So says CNBC....(Those right wing bastards!) Damn it you stupid journalists don't you read wordforge? Cancellations aren't really happening. All these people are just making this shit up. You lefties in the know who are out of work should apply for jobs at NBC or CNN since clearly you know more of what's happening than these paid journalists.
To have valid discussion on it you would have to see what the canceled plans actually cost and what coverage they provide vs what new plans are offered.
Well it's even starting to bug me that the only thing you see on this is anecdotal evidence without any firm data to back it up. I'm definitely not one to defend Obama....but it's like they have no real facts to back up their claims.
Wrong. Valid discussion can and should begin with, "We never gave the government the right to obligate us to buy a commercial product."
When the evidence is being covered by almost every major media outlet in the country it ceases to be "anecdotal." You guys are starting to sound like those crazy people that deny the moon landing ever happened. Like I said, you guys need to become journalists because clearly all these people across the country who claim to have had their plans canceled are making this shit up or too stupid to not know what's happening to them. You need to show them how they are really not losing their coverage and that Obama was right when he said they would get to keep it.
Just saying their plan was canceled is meaningless. And shouting and thumping your chest isn't going to change that. Not until real data surfaces with numbers. As has been pointed out many times, if their plan was trash and didn't meet minimum coverage levels it deserves to be canceled...and yes, I know what Obama said. Right now you all really do sound like you are just quoting Rush, Sean, and Glenn.
I doubt they would agree with you. I just posted a link. No thumping of chest is necessary when sharing the latest news Again...WOW! So screw the people that were perfectly happy with the plan they had. Got it. And yet I linked CNBC and have never once used a quote from Rush, Hannity or Beck. Hate to burst your bubble chief but this isn't just being discussed in the far right echo chambers. If you actually read and watched the news(or got out of the basement and socialized with real people) you would know that.
This reminds of yesterday's "Woman's insurance costs went from $50 a month to $500 under OBAMACARE!!!!!!!" headline. Turns out the woman had a cheap catastrophy plan which only covered her but she wanted a platnum plan which covered her and all three of her kids. She got that and got a nice big fat subsidy for it too as she was a single mother so not only was this headline not comparing apples to apples but it also is an outright lie because her monthly out of pocket expenses were far less than the claimed $500 per month (due to the subsidies). That's all they have, lies and half truths twisted beyond all recognition. Now, an intelligent right winger would smell the bullshit coming from his own side and try to make a more reasoned argument based upon facts but for some reason they never do. They just cut and paste what ever lie of the day they saw on Hannity and never once stop to ask themselves if it is factually correct. Now, I've been fooled by false headlines before but not over and over and over again on the same subject. That's just said.
T.R, unless you can show us the actual terms of a policy - just one policy - that was dropped, you're relying on hearsay.
That's the second time you idiots have dropped the word "Hannity." I double checked my link and sure enough it goes straight to CNBC. Now are you people just stupid and don't know how links work or are you just purposely trolling?
Does the link show the terms of any one of these policies that supposedly was dropped? Of course it doesn't. Here are some things you'd discover if you could see those "dropped" policies: They denied coverage for preexisting conditions They included a lifetime cap They were catastrophic only Etc. Without knowing those things, no comparison is possible.
I think there are two issues at play here: 1) healthcare.gov was not ready for prime time. Yes other software rollouts have been buggy too, but this was supposed to be Obama's signature piece of legislation and a HUGE issue. It should have been finished a year ago and been tested, retested, reretested, released in limited beta, a larger beta, then to the general public to at least play around the front end, then a limited beta on the backend, larger backend beta until finally on opening day, half the country should have already been signed up. To my mind the blame is shared roughly equally in thirds: 1/3 Obama himself for putting off key decisions on WHAT the website was actually going to do until after the election as not to cause controversy. This meant instead of years of development time we had months. 1/3 shared between Obama Admin and general federal bureaucracy for the horrible way the contracts were structured. I realize that due to certain political realities 387 different subcontractors are required to cover every possible minority/district combination, but there should ALWAYS be a lead contractor. What the fuck were they thinking? 1/3rd CGI. No they weren't lead (b/c there wasn't one) but they were the biggest and in charge of the most stuff. We've got to STOP awarding contracts just based on price and diversity points. Past performance MUST be a major a criteria. And starting a new subsidiary shouldn't give you a clean slate. The fact that a CGI fuckup caused the British government to stop awarding IT contracts all together and start doing it all inhouse (which actually has not only made their shit better, but saved $20m a year) should have said how fucking horrible they are at delivering on big projects. And this was for a TINY nation like the UK, why would they be any better working for a real county? 2) Media fairness. Since the Republicans have been getting slammed (rightfully IMO) for the Tea Party Shutdown, the media now feels that it's only fair to slam the Dems and their leader Obama. Yes, healthcare.gov has been a fuck up, but it's funny watching the media try and equate the two. Oh well, so it goes.
Then will you at least finally admit Obama's promise that "no one who wanted to keep their current insurance would lose it" was a blatant, bald-faced lie? He had to have known if people's coverage was inadequate to the new regulations that they would lose it, no matter how much they liked it.
Exactly. By saying that plans would be "grandfathered in" he was leaving a false impression that the people would get to keep their plan if they liked it regardless of whether or not it met the new standards. So forgive me or anyone else for not buying the "plans didn't meet new regulations" excuse.
You know...even if he lied outright knowingly...it's what politicians do...are we supposed to gather torches and pitchforks?
I believe that, but you clearly don't. You realize that "grandstanding" typically includes lies, right?
Oh, do shove the "your side" garbage. You know damn well my views are all over the map. So what are you implying now? That Obama didn't know what was in Obamacare either? In that case, what business did he have making that promise at all? You can't twist him out of this one. He is either a bald-faced liar or an incompetent who makes promises he has no idea if he can keep. Neither is leadership material and both screw his constituency.
I'm saying: Show me an actual policy that's been cancelled or terminated or whatever word you choose. No, not the form that the insured has filled out, but the actual policy that any one of these people has been insured under. Then you can see the reason(s) - very carefully spelled out in the legislation, which you can read yourself by clicking on the link in my sig - why the terms of that policy are illegal and a new policy had to be issued. When you can do that, we can continue this conversation.
Yep. People had three years' lead time to read their policies and now they're running around screaming. Not that you shouldn't read any legal document before you sign it, but most people don't. "Oh, la-la-la-la, HR takes care of that!" How many of you right here right now know the terms and conditions of your auto insurance policy? Your life insurance? Your mortgage? Yanno, that whole Personal Responsibility thing.
Because I read documents before I sign them? Yeah, I'm funny like that. What's interesting is the overlap between the people who were mocking homeowners for losing their homes during the mortgage crisis and the ones who are wailing now.
