Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Of course you don't see the point, your the paid shill..... if there was no Obamacare there still would be Aetna and United Healthcare. Ca. is playing right along to what the ACA wanted, to start the weeding out of competition by giving tax preference to those they want to succeed.
Well then, there is no need to put the mandate off until 2015.....right?You're right. It hasn't been sold to the public. The campaign is starting now. By January, the situation will be much different than it is now.
No, not right. They deferred implementation because of the administrative burden. Employers said they need more time and the Obama Administration gave it to them.
This was not done for political reasons. It was done because the ACA is complex and doing it right takes time.
Of course you don't see the point, your the paid shill..... if there was no Obamacare there still would be Aetna and United Healthcare. Ca. is playing right along to what the ACA wanted, to start the weeding out of competition by giving tax preference to those they want to succeed.
...Aetna and United Healthcare still exist. In California, even. They're just concentrating their product lines on the group markets in that state next year.
Since United only had 8,000 individual market policyholders in a state with 38 million people and 2 and a quarter million people in the individual market, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that their exit from CA's individual market was in the cards regardless of whatever imaginary link to Obamacare you've concocted.
Of course you don't see the point, your the paid shill..... if there was no Obamacare there still would be Aetna and United Healthcare. Ca. is playing right along to what the ACA wanted, to start the weeding out of competition by giving tax preference to those they want to succeed.
...Aetna and United Healthcare still exist. In California, even. They're just concentrating their product lines on the group markets in that state next year.
Since United only had 8,000 individual market policyholders in a state with 38 million people and 2 and a quarter million people in the individual market, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that their exit from CA's individual market was in the cards regardless of whatever imaginary link to Obamacare you've concocted.
"Only" 8,000 are not allowed to keep their plan OR their doctor.
Are you thick enough to think that they'll be the only casualties?
Of course you don't see the point, your the paid shill..... if there was no Obamacare there still would be Aetna and United Healthcare. Ca. is playing right along to what the ACA wanted, to start the weeding out of competition by giving tax preference to those they want to succeed.
...Aetna and United Healthcare still exist. In California, even. They're just concentrating their product lines on the group markets in that state next year.
Since United only had 8,000 individual market policyholders in a state with 38 million people and 2 and a quarter million people in the individual market, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that their exit from CA's individual market was in the cards regardless of whatever imaginary link to Obamacare you've concocted.
...Aetna and United Healthcare still exist. In California, even. They're just concentrating their product lines on the group markets in that state next year.
Since United only had 8,000 individual market policyholders in a state with 38 million people and 2 and a quarter million people in the individual market, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that their exit from CA's individual market was in the cards regardless of whatever imaginary link to Obamacare you've concocted.
"Only" 8,000 are not allowed to keep their plan OR their doctor.
Are you thick enough to think that they'll be the only casualties?
Aetna estimates 49,000 not allowed to keep their plan or their doctor.
