• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

The "campaign language" will be to replace or repeal, reality may wind up being "reform". And reality further is likely to end up with the flaws in the ACA remaining. An example would be this: LINK

If the ACA remains as is I'd like to see components like this repealed since I know a lot of democrats feel the bill is perfection manifested (especially in congress). Only problem is I'm doubtful that either party is going to be focused on the smaller scale issues like these given their infatuation with campaigning. I don't think the reality takes a whole lot of speculation after seeing certain politicians promise the world and deliver the status quo instead.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Oh? Name one.
Click to expand...
Just write that off as me being coy... referencing individuals in the party that like to use absolutist and deceptive language to counter other lies as cited in post #1788. Should I also cite Obama's sugarcoating of the law to maintain public appeal "if you like your doctor you keep em"? I was talking about that... Sorry, I'm just not that enthralled with rosy language even if it's trying to counter paranoia over death panels. If they would like to counter the opposite ended paranoia, investing in the real legit throwbacks would have been better.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
OK.

But...

It's called demonizing your opponent. Spread enough lies and the hard core left wingers will be frothing at the mouth whenever they hear the Koch brother's names. Once they reach that state, they become immune from fact based arguments.

I briefly tuned in to MSNBC on my car radio today. I was informed that Republicans are, by and large, racist - or at least their policies are.

Cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
SezMe said:
Sure. And I'll write off the rest of your post as a magnificent dance to avoid responsibility for a truly idiotic assertion.
Click to expand...

Sheesh.... In case you hadn't noticed being wrong is a little humiliating and difficult to admit when I have crow in my mouth :mad:

Bah, don't bother writing the rest off, I made a poorly justified remark because I didn't keep all of my biases in check and I know it. I just didn't like the idea of being direct about it in the following response because being wrong is a little humiliating but I guess I have to suck it up. Its a pity that the whole rest of the source post gets ignored because of one portion but I'll eat crow for
Saying something that was obviously not accurate.

If I had spent more time thinking about my response I would have phrased myself differently, it was inappropriate. I make those slip ups every once in while.

I was still conveying originally that in the effort to defend the law from the worst of the false claims some democrats are making the mistake of tuning out ALL criticism or they counter them with other lies. I was criticizing other members for the same behavior of course that doesn't exactly justify what I said since it implies something entirely different. I would retract that portion of the post if it wasn't already past the time limit, so I can only retract it verbally at this point.

Unabogie said:
Oh? Name one.
Click to expand...
I owe you the same. Thanks for calling me out on the remark. Consider it retracted and im sorry for not saying this sooner, I wouldnt feel so stung if I had simply retracted that remark upon being called out
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Yes, because any political unpopularity of Obamacare is due solely to an accurate and truthful assessment of the legislation, and not the 24-hour disinfo machine the GOP has been grinding the gears off of.
Click to expand...

That's always the excuse, isn't it? Disinformation only comes from one side, and that's the only reason people would ever dislike the law.

The law itself was passed because of a campaign of disinformation by Obama and the Democrats. To complain about that now is more than a touch ironic, and to blame that as the primary source of public discontent is more than a little delusional.
 
Last edited:
Many purported Obamacare horror stories involve a massive increase in premiums. Some poor soul talks about the great insurance policy that was canceled. A policy with low deductibles and premiums that were a fraction of what the exchange policies charge.

The AFP ads making this claim all turned out to be bunk. The prices of the exchange policies were exaggerated, or the old policy had a low cap on coverage. That such stories are likely to be bogus should be obvious to anyone who understands that insurance companies set premiums based on medical costs and risks. A really low premium is only possible if the insurance policy will not pay for expensive proceedures.
 
Kestrel said:
The AFP ads making this claim all turned out to be bunk.
Click to expand...

And those AFP ads are the only reason anyone is dissatisfied with Obamacare.

Sure, Kestrel, sure.

A really low premium is only possible if the insurance policy will not pay for expensive proceedures.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the only possibility. If the risk of needing an expensive procedure is very small, then the cost to insure it can be small too.
 
Kestrel said:
The AFP ads making this claim all turned out to be bunk. The prices of the exchange policies were exaggerated, or the old policy had a low cap on coverage. That such stories are likely to be bogus should be obvious to anyone who understands that insurance companies set premiums based on medical costs and risks. A really low premium is only possible if the insurance policy will not pay for expensive proceedures.
Click to expand...

So what exactly are you saying, that no one actually has higher premiums, or that the new higher unfordable premiums that they face are good for them because they get more coverage, coverage that they don't want or need?
 
Kestrel said:
The prices of the exchange policies were exaggerated, or the old policy had a low cap on coverage. That such stories are likely to be bogus should be obvious to anyone who understands that insurance companies set premiums based on medical costs and risks. A really low premium is only possible if the insurance policy will not pay for expensive proceedures.
Click to expand...

Of course really low premium is a subjective term but a good low premium is possible with a high deductible and only catastrophic insurance. This is what I have always wanted.


The AFP ads making this claim all turned out to be bunk.
Click to expand...
Can you link to a source showing all AFP ads making this claim were bunk.

In my limited knowledge of other peoples insurance I know of a few whose premiums went up more than usual, lost their doctors, lost the hospital, etc
 
eeyore1954 said:
Of course really low premium is a subjective term but a good low premium is possible with a high deductible and only catastrophic insurance. This is what I have always wanted.
Click to expand...

Me, too.

Smallish premiums for minimal coverage has worked very well for my wife and I, allowing us to invest the savings so that if catastrophic illness ever hits, we could pay the deductibles from our savings/earnings. If we get lucky and stay well to very near the bitter end, our standard of living for our remaining years would be higher for the premiums not spent on unwanted insurance.

But the powers that be now know better than us what we really need.

So it goes...
 
Neally said:
So what exactly are you saying, that no one actually has higher premiums, or that the new higher unfordable premiums that they face are good for them because they get more coverage, coverage that they don't want or need?
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that premiums are based on actuarial data. If you were paying a lot less than the exchange rates, you did not have an insurance policy that would keep the average family out of bankruptcy after a medical disaster. If you were buying comprehensive insurance in the individual market before the exchanges opened, the exchange prices will be in the same ballpark.
 
Kestrel said:
No, I am saying that premiums are based on actuarial data. If you were paying a lot less than the exchange rates, you did not have an insurance policy that would keep the average family out of bankruptcy after a medical disaster. If you were buying comprehensive insurance in the individual market before the exchanges opened, the exchange prices will be in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is true because the catastrophic only would keep many average people out of bankruptcy.
In my case I can handle a 5,000 emergency room trip but not a 500,000 months long trip to the hospital.

Some people will still end up in bankruptcy now because the deductibles and out of pocket are higher than what they can afford.
 
Kestrel said:
Cite?
Click to expand...

You're not familiar with the age rating bands? Older people can only be charged 3x as much as young people, regardless of the relative risks. This requirement of Obamacare was implemented specifically to prevent insurers from using the actuarial age-based risks of insurees.

Of course, that's not the only restriction. In fact, there are very few factors that insurers are now allowed to use, and not all of them even to the full extent reflected by their actuarial risk. And again, this is intentionally and specifically designed to prevent insurers from using your actuarial risk to determine your premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom