Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Too bad you won't direct that at all politicians.
Not making excuses, but rather asking for consistency.
Not making excuses, but rather asking for consistency.
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
We're not talking about other politicians though. The question was directed at Obama and the ACA. Not a very good deflection.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Too bad you won't direct that at all politicians. Not making excuses, but rather asking for consistency. Exactly. On top of that, Chaosx tends to fall less along party lines than most of the regulars here, so suggesting that he's a one-sided partisan hack is completely unwarranted.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So the fact that health insurance companies and drug manufacturers donated a ton of money to both of Obama's campaigns isn't sneaky? Just business as usual. I would look at as more of a show of good faith. Better to make friends with the guy that's pushing to fundamentally change how you do business and maybe have a say in how the law is written. That said, I'd be curious to see how much they donated to McCain. It's not at all unusual for big money interest groups to paint both sides of the field. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Too bad you won't direct that at all politicians. Not making excuses, but rather asking for consistency. Exactly. On top of that, Chaosx tends to fall less along party lines than most of the regulars here, so suggesting that he's a one-sided partisan hack is completely unwarranted. Funding politicians has little to do with party lines and most to do with politics. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Really? What's the explaination for standing in front of millions with: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Ignorance?
[+]
Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Really? What's the explaination for standing in front of millions with: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Ignorance? The grandfathering was also fairly short lived. It was originally supposed to last as long as the plan remained the same, but the dragged out the implementation and froze the cost of plans, so insurance companies just started changing minuscule little things to break out of those clauses or reduce cost on their end and billed it as an ACA requirement. "Oh your plan is no longer covered"
"what isn't covered on it?" "uh, uh, crap" There's that scenario too. Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Really? What's the explaination for standing in front of millions with: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Ignorance? That's part of the guidelines implemented in losing "grandfathered" status. Once the premiums increased by $1 or more, they lose their grandfathered status. So, nice try. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Really? What's the explaination for standing in front of millions with: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Ignorance? That's part of the guidelines implemented in losing "grandfathered" status. Once the premiums increased by $1 or more, they lose their grandfathered status. So, nice try. Premium changes did not exclude plans from existing within the grandfather clause. It allowed exiting policies for non-employer provided recipients to continue to exist so long as the policy remained the same. It wouldn't be required to meet ACA regulations, so long as there wasn't a break in coverage or change in the policy. Changing the price isn't changing the policy, the changes that forced those policies to be dropped were either to reflect reorganization of the insurance company's coverage/providers or because the plans were no longer economically viable for them. Nothing about ACA forced the cancellation of the amount of policies that there were besides it being a convenient excuse to demonstrate hardship and give them time to make the changes they needed to stay profitable. If only we could talk ourselves out of the fact that the ACA sucks.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » If only we could talk ourselves out of the fact that the ACA sucks. I agree it sucks, but most likely not for the same reasons you do.
[+]
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Premium changes did not exclude plans from existing within the grandfather clause. It allowed exiting policies for non-employer provided recipients to continue to exist so long as the policy remained the same. It wouldn't be required to meet ACA regulations, so long as there wasn't a break in coverage or change in the policy. Changing the price isn't changing the policy, the changes that forced those policies to be dropped were either to reflect reorganization of the insurance company's coverage/providers or because the plans were no longer economically viable for them. Nothing about ACA forced the cancellation of the amount of policies that there were besides it being a convenient excuse to demonstrate hardship and give them time to make the changes they needed to stay profitable. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Because it limits the choice of consumers, is just now becoming solvent, when it could be profitable, it came with inconsistent expansions of medicaid, panders to insurance companies and pharma by subsidizing premiums instead of tying medical outcomes to cost. I could go on. I like that it shifts the cost of the uninsured away from workers and onto the policy holder and I like the idea of marketplaces where you can compare policies apples to apples and benefit from a shared risk pool. I like that it excludes exemptions for pre-existing conditions, loss of employer medical coverage pigeonholes a lot of people into staying in jobs and limits social mobility. I'm all for discussing the actual problems with ACA, but simply blaming every healthcare related problem on ACA or Obama isn't an honest discussion and will always be met with opposition. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Premium changes did not exclude plans from existing within the grandfather clause. It allowed exiting policies for non-employer provided recipients to continue to exist so long as the policy remained the same. It wouldn't be required to meet ACA regulations, so long as there wasn't a break in coverage or change in the policy. Changing the price isn't changing the policy, the changes that forced those policies to be dropped were either to reflect reorganization of the insurance company's coverage/providers or because the plans were no longer economically viable for them. Nothing about ACA forced the cancellation of the amount of policies that there were besides it being a convenient excuse to demonstrate hardship and give them time to make the changes they needed to stay profitable. Yeah, no. A plan that previously qualified for grandfathered status will not lose it unless there is significant change to the policy specifically excluding changes in premium. So long as the policy remains the same, it will retain it's grandfathered status and is not required to meet ACA standards indefinitely. Where you're making the mistake of thinking premiums are tied to eligibility is that the insurer cannot raise the cost of copay by more than 15% greater than inflation, lower employer contributions by more than 5%, or implementing or lowering an annual benefit cap. There are exceptions for each of those conditions as well, but those deal with coverage, not premium cost. Premiums are expressly allowed to increase. Odin.Jassik said: » I like that it shifts the cost of the uninsured away from workers and onto the policy holder Or are you saying that by having more sick people onto a group insurance policy will decrease prices? Where have you been for the past 5 years of rapidly increasing policy premium increases? Only people who really benefit are those who cannot afford it, but that's because the government subsidies it (until the Supreme Court ruling that is). Odin.Jassik said: » I'm all for discussing the actual problems with ACA, but simply blaming every healthcare related problem on ACA or Obama isn't an honest discussion and will always be met with opposition. Nobody in this thread is.... At least you are honest for once in your life. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I like that it shifts the cost of the uninsured away from workers and onto the policy holder Or are you saying that by having more sick people onto a group insurance policy will decrease prices? Where have you been for the past 5 years of rapidly increasing policy premium increases? Only people who really benefit are those who cannot afford it, but that's because the government subsidies it (until the Supreme Court ruling that is). I'm talking about the nearly 1200 dollar a year charge that previously was added to healthcare costs to cover the cost providers incurred while treating the uninsured. Quote: Odin.Jassik said: » I'm all for discussing the actual problems with ACA, but simply blaming every healthcare related problem on ACA or Obama isn't an honest discussion and will always be met with opposition. Nobody in this thread is.... That's exactly what you're doing. You are blaming canceled policies on ACA that weren't canceled because they couldn't conform with ACA or because it mandated they be cancelled, but rather because insurance companies could cut costs by cancelling them. It's less expensive to maintain fewer different policies. It's a canned strawman argument. Quote: That's in response to your assertion that raising a premium even 1 dollar causes it to lose it's grandfathered status. You're just plain wrong, and I explained where your misconception is coming from. There are about 500 different sites that explain the grandfather clause with clarity. Feel free to do some research before you accuse other posters of being ignorant. Sometimes I miss random PnR... and then I come and look at this festering squalor of muck and goop, and see it hasn't changed. At All. Not even a little bit.
I wish I could sum this up as eloquently as Nikolce does, but I can't. NIK! I NEED YOUR HELP WITH THIS! It looks good, but not enough derp in there.
This is why we can't have nice things....
[+]
Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Really? What's the explaination for standing in front of millions with: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."? Ignorance? You're right. The actual quote repeated by Obama was: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." Coming into a thread to post about how it doesn't suit your tastes is neither edgy nor interesting. As hard as it is to be off topic here, that does qualify.
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.