this is what I'm contending.

All based on an anecdote from a message board, no less.

 

[openwheel]

my employer's premium has gone down this year......so.....I guess YMMV

 

[ivwshane]

No...The article did not answer why. Maybe you should read it.

"Maybe you can take some money out of your 401k."

There it is again. You just can't control yourself. So if I understand you correctly.. Job, 401k, employer provided healthcare with FSA option = spoiled rich guy.

Your life must be pretty fucked to hold that much of a grudge against other people trying to get by.

You are also quite the leftist shill for cheering on a piece of shit bill written one sided and in large part written by big pharma and health insurers. I suppose you believe Harry Reid when he claims everyone with an ACA hardship claim is telling lies?

Yet I suggest I'm for a form of single payer and that my daughter had Medicaid coverage until she was three, and yet somehow you find me a prick for finding fault with the ACA when I have lived on both sides of that fence.

Lol bro! You should probably chill out, I wouldn't want you to suffer a stroke from all the rage you have, your daughter wouldn't appreciate it.

You are also throwing out some straw man arguements there, the 401k suggestion was just that, a suggestion, no dig was intended.

As for the rest of your rant, clearly reading comprehension isn't your thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You have absolutely no idea if it effectively prevents this activity and you know it.

William Pitt and those with HIV see if differently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ca0fd0-5d18-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html

No, it's a perfectly valid dichotomy. If a law has been passed and you refuse to make any adjustments to it you are either saying that the law is perfect as passed or you are deliberately electing not to make improvements to laws for personal advantage. ie: you aren't being serious about governing.

Repealing the law is an option as well which you fail to acknowledge within your false dichotomy. Believe it or not, some actually happen to think this would be good governance to do so.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Lol bro! You should probably chill out, I wouldn't want you to suffer a stroke from all the rage you have, your daughter wouldn't appreciate it.

You are also throwing out some straw man arguements there, the 401k suggestion was just that, a suggestion, no dig was intended.

As for the rest of your rant, clearly reading comprehension isn't your thing.

??? He is spot on in his assessment.

You and your ilk's general mentality is that you have an employer subsidizing your healthcare then you much be a rich douchebag and deserve to pay more.

You know, part of "spreading the wealth"


Nevermind the fact that what you're describing royally screws middle class america.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

All based on an anecdote from a message board, no less.

Wow. I don't know how to respond except to be sarcastic and say yes, "all that" is based on a single anecdote from a message board. 🙄

My good friend....I'm starting to worry about you. Everything OK?

 

[ivwshane]

??? He is spot on in his assessment.

You and your ilk's general mentality is that you have an employer subsidizing your healthcare then you much be a rich douchebag and deserve to pay more.

You know, part of "spreading the wealth"


Nevermind the fact that what you're describing royally screws middle class america.

Uh ok. I must really hate myself then since I have employer paid healthcare and a 401k.

But please, rage on!

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Uh ok. I must really hate myself then since I have employer paid healthcare and a 401k.

But please, rage on!

I have no doubt that you hate yourself immensely.

Probably because your failed leader has fallen flat on his face, embarrassed our country, and has really reinforced what a modern progressive does in a leadership position.


If anyone's raging it's you obamacare supportors.

 

[ivwshane]

William Pitt and those with HIV see if differently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ca0fd0-5d18-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html


Repealing the law is an option as well which you fail to acknowledge within your false dichotomy. Believe it or not, some actually happen to think this would be good governance to do so.

So repealing a law that forces coverage of pre existing conditions, supposedly with a cap and going back to what we previously had which was an out right denial of coverage for pre existing conditions is your idea of a solution?

You shouldn't be worried about eskimospy, you might want to get yourself checked out, preferably before the repeal of the ACA and it's pre existing conditions rules.