Why Obama was elected....

[Bob Wells]

Well thanks, I think. I just asked 2 simple questions, yes or no would have sufficed. So I will just avoid any opinion you have. Thanks

 

[Leader of the Banned]

LOL.... It's EZ I'm an American and this country
Is being lead down a dead end street. And NO
I do not have time or desire to explain it to you.
If you can't see it, I'm sorry 4 U

I can see that you're miserable and we're not. No explanation is necessary. Keep your pity directed towards yourself where it belongs.

 

[poppy]

LOL.... It's EZ I'm an American and this country
Is being lead down a dead end street. And NO
I do not have time or desire to explain it to you.
If you can't see it, I'm sorry 4 U

No, take the time and explain it. Tell us what you see and leave out the talk radio/Fox News talking points. I am especially interested in what the Republican Party is doing for America, the people not the corporations.

 

[poppy]

I need help once again. I can't find any links to the Congressional hearings that were held When the Medicare Part D website was rolled out two years after President Bush signed it into law. The Republicans must have demanded hearings because after a month the planned comparison-shopping website still wasn’t up and running. Even after it finally was, it was confusing and a mess. Some sample headlines after the troubled launch: “Web-based Comparison of Prescription Plans Delayed,” The Washington Post; “Glitches Mar Launch of Medicare Drug Plan,” The Wall Street Journal; “President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan,” The New York Times.

This is from http://www.washingtonpost.com/... after the law went into effect. Any help with links would be appreciated, thanks.

January 18, 2006
President Bush's top health advisers will fan out across the country this week to quell rising discontent with a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that has tens of thousands of elderly and disabled Americans, their pharmacists, and governors struggling to resolve myriad start-up problems.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who will visit Oregon and California, said yesterday that 24 million Medicare beneficiaries now have prescription coverage, compared with the 20.4 million who had been receiving drug benefits last year through state- or employer-sponsored plans. That means the new program, expected to cost $700 billion in the first 10 years, is providing drug coverage to 3.6 million new retirees.

...

Even as federal leaders touted the enrollment figures, state officials and health care experts continued to report widespread difficulties, especially for the poorest and sickest seniors who were forced to switch from state Medicaid programs to the new Medicare plans on Jan. 1. Nearly two dozen states have intervened, saying they will pay for medications for any low-income senior who is mistakenly rejected. The District, Maryland and Virginia have not intervened

 

[poppy]

I was going to ask you o'bama guys what the beach was like with your heads BURIED in the sand? BUT, then I saw this an I most offer apologies to you Sultan's of Knowledge:

BOSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that "bad apple" insurance companies, not his signature healthcare law, are to blame for hundreds of thousands of people losing their coverage in the past few weeks.

Once again you're reading the headline not the article. Here is the quote for the headline in the link you did not provide. I read it as the President informing you what took place prior to the ACA not placing blame. You're free to read it as you wish but please, for those of us who "can't see it", disprove the presidents statement.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums, or bill you into bankruptcy," Obama said.

 

[Leader of the Banned]

The bottom line is the President was not forthright, but also that people were paying premiums to insurance companies for an opportunity to be uninsured for all intents and purposes. Some people might have been paying $600.00 a year for coverage that included things like annual physicals. There might be absolutely no coverage for hospital stays. President Obama is not placing blame, he is simply acknowledging the reality that some people are spending money for non-insurance. Some of these people don't even understand their policies in the least. They are just happy that they are not paying much. They would be much better off being uninsured and taking the fine. Incidently, if they refuse to pay the fine, no legal action can be taken against them. There are no additional penalties, monetary or otherwise for not paying the fine. I supppose the IRS would ultimately take the money out of your estate when you die, I'm not sure.

 

[Bob]

I do not wish ill toward the President, but this law needs major restructuring, or it needs to be killed. The very people who are at the margins and are paying what they can barely afford are getting crushed. This law was a giveaway to the insurers, and the same time a mandate of one size fits all coverage is being rolled out with horrible pricing. Why not let insurers sell gap policies as is done with medicare and deduct from payroll as with medicare. At some point we must all admit not every aspect of healthcare has to be profit oriented. The whole idea of IRS as cop and collector is bassackwards when more rational options are available.

 

[Leader of the Banned]

I do not wish ill toward the President, but this law needs major restructuring, or it needs to be killed. The very people who are at the margins and are paying what they can barely afford are getting crushed. This law was a giveaway to the insurers, and the same time a mandate of one size fits all coverage is being rolled out with horrible pricing. Why not let insurers sell gap policies as is done with medicare and deduct from payroll as with medicare. At some point we must all admit not every aspect of healthcare has to be profit oriented. The whole idea of IRS as cop and collector is bassackwards when more rational options are available.

I 'm just curious, do you know anyone who had their insurance cancelled who wasn't on a really crappy policy? In other words, they had decent private coverage and it wasn't junk insurance. I think Obama should have emphasized that a lot of people's "sub-standard" insurance was going to be cancelled by the company as soon as ACA kicked in. Still I find it difficult to believe that people with these policies weren't aware of the possibility. This is an article that is clearly from a left-wing slant, but it does mention a few key points that offer a rebuttal to some of the most scathing criticism. Take it with a grain of salt for now, but it's worth a read. Here's one quote:

As the Department of Health and Human Services explained in a release, six out of 10 Americans who enroll in coverage on the exchanges could find plans that cost less than $100 per month, all that include the 10 essential health benefits mandated by law.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/30/the-union-leader-pushes-misinformation-about-po/196672

 

[poppy]

It's not perfect but, even with the public option negotiated out it's better than before. I would prefer single payer. Doesn't the Ryan plan take Medicare recipients (single payer) and throw them all into the very type of exchanges the Republicans are howling about now? Conservatives are like toddlers, you just never know what they want.

 

[Leader of the Banned]

I would have to think that in the grand scheme of things, the junk policies ended up costing the policyholders a lot more than legitimate insurance including sometrhing offered by ACA. I'd like to see some numbers on how many people were driven into bankruptcy due to expenses that weren't covered by their swiss cheese policies. I'd also like to know what their out-of-pocket expenses were, particularly in light of their high deductibles. On the other side of the argument, I'd like to know how many of these policyholders are fairly affluent and are in a good position to handle out-of-pocket expenses. Maybe "sub-standard" insurance is just right for them.