Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance

[Jingthing]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

The USA seems to have lost the magic to solve big problems. The OBVIOUS answer was a Canadian style system, universal coverage, cost controls, paid via normal taxation. It's not rocket science. It makes me sad that my country has become so dysfunctional.

Those who want to lynch Obama ... well, who cares, they're right wing radicals not to be taken seriously.

Just wait till middle class Dems start getting their new improved policies with new and improved fees and deductions, and a few of them might join the lynch mob.

No wonder the Dem senators up for re election next year are backing away from Obama as fast as possible! Perhaps they should have read it before they passed it .

[Ulysses G.]

Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority.

I don't think it had anything to do with the "middle approach". It was politics. He is in the pocket of the insurance companies.

[Baloo22]

The USA seems to have lost the magic to solve big problems. The OBVIOUS answer was a Canadian style system, universal coverage, cost controls, paid via normal taxation. It's not rocket science. It makes me sad that my country has become so dysfunctional.

Those who want to lynch Obama ... well, who cares, they're right wing radicals not to be taken seriously.

It was not the "right wing radicals" who deliberately and repeatedly lied to the American people. It was Obama. And it was Obama making promises to the American people that he knew to be false.

Obama repeatedly promised the American people "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period! If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Obama knew when he was making those promises that millions of citizens were not going to be able to keep their health insurance plans. Then his administration immediately and deliberately wrote detailed regulations to insure that even more citizens would not be able to keep the health insurance that they wanted. That is why millions of U.S. citizens are now finding out that they CANNOT keep their health care plan whether they want to or not.

Obama has destroyed any sense of trust that a thinking person may have once had in him. He has demonstrated a proven incompetence and a proven lack of integrity.

You fail to realize that Obama is at the center of the problem. Right from the start, his process was not to engage the American people in this effort. Instead it was a wheeling and dealing free-for-all with all sorts of payouts, lies, and "Cornhusker Kickbacks". He was not concerned and is now not concerned in the slightest what the American people want for health care. The Obama principle is that he and his administration know best for us and it's up to us simply to respond "Yessir" .

[Jingthing]

Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority.

I don't think it had anything to do with the "middle approach". It was politics. He is in the pocket of the insurance companies.

That's revisionist history. Obama decided he couldn't win the universal health care fight which he obviously is for ideologically, and there is a record of that. So he decided fight for a Romney style approach which he thought he could win, and he did win but agree things are very messy right now, and with a Romney approach which by definition sadly preserves the insurance industry, etc. he HAD to get the insurance industry to play ball and preserve and even enhance their PROFIT potential.

[chuckd]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Of course it isn't Obama's fault.

But I would ask who has been tryng to sell this since 2008 and is still trying...and...who signed the bill into law?

[Jingthing]

If you think the status quo was actually acceptable. Most Americans didn't. Obama was elected twice knowing that health care changes were part of the package. I am not selling Obamacare or saying Obama has been perfect. Far from it. But the status quo was crap, this transition phase is very messy, and we aren't even close to where we need to be to actually get the job done. Americans seem not to want a real solution so the mess will continue indefinitely. This isn't new. America is deeply divided and now incapable of solving anything this big. Very sad.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority.

I don't think it had anything to do with the "middle approach". It was politics. He is in the pocket of the insurance companies.

That's revisionist history. Obama decided he couldn't win the universal health care fight which he obviously is for ideologically, and there is a record of that. So he decided fight for a Romney style approach which he thought he could win, and he did win but agree things are very messy right now, and with a Romney approach which by definition sadly preserves the insurance industry, etc. he HAD to get the insurance industry to play ball and preserve and even enhance their PROFIT potential.

Sorry, but that is just left-wing spin. The democrats controlled the Senate, The House and the presidency. He could have passed anything that he wanted. Obama brought in the insurance companies because they mean money.

[Jingthing]

No serious political analyst believes Obama could have passed a fully nationalized health care system, kicking out the insurance companies, putting the entire country on the one system. Believe what you want. That is simply NOT credible. He was BARELY able to pass this watered down horrible compromise solution. You do know that not all elected democrats are for nationalized health care, right?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[MaxYakov]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Of course it isn't Obama's fault.

But I would ask who has been tryng to sell this since 2008 and is still trying...and...who signed the bill into law?

[Jingthing]

Yes Obama signed this legislation. What's the point? He is responsible for the legislation but is he responsible for the horrible status quo that existed before the legislation, which is still largely intact because more radical reform wasn't politically possible?

So the U.S. health care system has a new status quo and it is still not good. What now? Demonize Obama for political revenge or move forward to make it better?

I'm not really hung up on the Obama lied meme. Of course he lied. ALL politicians for all the history of time lie. If you can impeach him and you think that would be productive, go for it. I don't think it would be.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not really hung up on the Obama lied meme. Of course he lied.

Here is what Dr Krauthammer had to say about that:

I'm not surprised that Obama tells untruths. He's surely not the only politician to do so. I'm just surprised that he chooses to tell such obvious ones ones that will inevitably be found out.

Who will tell Obama that lies so transparent render rhetoric not just useless but ridiculous? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-rhetoric-vs-reality/2013/11/07/48e75002-47ec-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Obama has flaws. So what now? The country has big problems. Just continue partisan fighting or MOVE ON and work to solve some problems? Both parties have guilt to share for the gridlock but the country is hurting from it. Obama is still in office for some years. He won't be impeached. Is it good for the country to just give up on fixing problems until the next presidential election (when the same old circus wheel starts again)?

Just to be clear, personally I think most of the blame for the gridlock is coming from the republican side, especially the tea party, which I see as a dangerous force of destructive nihilism.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[ricklev]

This was all occurring while the most dishonest president in history, B.H. Obama, knowingly kept on making his false promises.[/size][/size]

Oh come on, who could be more dishonest than Nixon or Reagan (no new taxes, while he signed in giant tax increases), and Bush Senior ("Read my lips, no new taxes" - and then went to add new taxes) or Bush Jr. (We have irrefutable proof that there are WMD's in Iraq), ...the list goes on.

The health care debate has basically two sides:

Side One: Americans want some workable system that will enable access to HC to all, particularly those at the low rungs of the economic ladder.

Side Two: Medical establishment, Drug companies, insurance companies want to continue to rake in as much money as possible.

Melding those two disparate sides is a large task, and will take awhile to enact satisfactorily. As with any large new program, it won't please everyone. I don't recall any initiative by a Republican prez which deigned to address the HC issue as a whole. It's understandable, because it's a big deal and required much research and tough decisions. Not something Republicans are good at, unless it has to do with glamour projects like Reagan's Star Wars, which was a mega-billion dollar loser from the beginning.

A few words on your post.

Side One: Americans are opposed to Obamacare by 53% to 37% with an additional 10% that don't know what they want.

Side Two: The government should get out of the way and allow free enterprise to take its course. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would probably do as much to lower the cost of insurance than anything. More restrictions and bureaucracy simply adds more costs to the insurer, drug companies, doctors and care providers than it helps. Government intervention helps nobody, other than the government.

Your recall isn't too good about Republican initiatives.

In 2007 your nemisis, George Bush, proposed a health care plan to a Democratic controlled Congress. He was told by the Democratic Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee that it would be "dead on arrival" in Congress. No action was ever taken by the Democrats.

From Forbes:

http://www.forbes.co...aced-obamacare/

I need some schooling! How does free enterprise deal with the problem of people with pre-existing conditions not being able to get insurance? Why would any insurance company ever sell insurance to someone likely to get sick and cost them money?

Edited November 10, 2013 by ricklev

[Ulysses G.]

Why would any insurance company ever sell insurance to someone likely to get sick and cost them money?

They make it up by forcing young healthy people to buy coverage for things that that they don't need. Being an old fart who is in the process of falling apart, I am all for it.

[Jingthing]

Right it's a kludge of a national system.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[samran]

Yep, so that's when government steps in to provide the insurance. But then it isn't called socialism when conservatives are the recipients.

[NeverSure]

You guys have stopped discussing the OP, and are going off on tangents about nationalized health care such as Canada's and all kinds of irrelevant and even wishful thinking. The topic is about the current disaster. The topic is:

"Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance."

[ricklev]

No outrage that millions of people were uninsured and and uninsurable.

Enormous outrage that a system attempting to help them is not perfect.

Although, today, because of it, nobody in America has to live with the fear of bankruptcy or horrible suffering due to an inability to buy insurance. They will have health care and their children will have health care.

I get it, he lied, that's the most important thing!

Edited November 11, 2013 by ricklev

[Scott]

A post violating fair use policy has been deleted.

[Baloo22]

Things will be getting much worse under Obama and the Obama regime. The health insurance cancellations caused by Obamacare could reach as high as 52 million.

Remember the promise to the American people that Obama repeated multiple times;

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period! If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” , by B.H. Obama

An Obama promise.

==========================================================================

" Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had "

By Kevin G. Hall and Anita Kumar — McClatchy Washington Bureau

Even as President Barack Obama sold a new health care law in part by assuring Americans they would be able to keep their insurance plans, his administration knew that tens of millions of people actually could lose those their policies.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cp

But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million.

[Baloo22]

Obama has flaws. So what now? The country has big problems. Just continue partisan fighting or MOVE ON and work to solve some problems? Both parties have guilt to share for the gridlock but the country is hurting from it. Obama is still in office for some years. He won't be impeached. Is it good for the country to just give up on fixing problems until the next presidential election (when the same old circus wheel starts again)?

Just to be clear, personally I think most of the blame for the gridlock is coming from the republican side, especially the tea party, which I see as a dangerous force of destructive nihilism.

You say "Obama has flaws." like he simply misspoke or made a mistaken remark. That is far from the truth. This is not "Oh, he made a little fib, so what?" Obama repeatedly and deliberately made promises to the American people that he knew were false. Obama knew when he was making those promises that millions of citizens were not going to be able to keep their health insurance plans. Then his administration immediately and deliberately wrote detailed regulations to insure that even more citizens would not be able to keep the health insurance that they wanted. That is why millions of U.S. citizens are now finding out that they CANNOT keep their health care plan whether they want to or not.

It's amazing that, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, you can continue with the delusional belief that " ...most of the blame for the gridlock is coming from the republican side, especially the tea party, which I see as a dangerous force of destructive nihilism. " You fail to realize that Obama is at the center of the problem. Obamacare was concocted by Obama, and a Democrat-party controlled Congress. Right from the start, his process was not to engage the American people in this effort. Instead it was a wheeling and dealing free-for-all with all sorts of payouts, lies, and "Cornhusker Kickbacks". Obama was not concerned and is now not concerned in the slightest what the American people want for health care.

Obama has destroyed any sense of trust that a thinking person may have once had in him. He has demonstrated a proven incompetence and proven lack of integrity. It is the conduct of Obama and his allies that have so poisoned the political atmosphere to make cooperative efforts practically impossible.

[NeverSure]

No outrage that millions of people were uninsured and and uninsurable.

Enormous outrage that a system attempting to help them is not perfect.

Although, today, because of it, nobody in America has to live with the fear of bankruptcy or horrible suffering due to an inability to buy insurance. They will have health care and their children will have health care.

I get it, he lied, that's the most important thing!

Apparently you haven't read the thread. Obama apologized because millions of people are losing their health insurance.

Now those people have to find new insurance which meets the new government standards whether they need all of the menu items or not. (50 year old guy with vasectomy has to buy maternity insurance.)

People are forced to buy insurance from private insurance companies who can charge as much as they want or simply refuse to insure. That part didn't get regulated and it's a gift to big insurance companies.

People are finding their premiums much higher than before IF they can find insurance. The law doesn't require insurance companies to issue policies. But if the people don't buy insurance and aren't insured, they get fined.

Many hospitals and doctors have announced that they won't accept this new insurance. Link above if you read the thread.

The US already had medicaid for the poor and medicare for those 65 and older. 85% had insurance. Now millions have lost their insurance so that fewer have insurance, not more.

You really need to pay attention. This is a massive failure.

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.

[ricklev]

Pay attention!

That's good Buddhist advice I will try my best to follow.

I leave this conversation and wish you well.

[NeverSure]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

[MaxYakov]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

Reminds me of one of the Economist's jokes (paraphrased):

American is going to have affordable healthcare at any cost.

Edited November 11, 2013 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Of course it isn't Obama's fault.

But I would ask who has been tryng to sell this since 2008 and is still trying...and...who signed the bill into law?

ACA_ObamaSigEd1.jpeg

.

It's time to set much of the record straight.

Insurance plans being “canceled” or people facing “sticker shock” are almost exclusively limited to the individual insurance market, which covers between 5 to 6 percent of the population.

It's noted that 15 million people, or just 5 percent of the population, purchases health insurance policies on the individual market and that more than 80% don't stay on the same plan for more than two consecutive years, so the individuals who will be affected by “provider shock” are those who had been changing providers almost every year anyway. This is a non-issue enemies of popular health and medical care are trying to exploit.

I read Bob Cesca in the Huffington Post who points out that UnitedHealthcare, one of the most notorious insurance providers before the ACA was passed, has the horrendous reputation of summarily canceling policies and arbitrarily penalizing customers. So it's no surprise that when ObamaCare came online UnitedHealthcare decided to exit the individual insurance racket. By doing so, the notorious UnitedHealthcare has thus avoided taking on less healthy customers early in the exchange sign-up process, thereby forcing other insurers to absorb the risk. This is an example of the clever and sinister schemes against ObamaCare by a number of insurance companies.

Moreover, a number of insurance companies are circumventing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Certain insurance companies are doing this by changing policies in very small ways, thus exempting themselves from the grandfather clause of the ACA.

Many insurance companies are doing this by telling millions of policy holders to purchase the insurance companies' own, more expensive plan. They do this without saying anything about provisions of the ACA or about the possibility of ACA options that have a lower cost than the companies' own expensive policies, or about the health insurance exchanges. For example, Anthem Blue Cross of California, which is currently being sued in court, sent deceptive letters to policyholders suggesting they switch plans specifically with the intent of making the policyholders lose their grandfathered status.

Worse yet, a number of insurance companies have already threatened to raise premiums on small businesses and the individual insurance market by 25% to 116% in 2014. The right wingers like to ignore that these insurance companies were infamous for dropping people, raising rates astronomically, changing coverage, and generally mistreating policyholders long before Obamacare. If there's anyone Americans should target with our anger and outrage, it’s the same culprits it’s always been, a substantial number of the health insurance companies.

The fact is that while about 3% of Americans will pay for more insurance coverage than they want to and are likely to experience a premium increase, 97% of Americans will experience virtually no effect or a positive effect on their insurance coverage and premium.

And, yeah, the website is screwed up. However, the federal website wouldn’t have had so many people to serve if there weren’t so many states refusing to set up their own exchanges. Had the Confederate states with Republican Party governors cooperated with the ACA by setting up their own websites, there surely would have been far fewer people massing at the federal website. Indeed, Kentucky is being praised as a model because not only is it a red state with a functioning healthcare website, its Democratic Party governor stands opposite the Republican and right wing governors who have refused to set up ObamaCare websites in their states.

The Real Villains Behind the Criticisms of Obamacare

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/10/real-villains-criticisms-obamacare.html

Another Obamacare 'Horror Story' Debunked; and, No, the President Didn't Lie About the Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/another-obamacare-horror-_b_4229439.html

[Publicus]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

The Committee you reference is controlled by the Republican Party.

The Committee is neither unbiased nor is it a neutral disinterested party.

The Committee you reference is a cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted by anyone interested in a fair shake and a fair deal in respect to health insurance and medical care.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Publicus

[midas]

Edited November 11, 2013 by midas