"Obamacare is not working"!!! ?

[Wry Catcher]

You are dismissed spanky.

The policies are being cancelled because MOST companies chose to become compliant with the law on Jan as it mandated...god you are stupid.

No, my posts are not stupid. Only assholes like you - and most of the Echo Chamber - who lack the ability to consider alternatives to their belief system, and must attack the person and not their opinion or argument, call the opinions of others stupid, simply because you or they disagree.

If you were intelligent and educated you could form an argument with evidence suggesting my opinion or argument was not likely or even wrong. That you can't leaves me with the opinion that you're a lazy asshole, or too dumb to do so. Now, I know that maybe construed as a false dilemma, and their may be other reasons for you acting like an asshole. Would you care to offer one or two?

LOL.....the policies are being cancelled because they chose to become compliant.

It is just that simple.....no "conspiracy" just obeying the law....but that is beyond you.

Other than your opinion, do you have any proof? You somehow know (a Posteriori?); please explain how and provide some evidence.

 

[Antares]

No, my posts are not stupid. Only assholes like you - and most of the Echo Chamber - who lack the ability to consider alternatives to their belief system, and must attack the person and not their opinion or argument, call the opinions of others stupid, simply because you or they disagree.

If you were intelligent and educated you could form an argument with evidence suggesting my opinion or argument was not likely or even wrong. That you can't leaves me with the opinion that you're a lazy asshole, or too dumb to do so. Now, I know that maybe construed as a false dilemma, and their may be other reasons for you acting like an asshole. Would you care to offer one or two?

LOL.....the policies are being cancelled because they chose to become compliant.

It is just that simple.....no "conspiracy" just obeying the law....but that is beyond you.

Other than your opinion, do you have any proof? You somehow know (a Posteriori?); please explain how and provide some evidence.

Tell me.....did the ACA mandate more coverage?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I don't know, nor do you. I suspect - and it is a possibility - it is collusion among the health insurance cartel, an effort to derail the law which holds them accountable for benefits they do not want to offer.

You are dismissed spanky.

The policies are being cancelled because MOST companies chose to become compliant with the law on Jan as it mandated...god you are stupid.

No, my posts are not stupid. Only assholes like you - and most of the Echo Chamber - who lack the ability to consider alternatives to their belief system, and must attack the person and not their opinion or argument, call the opinions of others stupid, simply because you or they disagree.

The irony of this paragraph is absolutely astonishing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL.....the policies are being cancelled because they chose to become compliant.

It is just that simple.....no "conspiracy" just obeying the law....but that is beyond you.

Other than your opinion, do you have any proof? You somehow know (a Posteriori?); please explain how and provide some evidence.

Tell me.....did the ACA mandate more coverage?

Tell me, what prevented the insurance company from upgrading the policy to meet the new standard?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are dismissed spanky.

The policies are being cancelled because MOST companies chose to become compliant with the law on Jan as it mandated...god you are stupid.

No, my posts are not stupid. Only assholes like you - and most of the Echo Chamber - who lack the ability to consider alternatives to their belief system, and must attack the person and not their opinion or argument, call the opinions of others stupid, simply because you or they disagree.

The irony of this paragraph is absolutely astonishing.

Proof that you're an asshole without the ability to write a proper critique; is an ad hominem the best you've got?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No, my posts are not stupid. Only assholes like you - and most of the Echo Chamber - who lack the ability to consider alternatives to their belief system, and must attack the person and not their opinion or argument, call the opinions of others stupid, simply because you or they disagree.

The irony of this paragraph is absolutely astonishing.

Proof that you're an asshole without the ability to write a proper critique; is an ad hominem the best you've got?

Irony on top of irony.

Kind of pathetic.

 

[Antares]

Other than your opinion, do you have any proof? You somehow know (a Posteriori?); please explain how and provide some evidence.

Tell me.....did the ACA mandate more coverage?

Tell me, what prevented the insurance company from upgrading the policy to meet the new standard?

(smile) Insurance Companies MUST file ALL new plans one tear in advance.....you don't say...OK we are going to do this.

The leagal process makes you rewrite plans and submit them a year in advance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The irony of this paragraph is absolutely astonishing.

Proof that you're an asshole without the ability to write a proper critique; is an ad hominem the best you've got?

Irony on top of irony.

Kind of pathetic.

I knew you'd post this ignorant remark. Look up ad hominem, it is much more than my observation that you're an asshole.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tell me.....did the ACA mandate more coverage?

Tell me, what prevented the insurance company from upgrading the policy to meet the new standard?

(smile) Insurance Companies MUST file ALL new plans one tear in advance.....you don't say...OK we are going to do this.

The leagal process makes you rewrite plans and submit them a year in advance.

Gee, the PPACA become law in 2010, seems time enough for a responsible business to modify soon to be obsolete policies and to notify their policy holders that change was coming.

[grin] Maybe the insurance companies felt the money they 'donated' to the GOP would have resulted in the repeal of the PPACA and they would be able to keep thier highly profitable 'junk' policies. I wonder [snarl] if the insurance cartel gave a few free trips and a ham to Scalia, Thomas and Alito?

 

[depotoo]

Tell me, what prevented the insurance company from upgrading the policy to meet the new standard?

(smile) Insurance Companies MUST file ALL new plans one tear in advance.....you don't say...OK we are going to do this.

The leagal process makes you rewrite plans and submit them a year in advance.

Gee, the PPACA become law in 2010, seems time enough for a responsible business to modify soon to be obsolete policies and to notify their policy holders that change was coming.

[grin] Maybe the insurance companies felt the money they 'donated' to the GOP would have resulted in the repeal of the PPACA and they would be able to keep thier highly profitable 'junk' policies. I wonder [snarl] if the insurance cartel gave a few free trips and a ham to Scalia, Thomas and Alito?

since people chose those plans...
Now tell me why those with cadillac plans are now going to have a 40% tax hit so most won't be able to keep those excellent plans? Thought this was all about better healthcare for all, yet those that took the time to make sure they had excellent plans will now be punished. What's up with that??

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Proof that you're an asshole without the ability to write a proper critique; is an ad hominem the best you've got?

Irony on top of irony.

Kind of pathetic.

I knew you'd post this ignorant remark. Look up ad hominem, it is much more than my observation that you're an asshole.

I know what ad hominem means. And you've just hit the irony trifecta.

Maybe if you got that huge chip off your shoulder, you might be able to communicate in a more cogent and civil manner.

 

[Wry Catcher]

(smile) Insurance Companies MUST file ALL new plans one tear in advance.....you don't say...OK we are going to do this.

The leagal process makes you rewrite plans and submit them a year in advance.

Gee, the PPACA become law in 2010, seems time enough for a responsible business to modify soon to be obsolete policies and to notify their policy holders that change was coming.

[grin] Maybe the insurance companies felt the money they 'donated' to the GOP would have resulted in the repeal of the PPACA and they would be able to keep thier highly profitable 'junk' policies. I wonder [snarl] if the insurance cartel gave a few free trips and a ham to Scalia, Thomas and Alito?

since people choice those plans...
Now tell me why those with cadillac plans are now going to have a 40% tax hit so most won't be able to keep those excellent plans? Thought this was all about better healthcare for all, yet those that took the time to make sure they had excellent plans will now be punished. What's up with that??

You need to stop using emoticons, their childish and are tools of an immature poster.

Define a "cadilac plan" and where did you get the 40% figure. Even if the policy is 40% higher how does that impact citizens given the subsidy goverment offers to both a single person and famiies?

Does their plan provide free annual physicals including labs and other tests to discover serious disease early? Or is this an expensive Dr. visit, an, expensive lab test, etc., and so something the junk policy owner might forego and potentially end up seriously ill with a huge bill?

People with "excellent plans" are punished? How do you define excellent? Do they have low co-pays, low cost medicines, and no lifetime caps? Do they not have underwriters whose duty was to protectthe pocket book of the insurance company and not the patient?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Irony on top of irony.

Kind of pathetic.

I knew you'd post this ignorant remark. Look up ad hominem, it is much more than my observation that you're an asshole.

I know what ad hominem means. And you've just hit the irony trifecta.

Maybe if you got that huge chip off your shoulder, you might be able to communicate in a more cogent and civil manner.

If you knew what an ad hominem was you would not have used it as you did. Thus, you're a liar too. Now, I have no chip on my shoulder, I simply call an asshole an asshole and a liar a liar. If you don't like it, put me on ignore (a refuge for the willfully ignorant) or go to another forum; better to stop the nonsense and post substantive comments.

My posts and threads are an intentional counterpoint to those posted by the set of callous conservatives, the set of members of the Echo Chamber and the set where these two intersect. I relish recieving neg. reps. from these sets 'cause they engage in personal attacks and rarely are able to offer arguments to counter my opinions or arguments.

I look forward to intelligent, substantive comments. I know I don't know everything and I understand the biases I have. I've learned from others on the otherside of the aisle, even some I consider stupid (and still do). Give enough monkeys enoughttypewriters ..., hence I never put anyone on ignore (I did once, briefly but my curiosity got the better of me).

 

[depotoo]

Gee, the PPACA become law in 2010, seems time enough for a responsible business to modify soon to be obsolete policies and to notify their policy holders that change was coming.

[grin] Maybe the insurance companies felt the money they 'donated' to the GOP would have resulted in the repeal of the PPACA and they would be able to keep thier highly profitable 'junk' policies. I wonder [snarl] if the insurance cartel gave a few free trips and a ham to Scalia, Thomas and Alito?

since people choice those plans...
Now tell me why those with cadillac plans are now going to have a 40% tax hit so most won't be able to keep those excellent plans? Thought this was all about better healthcare for all, yet those that took the time to make sure they had excellent plans will now be punished. What's up with that??

You need to stop using emoticons, their childish and are tools of an immature poster.

Define a "cadilac plan" and where did you get the 40% figure. Even if the policy is 40% higher how does that impact citizens given the subsidy goverment offers to both a single person and famiies?

Does their plan provide free annual physicals including labs and other tests to discover serious diseasee early? Or is this an expensive visit Dr. visit, an, expensive lab test, etc., and so something the junk policy owner might forego and potentially end up seriously ill with a huge bill?

People with "excellent plans" are punished? How do you define excellent? Do they have low co-pays, low cost medicines, and no lifetime caps? Do they not have underwriters whose duty was to protectthe pocket book of the insurance company and not the patient?

hey Wry, why not post us those rules you have there as to what makes one immature or childish? My book of definitions states immature is one that posts insults to make themselves appear above others.

Actually those are exactly what a cadillac plan encompass. And more. Free preventative care, low co-pays, lower deductibles, lower max out of pocket, no lifetime limits, choice of doctors, no pre-approvals, etc., but with a higher premium in which they were willing to pay. Many employers offered thesed plans for their employees, sort of like the unions have done as an added benefit. They usually also include vision as well as hearing and vision care. They will now have to pay an added tax for which will make it cost prohibitive for most. Why do you think the unions asked for a waiver??
And because of that they will now have higher healthcare costs on top of the higher premiums already being seen for renewals along with and added tax. Sort of like a luxury tax, if you will, for healthcare. But, because they are now going to be cost prohibitve, most will have to drop these plans.
Yet, supposedly this bill was to insure all have affordable care. Then if that is the case, why are they offering plans that are with high deductibles, high co-pays, etc. which will make their costs just as likely to cause them to become bankrupt (not affordable) if they have a serious illness. Makes no sense, now does it? And the insurance companies? They have a special provision that will save their asses, if indeed they run into the black due to too many claims. They will be saved, but once again, the indivudual will not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

since people choice those plans...
Now tell me why those with cadillac plans are now going to have a 40% tax hit so most won't be able to keep those excellent plans? Thought this was all about better healthcare for all, yet those that took the time to make sure they had excellent plans will now be punished. What's up with that??

You need to stop using emoticons, their childish and are tools of an immature poster.

Define a "cadilac plan" and where did you get the 40% figure. Even if the policy is 40% higher how does that impact citizens given the subsidy goverment offers to both a single person and famiies?

Does their plan provide free annual physicals including labs and other tests to discover serious diseasee early? Or is this an expensive visit Dr. visit, an, expensive lab test, etc., and so something the junk policy owner might forego and potentially end up seriously ill with a huge bill?

People with "excellent plans" are punished? How do you define excellent? Do they have low co-pays, low cost medicines, and no lifetime caps? Do they not have underwriters whose duty was to protectthe pocket book of the insurance company and not the patient?

hey Wry, why not post us those rules you have there as to what makes one immature or childish? My book of definitions states immature is one that posts insults to make themselves appear above others.

I don't have a book, it is my OPINION that the use of emoticons are childish. Does your book prohibit opinions and allow for personal affronts?

Actually those are exactly what a cadillac plan encompass. And more. Free preventative care, low co-pays, lower deductibles, lower max out of pocket, no lifetime limits, choice of doctors, no pre-approvals, etc., but with a higher premium in which they were willing to pay. Many employers offered thesed plans for their employees, sort of like the unions have done as an added benefit. They usually also include vision as well as hearing and vision care. They will now have to pay an added tax for which will make it cost prohibitive for most. Why do you think the unions asked for a waiver??

It's all about what insurance companies offer, and how much a person is willing to pay. You understand that the cost of insurance has risen every year for decades, cosing local government a greater and greater amount - those who won't or can't buy the "cadillac" plans will end up in a county hospital and paid for by you and me. However, it all comes down to our elected officials working together (which hasn't happened in years in The Congress) and establishing priorities. Those who can't afford a "cadillac" can choose other models under Obamacare at lower costs, plus the Feds will subsidize those elibable (including familes earning over $90,000 per year).

And because of that they will now have higher healthcare costs on top of the higher premiums already being seen for renewals along with and added tax. Sort of like a luxury tax, if you will, for healthcare. But, because they are now going to be cost prohibitve, most will have to drop these plans.

I doubt that's true. But, time will tell.

\Yet, supposedly this bill was to insure all have affordable care. Then if that is the case, why are they offering plans that are with high deductibles, high co-pays, etc. which will make their costs just as likely to cause them to become bankrupt (not affordable) if they have a serious illness. Makes no sense, now does it? And the insurance companies? They have a special provision that will save their asses, if indeed they run into the black due to too many claims. They will be saved, but once again, the indivudual will not.

The bill has flaws, and that does not suprise me. Most every law passed by Congress is a camel when a horse was needed. Thus we have CFR's to make adjustements and mitigate the flaws. Time will tell, it would be nice if we all agreed reform was needed and worked together in making a the PPACA fair for all - that won't happen expecially when the Congress remains disfunctional.

PS Sorry for the typos and mispells - the dishwasher was leaking and I needed to repair it. Thus I rushed through the above.

 

[Antares]

Other than your opinion, do you have any proof? You somehow know (a Posteriori?); please explain how and provide some evidence.

Tell me.....did the ACA mandate more coverage?

Tell me, what prevented the insurance company from upgrading the policy to meet the new standard?

When a policy is changed in any way it must then be submitted and approved by the DOI and now also HHS....you don't just "add" in some coverages.

A "plan" cannot be a "Qualified Plan" without HHS approval...HHS made those companies who chose to become compliant when they were supposed to to rewrite their policies according to HHS stipulations....hence the new plans....all old plans becamse illegal becuase they were not "compliant" so they had to be cancelled....they followed the law, it is the law that is responsible for the cancelled plans.

 

[depotoo]

You need to stop using emoticons, their childish and are tools of an immature poster.

Define a "cadilac plan" and where did you get the 40% figure. Even if the policy is 40% higher how does that impact citizens given the subsidy goverment offers to both a single person and famiies?

Does their plan provide free annual physicals including labs and other tests to discover serious diseasee early? Or is this an expensive visit Dr. visit, an, expensive lab test, etc., and so something the junk policy owner might forego and potentially end up seriously ill with a huge bill?

People with "excellent plans" are punished? How do you define excellent? Do they have low co-pays, low cost medicines, and no lifetime caps? Do they not have underwriters whose duty was to protectthe pocket book of the insurance company and not the patient?

hey Wry, why not post us those rules you have there as to what makes one immature or childish? My book of definitions states immature is one that posts insults to make themselves appear above others.

I don't have a book, it is my OPINION that the use of emoticons are childish. Does your book prohibit opinions and allow for personal affronts?

Actually those are exactly what a cadillac plan encompass. And more. Free preventative care, low co-pays, lower deductibles, lower max out of pocket, no lifetime limits, choice of doctors, no pre-approvals, etc., but with a higher premium in which they were willing to pay. Many employers offered thesed plans for their employees, sort of like the unions have done as an added benefit. They usually also include vision as well as hearing and vision care. They will now have to pay an added tax for which will make it cost prohibitive for most. Why do you think the unions asked for a waiver??

It's all about what insurance companies offer, and how much a person is willing to pay. You understand that the cost of insurance has risen every year for decades, cosing local government a greater and greater amount - those who won't or can't buy the "cadillac" plans will end up in a county hospital and paid for by you and me. However, it all comes down to our elected officials working together (which hasn't happened in years in The Congress) and establishing priorities. Those who can't afford a "cadillac" can choose other models under Obamacare at lower costs, plus the Feds will subsidize those elibable (including familes earning over $90,000 per year).

And because of that they will now have higher healthcare costs on top of the higher premiums already being seen for renewals along with and added tax. Sort of like a luxury tax, if you will, for healthcare. But, because they are now going to be cost prohibitve, most will have to drop these plans.

I doubt that's true. But, time will tell.

\Yet, supposedly this bill was to insure all have affordable care. Then if that is the case, why are they offering plans that are with high deductibles, high co-pays, etc. which will make their costs just as likely to cause them to become bankrupt (not affordable) if they have a serious illness. Makes no sense, now does it? And the insurance companies? They have a special provision that will save their asses, if indeed they run into the black due to too many claims. They will be saved, but once again, the indivudual will not.

The bill has flaws, and that does not suprise me. Most every law passed by Congress is a camel when a horse was needed. Thus we have CFR's to make adjustements and mitigate the flaws. Time will tell, it would be nice if we all agreed reform was needed and worked together in making a the PPACA fair for all - that won't happen expecially when the Congress remains disfunctional.

PS Sorry for the typos and mispells - the dishwasher was leaking and I needed to repair it. Thus I rushed through the above.

Ever heard of a dictionary?

You see, we all do agree there were some problems that needed solving but we have approaches which come from different ends of the spectrum. The Reps wanted to make insurance better, how to reduce the costs of medical care, and find solutions for those that could not get it due to cost for pre-existing conditions being prohibitive. The Dems want to try to get to their ultimate goal of forcing single payor on all.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I knew you'd post this ignorant remark. Look up ad hominem, it is much more than my observation that you're an asshole.

I know what ad hominem means. And you've just hit the irony trifecta.

Maybe if you got that huge chip off your shoulder, you might be able to communicate in a more cogent and civil manner.

If you knew what an ad hominem was you would not have used it as you did. Thus, you're a liar too. Now, I have no chip on my shoulder, I simply call an asshole an asshole and a liar a liar. If you don't like it, put me on ignore (a refuge for the willfully ignorant) or go to another forum; better to stop the nonsense and post substantive comments.

My posts and threads are an intentional counterpoint to those posted by the set of callous conservatives, the set of members of the Echo Chamber and the set where these two intersect. I relish recieving neg. reps. from these sets 'cause they engage in personal attacks and rarely are able to offer arguments to counter my opinions or arguments.

I look forward to intelligent, substantive comments. I know I don't know everything and I understand the biases I have. I've learned from others on the otherside of the aisle, even some I consider stupid (and still do). Give enough monkeys enoughttypewriters ..., hence I never put anyone on ignore (I did once, briefly but my curiosity got the better of me).

Ad hominen is interjecting personal insults and invective into the conversation, which you have done and I have not. It also consists of labeling others with whom you disagree as "assholes", "callous" and being "members of the Echo Chamber".

If you expect intelligent substance from others, it is incumbent upon you to start from that point.

Oh, and the immense chip on your shoulder doesn't add to the substance either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

hey Wry, why not post us those rules you have there as to what makes one immature or childish? My book of definitions states immature is one that posts insults to make themselves appear above others.

I don't have a book, it is my OPINION that the use of emoticons are childish. Does your book prohibit opinions and allow for personal affronts?

Actually those are exactly what a cadillac plan encompass. And more. Free preventative care, low co-pays, lower deductibles, lower max out of pocket, no lifetime limits, choice of doctors, no pre-approvals, etc., but with a higher premium in which they were willing to pay. Many employers offered thesed plans for their employees, sort of like the unions have done as an added benefit. They usually also include vision as well as hearing and vision care. They will now have to pay an added tax for which will make it cost prohibitive for most. Why do you think the unions asked for a waiver??

It's all about what insurance companies offer, and how much a person is willing to pay. You understand that the cost of insurance has risen every year for decades, cosing local government a greater and greater amount - those who won't or can't buy the "cadillac" plans will end up in a county hospital and paid for by you and me. However, it all comes down to our elected officials working together (which hasn't happened in years in The Congress) and establishing priorities. Those who can't afford a "cadillac" can choose other models under Obamacare at lower costs, plus the Feds will subsidize those elibable (including familes earning over $90,000 per year).

And because of that they will now have higher healthcare costs on top of the higher premiums already being seen for renewals along with and added tax. Sort of like a luxury tax, if you will, for healthcare. But, because they are now going to be cost prohibitve, most will have to drop these plans.

I doubt that's true. But, time will tell.

\Yet, supposedly this bill was to insure all have affordable care. Then if that is the case, why are they offering plans that are with high deductibles, high co-pays, etc. which will make their costs just as likely to cause them to become bankrupt (not affordable) if they have a serious illness. Makes no sense, now does it? And the insurance companies? They have a special provision that will save their asses, if indeed they run into the black due to too many claims. They will be saved, but once again, the indivudual will not.

The bill has flaws, and that does not suprise me. Most every law passed by Congress is a camel when a horse was needed. Thus we have CFR's to make adjustements and mitigate the flaws. Time will tell, it would be nice if we all agreed reform was needed and worked together in making a the PPACA fair for all - that won't happen expecially when the Congress remains disfunctional.

PS Sorry for the typos and mispells - the dishwasher was leaking and I needed to repair it. Thus I rushed through the above.

Ever heard of a dictionary?

Yep. What should I do with the dictionary? Plug the leak with it or do you think if I looked up dictionaryleak it would aid my repair?

You see, we all do agree there were some problems that needed solving but we have approaches which come from different ends of the spectrum. The Reps wanted to make insurance better, how to reduce the costs of medical care, and find solutions for those that could not get it due to cost for pre-existing conditions being prohibitive. The Dems want to try to get to their ultimate goal of forcing single payor on all.

Do you expect me to believe the Republicans are ultruistic? That's funny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know what ad hominem means. And you've just hit the irony trifecta.

Maybe if you got that huge chip off your shoulder, you might be able to communicate in a more cogent and civil manner.

If you knew what an ad hominem was you would not have used it as you did. Thus, you're a liar too. Now, I have no chip on my shoulder, I simply call an asshole an asshole and a liar a liar. If you don't like it, put me on ignore (a refuge for the willfully ignorant) or go to another forum; better to stop the nonsense and post substantive comments.

My posts and threads are an intentional counterpoint to those posted by the set of callous conservatives, the set of members of the Echo Chamber and the set where these two intersect. I relish recieving neg. reps. from these sets 'cause they engage in personal attacks and rarely are able to offer arguments to counter my opinions or arguments.

I look forward to intelligent, substantive comments. I know I don't know everything and I understand the biases I have. I've learned from others on the otherside of the aisle, even some I consider stupid (and still do). Give enough monkeys enoughttypewriters ..., hence I never put anyone on ignore (I did once, briefly but my curiosity got the better of me).

Ad hominen is interjecting personal insults and invective into the conversation, which you have done and I have not. It also consists of labeling others with whom you disagree as "assholes", "callous" and being "members of the Echo Chamber".

If you expect intelligent substance from others, it is incumbent upon you to start from that point.

Oh, and the immense chip on your shoulder doesn't add to the substance either.

Are you Daveman or CrusaderFrank in drag, Helen? You maybe that dumb. Let me help:

an ad hominem attack is to attack the person and not their argument. It's really that simple. I called you an asshole, but you never proffered a rebuttal in the form of an argument., rather you attacked me. If you had done the right thing, I would have attacked your argument; since you didn't I concluded you are an asshole.

Your welcome.