Our Obamacare Nightmare

[JasperL]

I know it's hard for you to understand, but yes..."consumer choice". Nobody forces anyone to take part in a high risk pool...not like Obamacare.

Actually, you don't have to buy insurance with Obamacare either - you just have to pay a fine/tax to cover a small PART of the cost of your freeloading rear end. So, consumer choice!!

Noted. Though, I'm not surprised that you might treat differences in government with sarcasm. Part of your overall love affair with government control, I guess.

I respect differences in government. In a lot of things, dealing with things at the smallest level of government the better. But other things are more appropriately handled at the national level. Depends....

I actually not even against freeloading.

I'm against government enabling such activity. I'm also disgusted at liberals passing such laws...then complaining about the activity that resulted from such laws...and then passing MORE laws to supposedly "fix" what their screwed up laws caused in the first place. People wonder why our country is so screwed up? That, right there, is why.

Thanks a lot, liberals, for ****ing things up.

Of course, you just ignore nearly everything I said. But the key thing you seem to willfully ignore is the laws were passed for some reason - there was a serious problem and the 'market' wasn't working for some people, such as poor people accessing the healthcare system. You complain about the liberal law (like the ER mandate signed by noted liberal Reagan) but then pretend that if we didn't have the law nothing bad would ever happen and we'd all live happily ever after. Perhaps instead of whining about 'liberal' solutions, the right wing could get off their lazy a$$es and eliminate the need for such laws.

You don't like Obamacare. Fine and dandy. Well, what market solution will work in its place? You have no idea of course, because no one has come up with a market solution to deliver very advanced and very expensive care to those who can't afford it through 'market' solutions.

More than anything, I'm reminded of FDR here:

Let me warn you, and let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion that says: "Of course we believe these things. We believe in social security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die! We believe in all these things. But we do not like the way that the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything!"

 

[buck]

And what's the great glaring hole in your statistics? Single payer does NOT guarantee great results or a much higher national life expectancy - and if you'll check, I never said it did - but having little or no government involvement in health care DOES seem to guarantee sucky results as is evidence from the complete and utter lack of such nations in the top 32. Correlation does not equal causation, but when the correlation is strong enough - as it is here - there's obviously a reason for it.

And while it is true that America does not have universal health care, you MUST take into consideration that not only do nearly half of ALL Americans have government-run or -regulated health care, but ALL Americans have access to emergency rooms, most of which provide first-class care. Any statistician who does not take that into account should have his or her certification called into question.

So...as before, my point stands.

No one that I am aware of has ever said all government regulations should be done away with. That is simply a strawman that the left likes to argue.

What we do know.. is that we have far less government involvement in health care than most of the other first world and developed nations... Yet we are top in many categories including life expectancy when non-healthcare related causes are excluded.

Comparing less developed nations to more developed nations and saying the less developed have worse health statistics because they have less government involvement is for the simple... This is proven by the fact that the less developed nations with more government intervention fail miserably and of the more developed nations, we are at the top (at least in terms of life expectancy).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No one that I am aware of has ever said all government regulations should be done away with. That is simply a strawman that the left likes to argue.

Except for all the righties who claim that all government is bad all the time. I guess the reason you haven't seen it is probably because you're not the one having to debate your fellow righties.

What we do know.. is that we have far less government involvement in health care than most of the other first world and developed nations... Yet we are top in many categories including life expectancy when non-healthcare related causes are excluded.

And we spend FAR more per capita than those other developed nations, too, don't we? Yes, we do.

Comparing less developed nations to more developed nations and saying the less developed have worse health statistics because they have less government involvement is for the simple... This is proven by the fact that the less developed nations with more government intervention fail miserably and of the more developed nations, we are at the top (at least in terms of life expectancy).

Do they now? BTW, I was wrong about Costa Rica and Slovenia, which both have a better national life expectancy than America - I thought they didn't have universal health care...but they do...and they're doing quite nicely, thank you very much. And so do the Dominican Republic, Chile, Morocco, Colombia, Greece, and the UAE (since 1971, long before it was a first-world nation).

So much for your "miserable failures".

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, you don't have to buy insurance with Obamacare either - you just have to pay a fine/tax to cover a small PART of the cost of your freeloading rear end. So, consumer choice!!

I fully expect this kind of spin from a liberal. "Buy it...or else. Your "choice." LOL!! btw, is it a "fine" or a "tax"? You really do need to keep that straight in your mind.

I respect differences in government. In a lot of things, dealing with things at the smallest level of government the better. But other things are more appropriately handled at the national level. Depends....

Yeah...right!

Of course, you just ignore nearly everything I said. But the key thing you seem to willfully ignore is the laws were passed for some reason - there was a serious problem and the 'market' wasn't working for some people, such as poor people accessing the healthcare system. You complain about the liberal law (like the ER mandate signed by noted liberal Reagan) but then pretend that if we didn't have the law nothing bad would ever happen and we'd all live happily ever after. Perhaps instead of whining about 'liberal' solutions, the right wing could get off their lazy a$$es and eliminate the need for such laws.

You don't like Obamacare. Fine and dandy. Well, what market solution will work in its place? You have no idea of course, because no one has come up with a market solution to deliver very advanced and very expensive care to those who can't afford it through 'market' solutions.

Oh...I KNOW these laws were passed for some reason. But that doesn't make the reason...or the law...the right thing. Consequences matter.

Look, you can come up with all the bleeding heart liberal reasons why this crap is good for everyone. Fine. But don't insult me by saying Obamacare is intended to end "freeloading". Not when liberals created freeloading to begin with.

More than anything, I'm reminded of FDR here:

Great!! Quote that guy who jammed through the biggest boondoggle, ponzi program in our history. Yeah...Obamacare has the potential to eclipse THAT one. Like FDR, you modern day liberals really DO hate the US to want to saddle us with this kind of crap.

 

[Born Free]

What was the Dow at when Obama took over, and what was it in March of that same year? And what is it now?

FYI, if the Dow keeps going up as it has been, it will have nearly TRIPLED by the time Obama's second term is up. Have fun finding any other president who can make the same claim.

Now it's about the DOW, I love the rich getting richer. I'm glad to see you do too. But the middle class that Obama and the liberals claim to champion are lost and in fact making less from the time Obama became president. So yes the rich are getting richer and the middle class are still out of work and making less. This is the result of a GDP on average of 1.5%, so has you champion Obama and the DOW, the middle class are getting hammered under Obama and his policies. You must be proud of Obama's achievement helping the rich getting richer. I am, the markets are good under Obama, I have no complaint. Go Obama raise the DOW like you did the national debt.

Did you ever think that Obama ramming over 7 trillion into our economy that corporate America would prosper? All at the expense of the middle class.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Now it's about the DOW, I love the rich getting richer. I'm glad to see you do too. But the middle class that Obama and the liberals claim to champion are lost and in fact making less from the time Obama became president. So yes the rich are getting richer and the middle class are still out of work and making less. This is the result of a GDP on average of 1.5%, so has you champion Obama and the DOW, the middle class are getting hammered under Obama and his policies. You must be proud of Obama's achievement helping the rich getting richer. I am, the markets are good under Obama, I have no complaint. Go Obama raise the DOW like you did the national debt.

Did you ever think that Obama ramming over 7 trillion into our economy that corporate America would prosper? All at the expense of the middle class.

OH NO! OBAMA'S DRIVING OUR ECONOMY OFF THE CLIFF! HE'S REFUSING TO WAVE HIS MAGIC WAND TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER!!!! THE SKY IS FAAAAAALLLLIIINGG!

As usual, all the Right looks at are total dollars. Here, look at a more important metric:



Yes, it did go up a whole lot under Obama...but the day he took office, our economy was in free fall. Do you really expect that he could simply snap his fingers and make it all better...especially given that your boys the GOP have made the Congress since the latter half of 2009 the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War?

If you'll check, Obama's cut the deficit by half since he first took office...and there's a possibility that he'll balance it by the time he leaves office. And THAT would be the GOP's worst nightmare, because that would mean that the last three presidents who balanced the budget were all Democrats. For the sake of the GOP, you'd better hope Obama doesn't balance the budget, because then the pattern would be set: Republicans screw up the economy, and the Dems come in and fix it.

 

[JasperL]

I fully expect this kind of spin from a liberal. "Buy it...or else. Your "choice." LOL!! btw, is it a "fine" or a "tax"? You really do need to keep that straight in your mind.

I don't care what it is, except that whatever you call it, it forces the deadbeat freeloaders to pay for some of the costs they're offloading onto others.

Yeah...right!

I'd be glad to have a discussion about local v. state v. federal roles. In fact, one provision of the ACA pushed hard by socialist Bernie Sanders was the ability of states to experiment with other ways of delivering care - in Vermont, they wanted to be able to use ACA money for single payer, but there's no reason innovative right wingers can't come up with their own alternatives to the ACA.

Oh...I KNOW these laws were passed for some reason. But that doesn't make the reason...or the law...the right thing. Consequences matter.

Sure they do, and so do the consequences of doing nothing.

Look, you can come up with all the bleeding heart liberal reasons why this crap is good for everyone. Fine. But don't insult me by saying Obamacare is intended to end "freeloading". Not when liberals created freeloading to begin with.

I didn't say "Obamacare" was intended to end freeloading because it won't - it can't. In fact, the subsidies will increase freeloading to some extent. What's confusing is the right wing is now in full bore defense of the right to freeload. It's THAT I don't get.

Great!! Quote that guy who jammed through the biggest boondoggle, ponzi program in our history. Yeah...Obamacare has the potential to eclipse THAT one. Like FDR, you modern day liberals really DO hate the US to want to saddle us with this kind of crap.

Well, why don't you right wingers run on eliminating SS. Should work fine - I highly recommend that the GOP make this a key plank in their upcoming run in 2014!!!

BTW you realize, I guess, that SS has REDUCED deficits/debt by a couple $trillion over its life? Yeah, huge failed ponzi scheme....

 

[Born Free]

OH NO! OBAMA'S DRIVING OUR ECONOMY OFF THE CLIFF! HE'S REFUSING TO WAVE HIS MAGIC WAND TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER!!!! THE SKY IS FAAAAAALLLLIIINGG!

As usual, all the Right looks at are total dollars. Here, look at a more important metric:

View attachment 67167608

Yes, it did go up a whole lot under Obama...but the day he took office, our economy was in free fall. Do you really expect that he could simply snap his fingers and make it all better...especially given that your boys the GOP have made the Congress since the latter half of 2009 the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War?

If you'll check, Obama's cut the deficit by half since he first took office...and there's a possibility that he'll balance it by the time he leaves office. And THAT would be the GOP's worst nightmare, because that would mean that the last three presidents who balanced the budget were all Democrats. For the sake of the GOP, you'd better hope Obama doesn't balance the budget, because then the pattern would be set: Republicans screw up the economy, and the Dems come in and fix it.

Give me a break, Obama has injected 7 trillion into the economy and the rich have gotten richer and you like that same as I, but the middle class have taken a dump. The economy is at an endemic 1.5% GDP, high unemployment and the middle class is making less that when he took office and you call that roaring. Reagan had a GDP of over 6% after taking over after 18% interest rate Carter.

Obama balance the budget, are you kidding me. He is still adding 800 billion a yr and that's after adding 7 trillion in just 5.5 yrs. His trillion dollar stimulus was a complete failure, remember shovel ready projects that he latter admitted there was no shovel ready anything. Get real this idiot Obama is just that an Idiot. Now he exchanges 5 of the worst terrorist for a deserter. What a ****ing idiot.

 

[buck]

Except for all the righties who claim that all government is bad all the time. I guess the reason you haven't seen it is probably because you're not the one having to debate your fellow righties.

You confuse less regulations with complete lack of regulations. I know of no one that claims we need to do away with all regulations... Even Rand Paul, a strict libertarian, on Jon Stewarts show doesn't call for the end of all regulations. He simply says we need balance and the government does have a role. So... Feel free to point out when mainstream republican or libertarian calling for the end of all government regulations.

And we spend FAR more per capita than those other developed nations, too, don't we? Yes, we do.

and have better results to show for it. If you think we can spend less and get similar/better results, you are silly.

Do they now? BTW, I was wrong about Costa Rica and Slovenia, which both have a better national life expectancy than America - I thought they didn't have universal health care...but they do...and they're doing quite nicely, thank you very much. And so do the Dominican Republic, Chile, Morocco, Colombia, Greece, and the UAE (since 1971, long before it was a first-world nation).

So much for your "miserable failures".

The DR is ranked 110 in life expectancy, Morocco 115, and Columbia 83. So, I believe you have continued to prove my point there is far more involved than government intrusion into the medical system.

For example, one of the countries you mentioned, Greece:

The island of long life | Travel | The Guardian

Dr Christina Chrysohoou, a cardiologist at the university's medical school, found that the Ikarian diet featured a lot of beans and not much meat or refined sugar. The locals also feast on locally grown and wild greens, some of which contain 10 times more antioxidants than are found in red wine, as well as potatoes and goat's milk.

But she also refers to research that suggests the Ikarian habit of taking afternoon naps may help extend life. One extensive study of Greek adults showed that regular napping reduced the risk of heart disease by almost 40%.

I ask a number of men in their 90s and 100s if they do any keep-fit exercise. The answer is always the same: "Yes, digging the earth." Nikos Fountoulis, for example, is a 93-year-old who looks 20 years younger

How about Costa Rico? What do you think their diet, exercise and sleep habits are? Similar to The Ikarians - low meat many veggies and beans. Loads of exercise through their hard work. good sleep hours... See anything in common between these two countries?

So, now you know some of the reasons these other countries have higher life expectancies... You also know that many countries with universal health care have terrible life expectancy rates and the US with less government involvement then most other countries with higher development have higher expectancy rates...But... Somehow, I'm sure you're still somehow convinced that it's all due to government regulations and single payer systems. :roll:

 

[Lakryte]

And your family makes just under $100K/year. Even if I take everything you said there at face value (and I have no idea whether you are or are not), you will get no sympathy from me. The people the law is meant to most benefit are those who are having to live their lives without access to affordable health care - it's not meant to be a magical benefit to those in the upper middle class.

Don't get me wrong - my family's also in the upper middle class - as Clinton said, "Ah feel yer pain!" But the idea is to make sure that those who are much less fortunate than yourselves to be able to have access to health care that they couldn't get before.

Because you will be paying out more, there will be children whose parents are there for them instead of being in the grave. Because you are paying out more, there will be families who will be able to stay in their homes instead of being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosure because they couldn't afford their health care. Because you are paying out more now, there will be people living longer, healthier, and more productive lives...and who will be paying their own taxes just as you do.

This past February I lost my brother to a stroke. He was as conservative as anyone on this forum. He wouldn't go to the doctor because he couldn't afford it (even though he'd had the same job as a disc jockey for nearly 20 years - he never drew an unemployment check to my knowledge). Obamacare was available to him, but he refused to sign up even though that would have given him access to medical care. Why didn't he sign up? Because he was afraid. He was afraid that this was a government takeover of health care. He was afraid that his personal information would be out there for all to see. He was afraid of creeping socialism.

He didn't go to the doctor because he couldn't afford it, and so he died...and died needlessly, because he was afraid...because he listened to the right-wing fearmongers. Thanks to those right-wing fearmongers, his fear of Obamacare was greater than his fear for his own health.

If he'd signed up for O-care, he'd be alive today, working at his job, paying taxes...just like so many who are in the same situation, working full-time but unable to afford health care before Obamacare came along.

Just something for you to think about.

Is Obamacare really helping those you say it does? Because it seems to me it is doing more to harm the middle class than help those without care. The poorest of the poor without insurance had the option to sign of for Medicaid. If the goal was to help them, screwing the middle class over is a horrible means of going about it. My family is underwater with our house and student loans. We live in CA, which taxes a large portion of that income (which is far less then 100k after tax). Just under $100k in our circumstances is barely enough to pay the bills and keep our home. And to make matters worse, we have lost our health insurance, lost our doctors, and have faced the most unorganized system trying to get at least some degree of healthcare back. You say because of us paying more we will stop people from having their homes foreclosed. The reality is that Obamacare is making it more likely that we will lose our home, because we haven't been paying the full mortgage since our rates went up. No surprise the economy shrunk this quarter.

You can spout out your flowery rhetoric of helping the poor get healthcare, but you ignore the actual realities of what is going on. I would love for everyone to have great health insurance, especially the poor who need it most. But Obamacare does not accomplish that ends, and so far from what I can see it has done more harm than good. I don't care if you don't believe my story. This is an online forums and there is no way anyone can know if what anyone says is true. But its real, whether your ideology allows you to accept it as such or not.

 

[Lakryte]

When you said your premium from the old insurance company was going to double, I simply do not believe you. Unless you had a junk policy that didn't provide much coverage, the items in the ACA that are mandated do not add much cost. Of course, you haven't given enough information to evaluate your old plan.

Deny it all you want, it just shows how out of touch you really are with the realities of this law.

Not knowing your personal details. You might still have also gotten a subsidy. See: Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

The idea that your doctor isn't on your knew plan is nobody's fault but your own. The plan you signed up for was issued by an insurance company. Most states have multiple insurance companies on their exchanges. All you needed to do was ask your doctor what insurance plan he is a member and sign up for that one. You could have also signed up for the replacement plan that your previous insurance company offered you. Failing that due diligence, yes, you now have to find a doctor in the plan that you selected.

How stupid do you think I am? You think its as easy as that, just 1 2 3? Perhaps you come from a family were money is not an issue, but I unfortunately do not. With our previous insurance plan, we were barely making ends meet. We could not afford the insurance offered by the company we used to have--it was simply an impossible price to pay. We picked the only plan on the exchange that provided the coverage we needed most that we could afford--we didn't have a million options to choose from and then check if our doctor was covered. We had virtually no choice in the matter. Until you actually lose your insurance and have to go through the system, how dare you condescend upon me and my family as if we are too stupid to figure things out. I am personally offended and you clearly do not care about real world effects of bad policy. You would rather save face for what will turn out to be one of the worst policy failures of the early 21st century.

When you wrote, "our allergy pills now have a lower deductible and are twice as expensive as they were before this Obamacare disaster," I don't know what you are talking about. "lower deductibles" means you pay less out-of-pocket. Moreover, the price of drugs hasn't risen after January 1st. Perhaps you are saying, your out-of-pocket has doubled. But again, that was spelled out in the policy that you bought. You could have bought a policy that had a more comprehensive drug plan.

Sorry, I meant higher deductible. And as explained above, your idea of how easy it is to find options through Obamacare is grossly misguided. It would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.

You also complained about wrong birth dates. Well, who typed that in other than you? If it was wrong, it is because you typed it in wrong. That's not a failing of Obamacare.

Everything was typed correctly on our end.

Call me suspicious, but the lead post sounds very trollish.

I am sorry you feel that a personal story about a failed government policy is trollish. If you don't believe my words, then don't bother responding. If you have been paying any attention, my story isn't exactly unique. I just googled other stories for you and found this one. Family of Six-Year-Old Cancer Patient Loses Coverage, Now Faces Soaring Premiums - Guy Benson

The story mirrors ours, except thankfully nobody in my family has a life-threatening condition.

My family was strapped for cash, so we purchased the bare minimum insurance. With Obamacare, the bare minimum became illegal, we could not afford the new bare minimum, and the options through the exchange we were thrust into were expensive and unsatisfactory. If that sounds like the story of a troll to you, then it looks like millions of Americans are trolls. Shame on us for pointing out that, hey, the law is screwing us over.

 

[Lakryte]

1. You were able to keep it. For starters, I don't believe you that your premium was going to double. Even if your plan didn't meet ObamaCare requirements, it wouldn't double just because now it provides birth control. The numbers don't add up. If the price did double, it was not strictly due to obamacare. My insurance where I work was tweaked to comply, and the premiums didn't change a dime. I don't believe you when you said it doubled. But regardless, by your own admission, you still had the choice to keep it.

We were getting a very minimal plan. It was also not employer provided--perhaps that explains some of the difference. Of course I had the choice. Keep the insurance and lose the house. You are starting to sound like a Republican. The poor can just "choose" to get better jobs or live in a nicer neighborhood, right? What a joke.

2. I agree that they oversold this. I think the more accurate statement should have been "will try to slow down the rising cost of healthcare."

Oversold? The bill has done next to nothing to slow the rising cost of healthcare.

3. It's your fault that you bought insurance from a company that didn't accept your doctor. That's something that was on you. You had the choice of keeping your own insurance and doctor, and you didn't keep it. Obama can't force an insurance company to accept your doctor. This has nothing to do with ObamaCare.

When the choice is keep your doctor or lose your house, or stop paying utilities bills, or quit college...there isn't really a choice.

Obamacare made our insurance more expensive. Unable to afford it, we had to choose from the only affordable option on the exchange that met our needs. Sadly, our doctor was not covered by that plan. Tell me: what would you have chosen differently?

 

[Lakryte]

Im a PA practicing in CA, I hear these stories every day, its terrible. Expect the forums lefties to sprinkle glitter on a turd and tell you its actually a good thing.

Most our saying its my fault. Saying I chose to lose my doctor and pay higher premiums. Unbelievable. Suddenly those who care about those in economic struggles start talking like a corporate CEO.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't care what it is, except that whatever you call it, it forces the deadbeat freeloaders to pay for some of the costs they're offloading onto others.

Do you Hear yourself??? First you create freeloaders...then you use that as an excuse to make EVERYONE pay! Not only is that a lousy thing to do to people, it's freaking pathetic to think that's a GOOD thing to do to people.

I'd be glad to have a discussion about local v. state v. federal roles. In fact, one provision of the ACA pushed hard by socialist Bernie Sanders was the ability of states to experiment with other ways of delivering care - in Vermont, they wanted to be able to use ACA money for single payer, but there's no reason innovative right wingers can't come up with their own alternatives to the ACA.

Your kidding me, right?? States are NOT allowed to come up with their own alternatives...UNLESS it is approved by Obamacare. Yeah...you people sure are for States Rights, eh? LOL!!

Sure they do, and so do the consequences of doing nothing.

If the Democrats had done nothing, we'd be in a lot better shape than we are with Obamacare.

I didn't say "Obamacare" was intended to end freeloading because it won't - it can't. In fact, the subsidies will increase freeloading to some extent. What's confusing is the right wing is now in full bore defense of the right to freeload. It's THAT I don't get.

So...you just negated all your blather about freeloaders right there. Good job, dude!

Well, why don't you right wingers run on eliminating SS. Should work fine - I highly recommend that the GOP make this a key plank in their upcoming run in 2014!!!

BTW you realize, I guess, that SS has REDUCED deficits/debt by a couple $trillion over its life? Yeah, huge failed ponzi scheme....

LOL!! We all know that we can't get rid of that ponzi scheme. It's been around too damned long. Of course, you guys are just hoping and praying that Obamacare sticks around long enough till it's impossible to get rid of. I'm hoping and praying it gets ****-canned before then.

 

[US Conservative]

Most our saying its my fault. Saying I chose to lose my doctor and pay higher premiums. Unbelievable. Suddenly those who care about those in economic struggles start talking like a corporate CEO.

These libs will ditch you like a dog tossing around a rag doll. The reality of what they have imposed on Americans can't be tolerated, not when they want to feel good.

 

[Lakryte]

I'm curious, can you tell us how much your old plan was and what plan you chose on the exchange. I ask because I think you're being less than truthful. For instance, I don't believe you were uninsured for any length of time. If so then it was by choice.

And did anybody else find it odd that his situation lined up perfectly with every republican talking point? And he didn't seem mad enough about his "nightmare" to respond to any posts.

Sure. First I will note that we were not uninsured to the point were it was a problem. It was a very brief period (a few days) while we were figuring things out and getting approved for the exchange plan. That was not by choice. If we had a choice we would have kept our old plan without the additions Obamacare mandated.

I haven't responded to any posts because I actually have a life and have to work. I was upset so I just ranted to vent the steam. I wont get offended that you don't believe me because this is an online forum so why would you. I would do the same. But I will take offense that you associate me with Republicans just because I have complained about the failure of Obamacare, and that you act as if my situation is no more than a talking point when many others across this country have had similar experiences. Republicans wouldn't have come up with anything better than Obamacare--they introduced something similar in the past..the irony.

I don't have the exact numbers right now, but I will post them later tonight after I dig them up. The plan we had was Anthem BlueCross. Our plan was substandard according to Obamacare, and we were offered another BlueCross plan that was nearly double. Similar to what this guy experienced, except not as extreme (in terms of the % increase)
Anthem discontinues some health insurance plans for 2014 | Local News - Home

I post that story just to note that I am not some bizarre case. There are others who have publicly come forth with their problems.

 

[Lakryte]

Riiiiiiight. Yeah, somewhere in Washington there's an evil cabal whose only aim in life is to increase government control. Mm-hmm...sure.

And you did not address this FACT:

The RESULTS are: the nations WITH universal health care almost without exception do markedly better than nations WITHOUT universal health care.

You've been fed fear for so long that you cannot allow yourself to have an "ah-ha!" moment to see that YES, universal health care is BETTER for a nation as a whole than having little or no government involvement in health care. You simply cannot allow yourself to see that. You cannot allow yourself to base your opinion on hard and fast numbers. Your fear simply won't let you.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare, so your argument falls flat. It is a bizzarre corporate-government infusion. Whether or not free market care or single payer care is better, I would argue that Obamacare is the worst type out of the three options.

 

[MTAtech]

There is no logic to it those are the facts. Simple math, Obama has raised the national debt more than all the president before him combined. And worse yet what did we get for it. Let me tell you, maybe on average 1.5% GDP compare that to Reagen's GDP number. Obama is a complete failure on every level of being a president. Even this last exchange trading a trader for 5 of the worst terrorist in the world, add that to all the other scandals including Obamacare makes Obama brain dead

Last I remember under Carter we had 18% interest rates. A real economic genius like Obama.

Job growth - See the economic recovery in 17 charts - CNNMoney

High interest rates in the early 1980s had nothing to do with who was president. The Iranian oil embargo caused gas price to rise, increasing inflation. The Fed responded with money tightening that rose rates.

 

[Born Free]

Job growth - See the economic recovery in 17 charts - CNNMoney

High interest rates in the early 1980s had nothing to do with who was president. The Iranian oil embargo caused gas price to rise, increasing inflation. The Fed responded with money tightening that rose rates.

Typical blame game, problem is Carter left the economy in shambles and is still classified as one of the worst presidents ever. However Obama has taken over Carters seat as the worst.

 

[Born Free]

Most our saying its my fault. Saying I chose to lose my doctor and pay higher premiums. Unbelievable. Suddenly those who care about those in economic struggles start talking like a corporate CEO.

You are witnessing Liberalism at it's worst. Defend failure and incompetence at all cost.

 

[MTAtech]

Typical blame game, problem is Carter left the economy in shambles and is still classified as one of the worst presidents ever. However Obama has taken over Carters seat as the worst.

Ok, let us peruse your assertion that "Carter left the economy in shambles." What SPECIFIC policies of Carter caused the economy to be in shambles?

 

[MTAtech]

Most our saying its my fault. Saying I chose to lose my doctor and pay higher premiums. Unbelievable. Suddenly those who care about those in economic struggles start talking like a corporate CEO.

You are witnessing Liberalism at it's worst. Defend failure and incompetence at all cost.

Millions of people seemed to be able to sign up without a problem and get lower rates. You also said that one of the birthdates was wrong. If it wasn't you who typed it wrong, who did?

What I see here is blaming the system for what individual should have gotten right but didn't.

 

[roughdraft274]

We were getting a very minimal plan. It was also not employer provided--perhaps that explains some of the difference. Of course I had the choice. Keep the insurance and lose the house. You are starting to sound like a Republican. The poor can just "choose" to get better jobs or live in a nicer neighborhood, right? What a joke.

You pointed out previously that you made 100,000 a year. You can afford decent health insurance for your family. You can stop it with the "poor" clap trap. That's what subsidies are for. If you make 100000 a year and are having to decide between health insurance or your house then you should also consider money management courses.

 

[Mycroft]

You pointed out previously that you made 100,000 a year. You can afford decent health insurance for your family. You can stop it with the "poor" clap trap. That's what subsidies are for. If you make 100000 a year and are having to decide between health insurance or your house then you should also consider money management courses.

My god...have you read nothing of what the OP has said in this thread?

1. He lives in California. I don't know what area of California, but, yeah...if he lived out in rural northern CA, maybe $100K would be a lot of money. In other areas, it's not so much.
2. California sucks a chunk of his income right off the top in taxes. He doesn't END UP with $100k in his pocket.
3. He has 4 kids. Heck, the federal government considers him eligible for Obamacare subsidies!

 

[roughdraft274]

My god...have you read nothing of what the OP has said in this thread?

1. He lives in California. I don't know what area of California, but, yeah...if he lived out in rural northern CA, maybe $100K would be a lot of money. In other areas, it's not so much.
2. California sucks a chunk of his income right off the top in taxes. He doesn't END UP with $100k in his pocket.
3. He has 4 kids. Heck, the federal government considers him eligible for Obamacare subsidies!

Then tell him to enjoy his subsidies!

Yes, I understand people pay taxes. This isn't a new concept.

Doesn't affect my original post.