• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Just for you? What are you asking...why I blame Pubs for their not supporting the ACA? Or any Obama-led effort to move towards health care reform...even one that ended up being essentially Republican in it's ideals. Because they didn't, obviously.

Why blame pubs now, for one. I'm interested in "now." Why now? Considering the present economy, leadership, etc., you can't just say "well it was kind of your idea years ago so it's your problem now." That's like saying that you had a girlfriend that you contemplated having children with, who has a child with some other guy, and now lawfully states that you are required to pay for it.
 
Umm...I'm blaming them for the ACA being "passed in a way that, at best, can be described as "unconventional."

It was unconventional b/c they utterly refused to participate, support, compromise, etc. even for a plan that is/was essentially a Republican plan. Why (I'm going to guess you want to hear this as well)? Because they thought it was/is in their best interests politically to be intransigently against Obama. Period. And now instead of trying to work to solve/fix problems they're just going to again try and destroy and hamper the effort while offering no viable alternative.
 
Umm...I'm blaming them for the ACA being "passed in a way that, at best, can be described as "unconventional."

It was unconventional b/c they utterly refused to participate, support, compromise, etc. even for a plan that is/was essentially a Republican plan. Why (I'm going to guess you want to hear this as well)? Because they thought it was/is in their best interests politically to be intransigently against Obama. Period. And now instead of trying to work to solve/fix problems they're just going to again try and destroy and hamper the effort while offering no viable alternative.

So you're blaming the pubs for making this Hindenburg more flammable
 
Why blame pubs now, for one. I'm interested in "now." Why now? Considering the present economy, leadership, etc., you can't just say "well it was kind of your idea years ago so it's your problem now." That's like saying that you had a girlfriend that you contemplated having children with, who has a child with some other guy, and now lawfully states that you are required to pay for it.

I think it comes off more as, hey this was once an idea you supported and believed in, so let's get together and fix this for the good of the country and not your re-election campaign. I don't think they are putting the blame for the idea on Republicans, it's blaming them for their commitment to make it fail, now.
 
I sure don't blame them for misstating "you can keep your insurance" or for not having the website working well from day one.
 
I think it comes off more as, hey this was once an idea you supported and believed in, so let's get together and fix this for the good of the country and not your re-election campaign. I don't think they are putting the blame for the idea on Republicans, it's blaming them for their commitment to make it fail, now.

Yep.
 
Well, yes I disagree. This bill got through without the support of the people, a fact you seem to ignore. Yes pubs may have supported it a long time ago. Clinton instituted the DOMA. Do I support that? No, I assume you do, since you live in the past.
 
But I see you don't really disagree with me when I blame Republicans for their lack of support for the ACA.
 
I, unequivocally, do not blame pubs for this disaster. Period. I'm surprised that fact slipped your wit
 
Not even blaming them for failing to stop this law that "is going to destroy America and everything in America". Surely you can blame them for this failure. At least so far.


And...with that I'll say adieu and goodnight.
 
Last edited:
No Beatrix, the point is that I have apparantly been subsidizing every body else for the last 30 years and if I catch a break now well good for me. Secondly, my plan is through Interactive Medical, not BCBS, and I find it somewhat amusing that the drop in my plan mirrors the cost I could find on the exchange when factoring in a similar plan that BCBS was offering to a similarly composed small group. Finally, my oldest daughter purchased a plan on the exchange for herself that was 100.00 a month less with better coverage than her previous plan as well as getting a 100.00 insurance suppliment additionaly because her income qualified her. I guess my point is that we cannot be the only people in America that this seems to work for can we?

My sense is you weren't subsidizing other group policies so much as you were differentiated via different risk pools (and you had a 'richer' plan). Obamacare altered plan benefits along with funding mechanisms (by shifting premiums to less risky pools). Your pool (and to your point, other pools) benefited from the funding mechanism change. Other pools were hammered by it (and/or by having to increase the 'richness' of their plan).

Your earlier response indicated you attributed rate changes primarily to the type of plan a given group was on... my apologies if I misinterpreted that.
 
CH,

A lot of people happy with their individually-purchased plans haven't had to use them much, I'd suspect. I'm not saying they're all "junk" and if Obama said so he should be called out. But the individual (residual) market has been a bitch for folks not healthy to navigate for a pretty good while I'm pretty sure. People generally don't understand their plans too well until they have to use them...then are not rarely surprised but not favorably.

Im certainly not arguing that junk plans don't exist. BUT, most people in this market have insurance that looks/smells and feels a lot like group coverage. The CR article was good in what it said to look for...I just am suggesting these aren't the majority of plans. Not even close.

Actually, people do use their plans all the time, one of the reasons there are usually rate increases each year. Ive also down testimonials for advertising and there are some crazy stories out there about how individual junk policies saved the day. I remember one where the customer was in Bali during the terrorist bombing and his junk individual plan covered him there, covered him getting airlifted to a burn center, etc.

Maternity is the one example of a rider that most plans need to have added. I can explain why insurers do this BUT it is a "gap" in some policies.

I'll admit I am very very close to this issue and its hits me at a personal level. But, I think there is a lot of misleading info out there.
 
Im certainly not arguing that junk plans don't exist. BUT, most people in this market have insurance that looks/smells and feels a lot like group coverage. The CR article was good in what it said to look for...I just am suggesting these aren't the majority of plans. Not even close.

Actually, people do use their plans all the time, one of the reasons there are usually rate increases each year. Ive also down testimonials for advertising and there are some crazy stories out there about how individual junk policies saved the day. I remember one where the customer was in Bali during the terrorist bombing and his junk individual plan covered him there, covered him getting airlifted to a burn center, etc.

Maternity is the one example of a rider that most plans need to have added. I can explain why insurers do this BUT it is a "gap" in some policies.

I'll admit I am very very close to this issue and its hits me at a personal level. But, I think there is a lot of misleading info out there.

Damn shill.

;)
 
Im certainly not arguing that junk plans don't exist. BUT, most people in this market have insurance that looks/smells and feels a lot like group coverage. The CR article was good in what it said to look for...I just am suggesting these aren't the majority of plans. Not even close.

Actually, people do use their plans all the time, one of the reasons there are usually rate increases each year. Ive also down testimonials for advertising and there are some crazy stories out there about how individual junk policies saved the day. I remember one where the customer was in Bali during the terrorist bombing and his junk individual plan covered him there, covered him getting airlifted to a burn center, etc.

Maternity is the one example of a rider that most plans need to have added. I can explain why insurers do this BUT it is a "gap" in some policies.

I'll admit I am very very close to this issue and its hits me at a personal level. But, I think there is a lot of misleading info out there.

A guy got lucky in Bali, but a lady in St. Louis isn't being covered for basics. Women don't ob/gym. Families lose their homes because of these plans.

For decades over 50% of personal bankruptcies are due medical bills. An overwhelming percentage of those do have insurance.

But keep telling us this isn't reality.
 
I will keep saying this because it isn't reality. Sorry but It just isn't. I realize it doesn't fit the narrative but its just not true. The majority of these plans are good insurance. Thats a fact from someone wjho sells these and sells against these plans.

FWIW, Medicare w/ Part D wouldn't be a compliant ACA plan. A $0 deductible 100% plan with $0 copays isn't an ACA compliant plan.

And for the record, I haven't a clue what what women ob/gym means.
 
Back
Top