So they take your choice away, but you can have it back for more money…
Really? I just don’t know what to say anymore. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel said you can have your doctor, and nobody is stopping you from paying more to have your doctor. (Yet.)
“If you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that.”
This freak is touting “choice” when there really is no choice. Single male and don’t want to pay for pregnancy coverage? Nope, can’t do that. You don’t have a choice. Catholic looking for an insurance policy that does not cover contraception for your employees? Nope, not acceptable. You can choose from anything you want, as long as you choose from the menu the left-wing statists present to you.
For lefties, it’s the same routine for a broad range of subjects. Want school choice? Sure you can have choice, as long as your choosing from schools that we say are acceptable. Want a gun? Sure, no problem. You can choose from this list of approved firearms.
Emanuel also claimed “no one guaranteed you your premium wouldn’t increase,” when we all know President Obama claimed – over-and-over – families would experience a reduction in premiums of $2,500 per year. So again a popular retort for the left, claiming savings based on projections of super-high future mythical costs…
Kind of like baseline budgeting. You see, if you paid $10,000 per year for your health insurance in the past, next year your insurance would have been $15,000 (mythical figure), but thanks to Obamacare, you’re only paying $12,500. So you saved $2,500!
The agenda of the Democrat statists clearly represents the usurpation of liberties to which Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence.? That document also assigns responsibility for redress and the method to achieve that correction.? Jefferson also cautions that throwing off an oppressive regime should not be done on impulse but only after peaceful means are exhausted.? Americans should be tired enough of these oppressors to end their rule.? I know I am.
It’s actually paying more of more.? O-care isn’t exactly cheap; in most cases it’s more than a free-market policy that most folks had (the 85% who were ‘happy’).? So now you have a higher cost product with a bonus of paying more for the doc you started with?
This must make more?sense in Chicago.
This is the week that the Left Stream Media will be focused on ironing on the brand of Mandela to their favorite leftists. ?bama will be Photoshopping himself into all kinds of pictures, kibitzing with Mandela, the Arizona Memorial, that kind of thing, while the LSM will be engorged with enhancing linking Mandela with the Clintons, chiefly Hillary, as presumptive democrat front runner for 2016. Look for Hilly to meet with the grieving family and go to Mandela’s village
So, during this week of brand acquisition, ?bama’s minions are going to be filling the chasm between the lies of ?bamaCare and the Truth with all sorts of twisted and tortured pronouncements basically more lies, that that are designed to give the?ne political relief whiule the LSM distracts, distorts and misinforms the laugh-track, sitcom, View watching public.?
Oh, and if you have enough money, you can pay to keep your doctor and for a lot more money, you can keep your hospital, too.
You left out the fact that if you had preexisting conditions you could not be denied insurance coverage.
Agreed, but that is an aspect that could have been dealt with without upending the entire system.? The government could simply have provided the coverage or subsidized it and solved the problem.? Similarly, they could have mandated that people of age purchase some form of health insurance without the expensive, all inclusive, one size fits all mandates that they felt they had to insist on (in their infinite wisdom).? No, the liberals had to make their power grab, and now they are paying for it (unless of course, failure and a single payer system was their plan all along….).
Many things about healthcare could have been done and were not done under either Dem or Repub leadership (or lack thereof).? That was really something worth complaining about (but it was not done either!).
And there we go again. For some reason, some think the government needs to always DO SOMETHING to fix problems. That’s not why the federal government exists. Of course, plenty of things were being done to address the issue with pre-existing conditions. In 96, they made it illegal to not renew policies in the individual market.?With group insurance, you could not be denied! And that covered just about 85% of the population.
So in other words, if you had insurance on the individual or group market, you and your family were covered. The problem would happen if you were laid off from your group policy and could not afford COBRA. If you got a new job, you were set. If it got worse, we had systems in place – specifically Medicaid – to help. As long as you signed up for insurance within two months after getting laid off, you could not be denied if there was a pre-existing condition. Sure, the premiums might be high if you were in the individual market. That problem is now a lot worse.
More than 60 percent of states already had high-risk pools that were open to those with pre-existing conditions. All states had “insurers of last resort” that would have to provide you with coverage. Again, the premiums might have been high, but what were they compared to what they are now for those in the individual market?
In many states, you could apply for insurance as a “group of 1” which brought you into the group policy rules and rate structure.
What it comes down to is this. There were plenty of options. Nothing was perfect, but I’ll argue we’re now in a lot worse shape.
You must like to shoot blanks in the dark. Lots of noise and flash, but no effect.
Keep posting! Keep saying the obvious. I love a laugh!!!!
What I’d like to see more is constructive contributions. E.g.: what is happening to you vis a vis ObamaCare?
Anyone can hurl bricks.
But sammy, when the net effect of the Democrat legislation is negative, it is absolutely worth criticism.
Emmanuel kept stating “we didn’t guarantee unlimited access to any hospital (or doctor) you like”, which essentially means that they are guaranteeing limited access to same.? Very limited access.
Emmanuel is the ultimate weasel.? The perfect ?bamacare representative.
@Steve: again you are rehashing past.? And, in any case, that is water well under the bridge. What now, beside the continual inference/attempt to get the ACA? repealed? As to the problem being a lot worse I have no way to prove or disprove it since the situation is quite different from the way it used to be. You seem to have facts since you make the claim.
@bienpensant: throwing bricks is the normal modus operandi of most commenters. As to what is happening to me vis a vis Obamacare, that was dealt with some time back.
Sammy, for the life of me, I can’t understand how you can’t see how Obamacare has made it worse for people. ?http://investmentwatchblog.com/shock-80-million-could-lose-employer-coverage-under-obamacare/? ? ?Do you think 80 million will be better off without the healthcare they received from their employers? Well, I do know. Ridiculous mandated Obamacare policies are outrageously expensive. The ONLY thing good about Obamacare is covering preexisting conditions. That should have been a good start and let private enterprise come alive. ?I don’t know if a full repeal is necessary, but I suspect it is. But you owe it to yourself to look up the facts, instead of saying we don’t know them.
You need look no further than to the people that currently have had their existing policies cancelled, and found that an “?bamacare standard” replacement either costs significantly more or has an enormous deductible that practically negates the purpose of having insurance at all.? Just wait until the delayed employer mandate comes into effect.
In life and in physics, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
I just can’t let it die. if Healthcare Reform had been done on a bipartisan basis, it might have worked. ok I know you’ll say the GOP offered no solutions, and that is garbage. President Obama ridiculed Paul Ryan, who had a great plan. However, I kind of like Rep Tom Price’s plan?http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2013/12/08/tom-prices-obamacare-alternative-could-save-234-trillion-over-10-years-n1758936
I am all in favor of making things better. Let’s see where the Tom Price plan goes. You liked the Paul Ryan plan? Well that did not go far (and I know: it’s because of the Dems and Obama opposition). And, as to free lunches, a plan that does not cost much does not deliver much. The old adage: “You get what you pay for”.
Sammy. Let’s use an automobile analogy: I have a car that suits my needs just fine but, the government passes new laws that forces my car off the road. I still need a car so I shop for one. Everything I look at is larded with features that I will never use and don’t need (examples: bomb-proof undercarriage, 20-ton winch, bullet-proof glass, fifteen passenger,etc) and, the price is way higher than I want to pay. When I ask why that is, I am told that the new standards were put into law by people who only rode in limousines and have chauffeurs. On top of the higher cost of acquiring the car, it gets worse mileage, costs more to maintain and doesn’t fit into my garage. Plus, I learn that the reason for all the higher costs is because I have to pay for other people’s cars, too!
Would you define that as fair? Cuz, that is what is happening with ObamaCare.
Bien-pensant is exactly correct: being forced to buy a Cadillac when all you need is a Toyota is both wasteful and counterintuitive.? And as for “getting what you pay for”, how about paying for what you really want, can afford and need?? You recall the promise of “you can keep your plan/doctor/hospital if you want to”?? What happened to that anyway?? In many, if not most, cases, we were paying for what we wanted, and the Democrats decided that they knew better than us what we wanted.
Right but I want to pay for Health insurance not pork, nor payback for cronies, nor legions of IRS agents to watch over our returns, nor subsidies for Congress and the govt policies or waivers. If I have to pay for a policy, I want it to be to my specifications, not something the govt. Forces me to buy. I want a policy that is affordable with a low enough deductible to make true insurance, like what I have now, because i am not in the Obamacare exchange. In other words I want to get what I pay for now, not with a higher deductible so it will be affordable. See a pattern here, I want affordable which is what this stupid healthcare plan was called but isn’t. Why do I bother?
Unfortunately, bien pensant and Lynn, I don’t think the car analogy is appropriate/applicable when it comes to health care. But, as in the case of auto insurance and other cases, one must have a minimum coverage. The goal now should be to make it better, not to scuttle it.
Why are you so committed to taking money out of other people’s pockets? This absolutely baffles me.
What kind of analogy will you understand? Or, is it that you are such a committed lefty that you cannot see the merit of someone NOT wanting to pay for something pay for anything that they don’t want, need or will ever use???????
Here’s one: I don’t have any kids in the local school system yet I still have to pay for the thing. How in the world is that fair? (And, don’t tell me that it is because it is a legal requirement, because I want to know what the leftist thinking is (on an emotional level as logic doesn’t seem to work here) that makes taxing me for something that I don’t use, don’t need or don’t particularly want. (What? I pay for a huge building that I can’t use, kids that aren’t mine and staggeringly large salaries for staff and administrators.)
So, how is that or the mandates of ObamaCare fair?
I can give you a list of things that I pay for that I do not use or want either. What is the point of going down that path?? But at least, I am glad to pay for the education of someone’s kids, as I and others paid some years ago for mine. Too bad for the town you live in that you do not feel that way. Where did you hear that “life” is fair?
The car analogy was used by Ezekiel Emmanuel himself if I remember correctly, and they are not talking about car insurance, but buying a car and being forced to buy more car that we need, which is precisely analogous to the ?bamacare situation. And you are not forced to buy a car, by the way, and you can pick the level of insurance you want.? If parents had to pay for each child’s tuition (like kids that go to private schools do, on top of the regular school tax), schools would be a lot more accountable to both the parents and the students.? As for bien-pensant, why is what he believes “too bad for the town he lives in”?? He has to pay anyway.?
As for life being fair, isn’t the whole point of ?bamacare to make the healthcare system “fair” (a word that is grossly abused by liberals) by being one size fits all?
Once again, Sammy, you missed the point and the question.
“Why are you so committed to taking money out of other people?s pockets?”
It is the other word the liberals have bastardized: justice.?? A sort of twisted Robin Hood justice…
Sammy doesn’t just drink the Kool-Aid, he bathes in it and bakes brownies with it!
I believe that the car analogy does not apply whether Ezekiel E. made it or not. As for the Kool-Aid, there is plenty being drunk on this blog. And Dims, you seem to have missed the message by bien-pensant about paying his share of the taxes for the school system. Are you advocating a “cafeteria” type tax system?
Well, I disagree: we are being forced to buy a product we may not want, and at higher premiums that we want/can afford.? What happened to all the promises of savings?? Wasn’t that one of the primary justifications for the forced passage of this bill?? As for a cafeteria style tax system, we have it already with lots of things, so it is not unprecedented.? I will support everyone paying for school taxes, but not if some people have to pay twice.? I think even you could see that as a problem.? Bien is entitled to his opinion, particularly considering the relatively poor output for his/her investment.
Saammy, as you won’t address the question or even admit that it is one that deserves an answer, I am left to doubt your veracity. As the de facto representative of the regime, I just want you to consider this: as more choice is taken from us, and I include you, and more of what we earn and have saved is confiscated in the form of government taxes ( including, but not limited: to income taxes, Medicare tax, sales tax, property taxes, fees, charges, etc.) to fund an ever increasing government, at what point will I or anyone else have nothing left on which to live?
Out of every dollar earned, the government — federal, state and local — is already taking more than 50% in combined taxes.
At what point do we officially become serfs where the government (the royals) confiscates so much money that there is nothing left on which to live? I know you won’t answer that or can’t, but just consider it. Consider it.
This leftist government knows no bounds and only will impoverish everyone eventually. I am asking for intellectual honesty on your part. Realize that you are representing and defending the aims of the regime here. They are taking away our ability to make economic choices by…
Bien-pensant: I am not committed in any way “to taking money out of other people?s pockets”. In no way am I “the de facto representative of the regime”. I wish that both sides of the isle, on both houses had taken up the recommendations of the Simpson-Boyle Commission. Neither party nor house has had the b…ls to come to grips with the BIG and overarching problems the country faces. This a failure of leadership from Obama to every single member of Congress. Bellyaching about what one side has done or not done, does not shed any light on how to solve the problem. And saying “a pox on all sides” does not help either.
So, we should all just “eat our peas” and stop belly-aching?
You missed the point, yet, again!
I’m out. Someone else care to take a turn?
I agree with most of your points, but when one party goes out of its way to force its agenda through, as in the case of ?bamacare, then complaining is perfectly apropos.? They own this debacle.
the way I see it is if you want your crappy plan back you have to pay more for it
Well, if the liberals (and, apparently, you) have decided that the plan we like (covers what we want and can afford) is “crappy” or, more to your point, “substandard”, why would it cost more than the “cadillac” plan that ?bama and the Democrats are forcing down our throats??? ?bama never mentioned that we would have to pay extra to keep our current plans, doctors or hospitals, PERIOD (I got that from ??bama himself).
Crappy is in the eye of the beholder, and most people seem to think that ?bamacare, not the plans we like, is the crappy element in this conversation.