President Obama announces health law fix

[Jingthing]

@Neversure

I am not concentrating on one thing. I am telling you what happened to ME and I am not alone. What happened to me also affected my entire family.

Those capitalistic insurance companies did not want to insure me when I was young and healthy, even though the chances of a problem due to my pre-existing condition was minimal. I now look forward to being able to stick them with the bill now that I am a bit older and they are likely to get stuck with some of those costs.

Credo, now YOU know what you are talking about regarding the pre-Obamacare insurance company status quo, as do I. People, do not be misled by the posters here trying to sugar coat how they have behaved and acting like the preexisting condition NOT being able to buy any insurance thing hasn't been very real for MILLIONS of Americans.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

@Neversure

I am not concentrating on one thing. I am telling you what happened to ME and I am not alone. What happened to me also affected my entire family.

Those capitalistic insurance companies did not want to insure me when I was young and healthy, even though the chances of a problem due to my pre-existing condition was minimal. I now look forward to being able to stick them with the bill now that I am a bit older and they are likely to get stuck with some of those costs.

Credo, now YOU know what you are talking about regarding the pre-Obamacare insurance company status quo, as do I. People, do not be misled by the posters here trying to sugar coat how they have behaved and acting like the preexisting condition NOT being about to buy any insurance thing hasn't been very real for MILLIONS of Americans.

Still, you are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. I too think something needed to be done for people with that problem.

That in no way justifies the very expensive, wasteful, multi-thousand page bill called Obamacare which is a train wreck happening before our eyes.

[NeverSure]

@Neversure

I am not concentrating on one thing. I am telling you what happened to ME and I am not alone. What happened to me also affected my entire family.

Those capitalistic insurance companies did not want to insure me when I was young and healthy, even though the chances of a problem due to my pre-existing condition was minimal. I now look forward to being able to stick them with the bill now that I am a bit older and they are likely to get stuck with some of those costs.

Yes, that is the sole topic from you - pre-existing conditions. Have you debated the many other details of Obamacare throughout the thread?

I sincerely feel for you about the pre-existing conditions, and think something should have been done about that a long time ago. I'm with you on that.

But that one thing does not make the entire ACA act good for America in the whole. There are too many terrible things about it. There are so many good and inexpensive things that could have been done for America's health care to make it truly more affordable to all, including those with pre-existing conditions.

We need a mulligan.

[Publicus]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

You guys are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. Therefore, apparently, that must make the whole ACA good.

Such logic. That single issue could have been addressed without the train wreck called Obamacare.

And no, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction unless you are a health care provider, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a health care insurance company. In that case it's a real windfall at the massive expense of the average American.

If you are one of those corporate entities, then what's not to like? You've just had a trillion dollars thrown at you in new business and you are free to charge as much as you want for it, and spend it as you like.

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

[chuckd]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

You guys are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. Therefore, apparently, that must make the whole ACA good.

Such logic. That single issue could have been addressed without the train wreck called Obamacare.

And no, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction unless you are a health care provider, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a health care insurance company. In that case it's a real windfall at the massive expense of the average American.

If you are one of those corporate entities, then what's not to like? You've just had a trillion dollars thrown at you in new business and you are free to charge as much as you want for it, and spend it as you like.

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

Since you seem somewhat obsessed with Romney, it might be appropriate to point out that buyer's remorse seems to have set in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Romney? Yes, if the election were held today

• BY AARON BLAKE
• November 19 at 12:01 am

For Mitt Romney, the 2012 election was held about a year too early.

Romney would hold a slight lead on President Obama if the 2012 election were replayed today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/19/president-romney-yes-if-the-election-were-held-today/

[NeverSure]

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

Strange that you'd reach all the way back to March for your statistics, when the real crashing numbers for Obama, Obamacare, and the Democrats have been stunning since the roll-out actually started last month.

I posted the damning newest (liberal, progressive) CBS poll dated just a few days ago.

In the poll you cite, people didn't yet know that they couldn't keep their existing insurance and doctor, that they would be canceled, that premiums and deductibles for replacement insurance would be so high, etc. Since then 5 million people have had their insurance canceled and had to try to buy new with massive sticker shock.

Try to keep up, OK?

Edited November 23, 2013 by NeverSure

[chuckd]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Thaibeachlovers comment was about President Obama's illegal fix telling States and Insurers they may reissue cancelled policies that were, in Obamacare terminology, sub-standard.

It had nothing to do with new policies

[NeverSure]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Thaibeachlovers comment was about President Obama's illegal fix telling States and Insurers they may reissue cancelled policies that were, in Obamacare terminology, sub-standard.

It had nothing to do with new policies

I'm out of "likes" for the day, so "like."

[Jingthing]

Still, you are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. I too think something needed to be done for people with that problem.

That in no way justifies the very expensive, wasteful, multi-thousand page bill called Obamacare which is a train wreck happening before our eyes.

Something? Like the republican "plan" which you seemed to have endorsed which actually does NOT address that problem? Americans aren't that stupid. They know republicans would NEVER address that problem.

[Publicus]

The above post by the poster chuckd is incorrectly formatted, which does occasionally happen to a number of us who are less than prudent and less than attentive or careful. Specifically, the incorrect post merges posts by NeverSure with mine as one running post. Moderators please take notice and take appropriate corrective action.

As to the content of the post by the poster chuckd, Willard Mitt Romney - Mr Repeal and Replace - lost the election that was regularly scheduled and held as provided by the Constitution. Willard lost that election on the arguments, the merits, the choices presented. Both Willard and the electorate had their choices at the appointed time and made it at the appointed time for the term proscribed by the Constitution.

The fact is virtually every recent president would have lost election on a given day during his term in progress had the election been held at a certain time during the term. Here's the most recent president, George W Bush, and his in-term election loss in public opinion polling only and exclusively.

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/

This poll was taken eleven months after Prez Bush had been reelected.

Such sentiments are inevitable at some point during the term of a given recent president. The sentiments are banal, reflect the passions of the moment and are essentially meaningless.

Such polls do pass as they are dust in the wind.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Publicus

[MaxYakov]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Which we have proven with link after link will be much more expensive, and many health care providers won't accept it for care.

It also means that many employees will get their hours cut back because under Obamacare, employers have to provide insurance only to full time employees which is defined as 30 hours per week or more.

It also means that due to massively increased costs, many employers will simply drop all insurance because it's cheaper to pay the fine. That puts the mandate onto the individuals who must then buy their own insurance or pay another fine!

Deductibles are through the roof now - into the thousands per year per person.

Oh yeah - California has it made.

Concerning ObamaCare, your posts continually, regularly and consistently use the auxiliary verb "will".

Just on this page we have, more than once

will be

will get

will drop

will increase

And to include a lot of "won't" too.

You wanna share your ObamaCare crystal ball?

Such absolute prescience is much to be admired.

How about spending a lot more time evaluating the message and countering it (or not) with sources and real-world, current reports and a lot less time attacking the messenger?

Edited November 23, 2013 by MaxYakov

[chuckd]

Here is an interesting development that was announced on Friday (Why Friday you ask?) concerning the enrollment period for 2015.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra Time to Sign Up for Health Coverage

By ROBERT PEAR and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Published: November 22, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would give people eight more days, until Dec. 23, to sign up for health insurance coverage that takes effect on Jan. 1 under the new health care law.

Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the government recognized that consumers might need more time to compare and select health insurance plans because of technical problems that have plagued the online federal insurance marketplace since it opened on Oct. 1.

The administration also said it would delay the 2015 insurance enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act by a month, pushing it beyond the 2014 elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/us/politics/health-laws-enrollment-period-is-extended-by-8-days.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I fail to understand is why 30 more days is required for 2015 enrollment when the administration and insurers have been working on this plan for 3 1/2 years already. If it ain't working by October 15 2014, what makes anybody think another 30 days will do the trick?

One could reasonably expect an enrollment that has already had nearly $500 Million spent on it would be ready by October 15 2014.

WHEN IS THAT PESKY MID-TERM ELECTION AGAIN?

Now, I remember...it is on November 4, 2014.

Chicago politics at its finest.

[Publicus]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Thaibeachlovers comment was about President Obama's illegal fix telling States and Insurers they may reissue cancelled policies that were, in Obamacare terminology, sub-standard.

It had nothing to do with new policies

It means the affected people must get new policies.

The new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

[Publicus]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

In other words it means that new policies must conform to the "law of the land". If Obama has espoused otherwise (and apparently he has), he is a scofflaw and is, among other things, in violation of his oath of office.

I'm sadly astounded that any insurance company or state would agree to violate the law and re-issue cancelled policies. Doesn't the US claim to be a nation of "laws" and not "men"?

The only reason I can think of to justify this action is that it is in their self-interest in some way to do so - politically or financially. IMHO, it is an immoral action. The fact that not all insurance companies/states made the decision re-issue should be a telling indicator that something is amiss. Does this disparity of justice possibly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or some such?

Everyone might need a time out here.

I don't like it either, for reasons different from yours, but it's what were gonna get.

[NeverSure]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Thaibeachlovers comment was about President Obama's illegal fix telling States and Insurers they may reissue cancelled policies that were, in Obamacare terminology, sub-standard.

It had nothing to do with new policies

It means the affected people must get new policies.

The new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Yeah it means they must get new policies because that is the law, even though they were lied to multiple times and told they could keep their existing doctors and policies if they liked them. It means that despite Obama's illegal and pathetic attempt to CYA by trying to run away by telling states they could re-issue illegal policies, they can't.

Obama is now Identified as a serial liar ("If you like your health care policy you can keep it, and your doctor") and a criminal conspirator telling states to break his own law and re-issue illegal policies.

That's your former crack smoking guy from the South Side of Chicago, right?

(Those are well established facts, the crack smoking admitted publicly by him.)

Edited November 23, 2013 by NeverSure

[Credo]

OK, let me expand it a little bit. I knew of a family that had adopted children. They were being encouraged to adopt 3 siblings that had special physical needs. Unfortunately, they were unable to be insured and the adoption was canceled because of the potential costs of medical care.

At that time, it cost $250,000 to raise a child in foster care. It's much more expensive now.

Do you think these 3 children grew up and were able to get insurance? How about the thousands of others?

You seem to think this is a small issue. It's not. It's a lot bigger than you think and it is a lot more expensive to you than you think it is and it transcends simple health care costs.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Credo

[MaxYakov]

Here is an interesting development that was announced on Friday (Why Friday you ask?) concerning the enrollment period for 2015.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra Time to Sign Up for Health Coverage

By ROBERT PEAR and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Published: November 22, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would give people eight more days, until Dec. 23, to sign up for health insurance coverage that takes effect on Jan. 1 under the new health care law.

Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the government recognized that consumers might need more time to compare and select health insurance plans because of technical problems that have plagued the online federal insurance marketplace since it opened on Oct. 1.

The administration also said it would delay the 2015 insurance enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act by a month, pushing it beyond the 2014 elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/us/politics/health-laws-enrollment-period-is-extended-by-8-days.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I fail to understand is why 30 more days is required for 2015 enrollment when the administration and insurers have been working on this plan for 3 1/2 years already. If it ain't working by October 15 2014, what makes anybody think another 30 days will do the trick?

One could reasonably expect an enrollment that has already had nearly $500 Million spent on it would be ready by October 15 2014.

WHEN IS THAT PESKY MID-TERM ELECTION AGAIN?

Now, I remember...it is on November 4, 2014.

Chicago politics at its finest.

I think the answer is here (emphasis mine):

"The administration also said it would delay the 2015 insurance enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act by a month, pushing it beyond the 2014 elections."

(I don't understand why they labeled it as the "2015 enrollment period" unless it's tied to fiscal year)

They are either as "prescient" as NeverSure () or they're not taking any chances. You nailed it, though - Chicago politics.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted along with replies.

[Publicus]

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Which we have proven with link after link will be much more expensive, and many health care providers won't accept it for care.

It also means that many employees will get their hours cut back because under Obamacare, employers have to provide insurance only to full time employees which is defined as 30 hours per week or more.

It also means that due to massively increased costs, many employers will simply drop all insurance because it's cheaper to pay the fine. That puts the mandate onto the individuals who must then buy their own insurance or pay another fine!

Deductibles are through the roof now - into the thousands per year per person.

Oh yeah - California has it made.

Concerning ObamaCare, your posts continually, regularly and consistently use the auxiliary verb "will".

Just on this page we have, more than once

will be

will get

will drop

will increase

And to include a lot of "won't" too.

You wanna share your ObamaCare crystal ball?

Such absolute prescience is much to be admired.

How about spending a lot more time evaluating the message and countering it (or not) with sources and real-world, current reports and a lot less time attacking the messenger?

Your point has validity as does mine.

[NeverSure]

OK, let me expand it a little bit. I knew of a family that had adopted children. They were being encouraged to adopt 3 siblings that had special physical needs. Unfortunately, they were unable to be insured and the adoption was canceled because of the potential costs of medical care.

At that time, it cost $250,000 to raise a child in foster care. It's much more expensive now.

Do you think these 3 children grew up and were able to get insurance? How about the thousands of others?

You seem to think this is a small issue. It's not. It's a lot bigger than you think and it is a lot more expensive to you than you think it is and it transcends simple health care costs.

You're still focusing one the one thing - pre-existing conditions. Fixing that does not make Obamacare a workable or good program.

Again I agree we needed and need coverage for pre-existing conditions, but we don't need the whole multi-thousand page Obamacare bill to fix it.

[Credo]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

[impulse]

It's about pre-existing conditions.

It's about being able to buy private insurance at all, and not being handcuffed to an employer and hoping they don't fire me when they find out I need heart surgery- to keep the price of their group policies low.

It's about a little bit of certainty knowing there isn't some legalese clause on page 36 that says I won't get reimbursed if XYZ happens, because I should have been aware of it when I disclosed all my conditions going in..

It's peace of mind knowing I won't pay into an insurance policy for 10 years, only to have them cancel when I get a speck on my chest x-ray and actually need the coverage.

It's about knowing that my nieces and nephews just getting out of school won't be bamboozled into some policy that covers, well, -pretty much nothing- simply because they fall for a sales pitch.

Show me what the Repubs have put forward along those lines and I'll jump onboard.

Edited November 23, 2013 by impulse

[NeverSure]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

[impulse]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

Edited November 23, 2013 by impulse

[MaxYakov]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

In other words it means that new policies must conform to the "law of the land". If Obama has espoused otherwise (and apparently he has), he is a scofflaw and is, among other things, in violation of his oath of office.

I'm sadly astounded that any insurance company or state would agree to violate the law and re-issue cancelled policies. Doesn't the US claim to be a nation of "laws" and not "men"?

The only reason I can think of to justify this action is that it is in their self-interest in some way to do so - politically or financially. IMHO, it is an immoral action. The fact that not all insurance companies/states made the decision re-issue should be a telling indicator that something is amiss. Does this disparity of justice possibly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or some such?

It could seem some people might be working themselves into an ObamaCare impeachment lather.

I oppose impeachment centered on ObamaCare, or for any alleged reason, but in a certain sense I would welcome the attempt because it would result In the most welcome final aspect of the suicide of the Republican Party.

We do need a two party system - a four party system might be even better under certain givens.

The present two party system is the exact one we no longer need.

Go for it.

Helllooooooo. Can we come back from Fantasyland now?

After my reply, I started thinking in terms of contracts (insurance) and the legality thereof.

Elements of a Contract (thefreedictionary.com):

"The purpose of a contract is to establish the agreement that the parties have made and to fix their rights and duties in accordance with that agreement. The courts must enforce a valid contract as it is made, unless there are grounds that bar its enforcement."

Void Contracts (wiki):

"A void contract, also known as a void agreement, is not actually a contract. A void contract cannot be enforced by law. Void contracts are different from voidable contracts which are contracts that may be (but not necessarily will be) nullified."

"An agreement to carry out an illegal act is an example of a void contract or void agreement. For example, a contract between drug dealers and buyers is a void contract simply because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go to court to enforce the contract. A void contract is void ab initio, i e from the beginning while a voidable contract can be voidable by one or all of the parties."

I heard a well-known Washington reporter state that the ACA has provisions that make it subject to administrative changes by the Executive Branch. I do not know if this is true and am not willing to wade through 2000 pages of the ACA to substantiate this. It probably doesn't matter because by the time anything gets to/through the courts with the inevitable delaying tactics, it will be too late to make a difference. But, perhaps, if the provisions exist, that is Obama's (and the insurance companys') avoidance of having void contracts being written that could potentially not be enforced by the courts.

Does anyone have any more information on this issue?

Edited November 23, 2013 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

Strange that you'd reach all the way back to March for your statistics, when the real crashing numbers for Obama, Obamacare, and the Democrats have been stunning since the roll-out actually started last month.

I posted the damning newest (liberal, progressive) CBS poll dated just a few days ago.

In the poll you cite, people didn't yet know that they couldn't keep their existing insurance and doctor, that they would be canceled, that premiums and deductibles for replacement insurance would be so high, etc. Since then 5 million people have had their insurance canceled and had to try to buy new with massive sticker shock.

Try to keep up, OK?

Thanks for the prod but I don't really need it .

The principal point of the post is to point out how little anti-ObamaCare posters here know of the provisions of the ACA law.

[chuckd]

The above post by the poster chuckd is incorrectly formatted, which does occasionally happen to a number of us who are less than prudent and less than attentive or careful. Specifically, the incorrect post merges posts by NeverSure with mine as one running post. Moderators please take notice and take appropriate corrective action.

As to the content of the post by the poster chuckd, Willard Mitt Romney - Mr Repeal and Replace - lost the election that was regularly scheduled and held as provided by the Constitution. Willard lost that election on the arguments, the merits, the choices presented. Both Willard and the electorate had their choices at the appointed time and made it at the appointed time for the term proscribed by the Constitution.

The fact is virtually every recent president would have lost election on a given day during his term in progress had the election been held at a certain time during the term. Here's the most recent president, George W Bush, and his in-term election loss in public opinion polling only and exclusively.

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/

This poll was taken eleven months after Prez Bush had been reelected.

Such sentiments are inevitable at some point during the term of a given recent president. The sentiments are banal, reflect the passions of the moment and are essentially meaningless.

Such polls do pass as they are dust in the wind.

And what in your opinion would constitute " appropriate corrective action."?

[chuckd]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

You have just provided one of the obvious fallacies of Obamacare.

This is exactly the reason many in good health will fail to sign up...as they will know they can get it if the need arises, regardless of their current health condition.

The "Death Spiral: hasn't even been raised on this thread. It's very possibly right around the corner.

Edited November 23, 2013 by chuckd

[Publicus]

Why does Obama want to delay Obamacare for a year? Because polls which we've posted say it's killing his and his Democrats' popularity and there's an election in just less than a year.

He doesn't want people to have a year to see how bad it is before the election. He wants to hide it some more in the same fashion that he lied, telling people they would be able to keep their health care policy and doctor. Now everyone knows that isn't true, and every day more people learn how badly Obamacare is hurting them personally.

He doesn't want the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and the Democrat leaders are all over his azz because they also want to have the next president. It's too late, Democrats 555.

Right now the individual mandate has kicked in. In a year the employer mandate kicks in and it will increase unemployment and underemployment as employers balk at paying the high health care bills.

Dominoes. I'm watching the first few dominoes fall.

Perhaps we all do need a time out.

I don't like the idea because any "time out" now would occur amid a lot of uncertainty about the ACA which would be left in suspension for a year.

But, then again, a lot can be resolved during a time out over the course of a year. This would be true despite electoral politics during which the country can expect Republicans to try any means possible to kill the ACA in the belief the end justifies the means.

The Republican Party is generally being quite menacing towards the predicates of the Founders and their founding philosophy that the republic can succeed only if people are rational actors.

Where did the theory go that a successful democratic society is predicated on the "reasonable person"?

The teapublican party has become entirely unreasonable, anti-rational, consistently and proudly so.

Change and improvement is the constant of US society, culture, civilization. Yet the more and the faster things change, the crazier the lunatics become.

[NeverSure]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

I know that's a problem and I don't know the answer. We need an answer. There are children born with birth defects that can never get help with payment for health care unless they are poor enough to get Medicaid.

Medicaid covers pre-existing conditions. In fact your point is valid in that Medicaid very often takes on someone with pre-existing conditions because the patient has hit bottom. Medicaid for instance pays for many people who are elderly, poor, and in need of a nursing home. It will even start paying after they are in that nursing home if they meet the financial requirements.

One thing that can be done that many wouldn't approve of is to require the patient to hit financial bottom before covering them. Medicaid does that. A person over the age of 65 could have paid about $105 per month for Medicare B and been covered, but if they didn't, Medicaid won't pick them up until they are broke. For instance, you might have a retirement income of, say, $1,500 pm, but the nursing home costs $6,000 pm. Medicaid will take that $1,500 and pay the difference. They will leave you with a small stipend of $200 ?? pm but you are in a nursing home, disabled, and not needing much cash. You can't have more than a small amount of money to your name, either. It is for the truly poor.

I don't know. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem. People can buy insurance with pre-existing conditions even after the condition already appeared. In fact, they can pay a small fine to not have any insurance, and then run in and buy insurance when they need expensive medical treatment so the problem is already there.

I just did it with Medicare (not Obamacare) as it is open enrollment time for Medicare. I bumped my Medicare from Medicare C (Advantage) at about $150 pm to Medicare F (Medigap) at $290 pm because I had already discovered an expensive issue and it was all over my medical records. What the F does is cover the same things, but with no deductibles or co-pays. But I'm not the bad guy who doesn't buy insurance. I have had private insurance plus Medicare all along, and Medicare is the secondary payer.

I don't know the answer. I will say this. I have never known of anyone in the US who really needed health care and couldn't get it, one way or another through some program. I've never seen anyone left to just suffer in the street.