If You Like Your Drugs...

Obama: If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period.

In Obamaspeak, period actually means major asterisk.
*
1) If your insurance is up to these new standards.
2) If you can afford the changes that bring it up to ACA standards.

archer wrote: So it wasn't because he sincerely thought the ACA would work as designed. Not surprising that would never cross your mind about Obama, like you do with me, you love to claim inside knowledge of what liberals are thinking.

I'm not claiming to read Obama's mind, I'm telling you that it is a FACT that Obama knew early on that millions of people had policies that would not be acceptable to his signature law and would be cancelled for non compliance with the ACA standard. Do you disagree with this?

So if he knew these policies woud be cancelled, he must have also known that these people woud have to pony up more cash to pay for a policy that complied. He could have said we would all save 5k a year and nobody on the left would bat an eye when this was proven to be a fantasy. But whatever it takes, the ends justify the means as usual... he got elected based on lies and fantasy.

Walter L Newton wrote: Nothing about subsidies (read: taxpayers money). If you're going to be a tool for the left, at least get your story straight.

You sure get your panties in a bunch when I post anything here......what about my post was a "tool" for the left? I did notice that while you are so concerned about me getting my story "straight" you were unconcerned about rick getting his story "straight".....no surprise there....

Rick wrote: But wasn't the whole selling point of the "Affordable" Care Act to make health care more affordable, not less? The president told us that the average family would save about $2500 a month... so what happened between then and now?

Should that not read $2500/year????

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: So it wasn't because he sincerely thought the ACA would work as designed. Not surprising that would never cross your mind about Obama, like you do with me, you love to claim inside knowledge of what liberals are thinking.

I'm not claiming to read Obama's mind, I'm telling you that it is a FACT that Obama knew early on that millions of people had policies that would not be acceptable to his signature law and would be cancelled for non compliance with the ACA standard. Do you disagree with this?

So if he knew these policies woud be cancelled, he must have also known that these people woud have to pony up more cash to pay for a policy that complied. He could have said we would all save 5k a year and nobody on the left would bat an eye when this was proven to be a fantasy. But whatever it takes, the ends justify the means as usual... he got elected based on lies and fantasy.

Not unlike how every politician gets elected, not that I condone it, but I am amused that you attained such an adult age and still believe what politicians tell you in a campaign year (cue the Romney tapes) I'll bet you believe in unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows too.

archer wrote:

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: So it wasn't because he sincerely thought the ACA would work as designed. Not surprising that would never cross your mind about Obama, like you do with me, you love to claim inside knowledge of what liberals are thinking.

I'm not claiming to read Obama's mind, I'm telling you that it is a FACT that Obama knew early on that millions of people had policies that would not be acceptable to his signature law and would be cancelled for non compliance with the ACA standard. Do you disagree with this?

So if he knew these policies woud be cancelled, he must have also known that these people woud have to pony up more cash to pay for a policy that complied. He could have said we would all save 5k a year and nobody on the left would bat an eye when this was proven to be a fantasy. But whatever it takes, the ends justify the means as usual... he got elected based on lies and fantasy.

Not unlike how every politician gets elected, not that I condone it, but I am amused that you attained such an adult age and still believe what politicians tell you in a campaign year (cue the Romney tapes) I'll bet you believe in unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows too.

Obviously enough adults believed what they were told to vote for Obama based on these promises. Sad. I'm glad that you can be "amused" about such a serious subject. IS that all you got? Amused?

archer wrote: It has always been very painful cost wise for insurance as you approach medicare age. I had a BC/BS policy at age 64, and this was several years ago, the premium was $1018/month (I just looked up what I was paying back then) and it was by no means a Cadillac plan. I tried to change to something less expensive, but because of a pre existing condition I was turned down by several companies. I tried Cover Colorado and the cost for a comparable plan was over $1600/month, I sincerely wish the ACA had been around then

OK, let's compare Obamacare to Cover Colorado. Of course that means we are comparing insurance for everyone (Obamacare) to the high risk pool of Cover Colorado. And because of Obamacare, Cover Colorado is no longer what it was.

Here is the 2013 rate sheet for Cover Colorado...

https://www.covercolorado.org/downloads/2013-Standard-Rate-Sheet.pdf

It's certainly not cheap, but most all plans are well below $1600. The highest I see for a 60 yr old is their best plan ($1000 deductible) for a smoker at $1558/month before adjusting for county (for a nonsmoker it's $1115).

There are no detailed descriptions of the plans on the above sheet, but I looked into them two months ago and took some notes in order to compare them to Obamacare when the national exchange first started.

A 60 year old could get a $2000 HSA for $777/month from Cover Colorado. That plan had a $2000 deductible and a 20% copay for medical and drugs above $2000 with a max out of pocket of $4500. Compare that to that crappy Obamacare silver plan I posted about earlier for $964/month with a $4000 deductible and $6350 max out of pocket.

OK, I just compared an HSA to a PPO which I think is still fair. But let's also look at Cover Colorado's PPO plan with a $3000 deductible. That too is better than that silver Obamacare plan ($3000 deductible vs. $4000) and cheaper too at $761/month. I don't know what it's max out of pocket was, but I'm pretty sure it was less than $6350.

I do have notes about Cover Colorado's $1000 deductible PPO plan. It had a 20% copay above $1000 and a max out pocket of $2500 with a $40 office visit copay. I don't think it had any deductible for drugs.

Not all of Cover Colorado's plans were cheaper than Obamacare, but in general I'd say they cost about the same. The problem is those were expensive plans for high risk pools, while Obamacare is just expensive period. And Obamacare plans generally have inferior coverage with higher deductibles and max out of pocket expense.

It's just embarrassing that we have to compare Obamacare to Cover Colorado when there should be no comparison. Obamacare should have been better and cheaper...

Conspiracy talk: One reason ACA is so expensive is so that more people depend on the Feds for subsidies to pay for these healthcare plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

(some of those $2,500 dollar savings that were promised by the president)

archer wrote: ..... I wasn't fond of the law from the beginning, I think I made that very clear here.... But I absolutely stand behind the liberals for pushing this law through by any means possible at the time. Once in place we have a framework to work with and the opportunity to tweak and improve it till it truly meets our needs. Without the ACA nothing would be done about our healthcare system,

archer wrote: '''''Any major legislation like this normally has a very short window to get it done. If you don't take advantage of that window the chances that anything will get done later is very slim. Having the law on the books, even if imperfect, forces us to confront the problems and fix them, not just kick the health care can down the road

Here is an interesting alternative scenario archer. Lets pretend the Repubs had the WH, 60 senate votes and the House in 2010 and they pushed/ rammed thru major tax and entitlement reform, lets call it the "Simpson Bowles Fiscal Care act". Low tax rates, nix deductions, limit and means test entitlements, COLA limits, big spending cuts etc. Lets say 1/2 the country supported it and all the Dems voted against it.

Would you be here graciously accepting that "framework" and saying well we needed to do it, lets just see how it works and fix it along the way? LOL I doubt it. Very similar to your argument above isn't it?

BTW I give you credit for responding here on this forum when most of your liberal friends are too afraid to post here.

Isn't that how this country was designed to run LOL? We elect representatives, they craft bills, and more often than not we get legislation that reflects more closely the goals of the election winners. When they go to far in one direction the electorate brings them back from the brink. I believe in the system and the democracy that we live by, and I also believe that if one party pushes the limits we the people will put the limits back on place. It has happened to both parties.

If the Republicans achieve a legislative majority then there will indeed be a lot of stuff I won't like and will think is wrong. Will I be graciously accepting... Get serious, but I sincerely hope that I will refrain from posting a dozen different threads a day just to say I disagree in a different way. We DO need to address our tax code and the entire fiscal ballgame at the federal level. If the Republicans want to jump into that quick sand I welcome it, they will undoubtedly screw it up, but that allows the Democrats to take over the next election and fix it to their liking.

Does that answer your question?