Time For GOP to stop criticizing Obamacare

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My policy was good and it saved me a fortune when I had appendicitis. Now the deductible has doubled and I have to carry (at an additional charge) riders for Ob-gyn and dental care for children which I don't have.

JD, I would agree with you that someone that does not have children should not have to pay a rider for dental coverage for kids. I also agree that a woman that is past the age of having children should not have to pay for maternity coverage. These are things that should be fixed and can be fixed. These are not reasons to scrap the ACA. The republicans need to work with Obama to make the law better. All the republicans want to do is get rid of the ACA and they don't have an alternative plan to insure the uninsured.

[Yssup Rider]

they never had one to begin with. It's all bluster and no muster.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Fuck Okool-aidcare...

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Here is your answer JD. President Obama did not intend for the 85% to lose their policies. Did you see the interview he did with NBC before he met with all the state insurance commissioners(to get the cancelled old policies back)? They put a clause into the law to say that if you had a policy from 2010 that did not change, the insured could continue with that policy. The exchange website rolled out in 2013. The insurance companies chose to cancel the policies, stating that policies had changed. It was a technicality why the policies were cancelled. It was not because Obama wanted them to be cancelled. Obama has done two different things to remedy the cancellation issue. He had a meeting with all the state insurance commissioners, to see if the cancelled policies could be offered again. The state of New Jersey has agreed to do so. I don't know about other states. The second thing that was done is that if you can't get your old policy back, you can sign up for a limited type coverage policy that was designed for people 30 years old and under. It is unfortunate that the old policies were cancelled when they weren't suppose to be. This is not an issue to scrap the ACA law and start over.

Are you a woman? I'm serious...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

JD, I would agree with you that someone that does not have children should not have to pay a rider for dental coverage for kids. I also agree that a woman that is past the age of having children should not have to pay for maternity coverage. These are things that should be fixed and can be fixed. These are not reasons to scrap the ACA. The republicans need to work with Obama to make the law better. All the republicans want to do is get rid of the ACA and they don't have an alternative plan to insure the uninsured.

Let me rephrase that ...

... Obaminable needs to work with the opposition to the law to make it "better" .... and

if it cannot be made "better" ... then to scrap the damn thing.

At least then he could save some of his face. Right now the egg obscures it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Look, JD, you know you can't trust the insurance companies to treat their customers right and provide good policies. They will ripoff the consumer anyway they can get away with it. They need to be regulated to protect the consumer.

The States regulate them.

If you want a "Post Office"quality insurance and health system let the Feds do it.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

JD, I would agree with you that someone that does not have children should not have to pay a rider for dental coverage for kids. I also agree that a woman that is past the age of having children should not have to pay for maternity coverage. These are things that should be fixed and can be fixed. These are not reasons to scrap the ACA. The republicans need to work with Obama to make the law better. All the republicans want to do is get rid of the ACA and they don't have an alternative plan to insure the uninsured.

if the aforementioned receive a subsidy, are they actually paying for extra coverage they don't need ?

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The republicans need to work with Obama to make the law better. All the republicans want to do is get rid of the ACA and they don't have an alternative plan to insure the uninsured.

So.. what fixes EXACTLY has Obama proposed to "make the law better"? Other than his illegal executive order to delay the employer mandate and the other waivers/exceptions/delays he's already put into effect? Since he has the ability to make such changes, why does he need the Republicans? Why not simply "invoke" the changes like he did with the others?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So.. what fixes EXACTLY has Obama proposed to "make the law better"? Other than his illegal executive order to delay the employer mandate and the other waivers/exceptions/delays he's already put into effect? Since he has the ability to make such changes, why does he need the Republicans? Why not simply "invoke" the changes like he did with the others?

illegal?


The Constitution’s Article II assigns to the President the national government’s “executive power,” and tells the President that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

and just for the simpletons, the rest implys ...

It does not say how that is to be done, or when, but the emphasis on being “faithful” at least implies that the President will respect the choices that Congress has made and written into law.
At the same time, Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text ..


you're acting as if delays in laws are new ...

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CJ7

if the aforementioned receive a subsidy, are they actually paying for extra coverage they don't need ?

The insured will be paying a percentage of his premium out of pocket. If you are family of 4 and make > $20,000 and < $92,000 you will qualify for the subsidy to help pay your premium. The subsidy is just a percentage of your premium. The closer your income is to $20,000 the more subsidy you will get. It will never be 100% of your premium.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Are you a woman? I'm serious...

Yea, I am Kathleen Sebellius you MORON. Get the frick outta here. Gnadfly, you are an IDIOT. Go vote for Space cadet Ted Cruze or Sarah Airhead Palin in the next election.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by CJ7

if the aforementioned receive a subsidy, are they actually paying for extra coverage they don't need ?

No. WE all are paying for coverage they don't need.

GuAWD, you're a synchphantic, Obamaton moron, CBJ7.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Yea, I am Kathleen Sebellius you MORON. Get the frick outta here. Gnadfly, you are an IDIOT. Go vote for Space cadet Ted Cruze or Sarah Airhead Palin in the next election.

Yeah, you're a woman.

[Yssup Rider]

always count on Whiny for the latest in name calling.

that indicates a lack of substance.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No. WE all are paying for coverage they don't need.

GuAWD, you're a synchphantic, Obamaton moron, CBJ7.

its a good thing WE aren't paying for procedures at county hospitals, and free clinics that far exceed insurance subsidies isn't it ?

YOU MORON.