Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

joG · Oct 26, 2013

ChezC3 said:
Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery « CBS DC

Yes, it is that bad...

I wonder, if Dr. Carson had ever read Fogel's book on the economics of slavery.

Boo Radley · Oct 26, 2013

sKiTzo said:
So undeniably proving it violates the clause I cited is not good enough, and we'll have to do better than that. Just that it violates the clause doesn't work anymore. .Okay, we'll go with that since that seems to be the case anyway. I'll do the first commentary then, and you counter.

When they wrote the constitution, there was a very specific purpose. Not to appropriate war funds or to make sure it's legal to spy on americans. It was quite the opposite - to prevent overreaching powers and to guarantee future generations liberty and justice for all. These mfers were smart. They thought of everything and made sure that as long as nothing changes in the text, our civil rights would always be intact. That means every word is of extreme importance. So, for sure, everything written was intended to remain intact, as in stone. If amendments are added, they are not to interfere with or try to compromise anything preceding that amendment. They also issued warnings that one day this would happen.

So I'll just get right to the point. If it was an isolated incident, and on all other fronts we saw an honest true blue government, it still wouldn't be okay, but I'd be a helluva lot less paranoid. However, every move they make, and every action they take is consistent with preparations for a coup and takeover. DHS is OUT OF CONTROL. If I have to mention the billions of hollowpoints (for "target practice") and thousands of armored assault vehicles again, I'm gonna puke! What is all that sht for? All the "terrorists" on our streets? Americans, get a c-l-u-e. Here's the clincher, we pay them! You are paying for your own enslavement. Demoralizing.

As the courts have denied, it's not undeniable. You do understand this, right?

The world Of the founding fathers was different. They could not anticipate the questions of today. You assume they are stuck in time and would have dine differently have they lived these two hundred plus years. This is not logical.

That at said, they wrote a rather complicated document, and gave room for interpretation, charging the courts with ruling on meaning. They have done this since the beginning, always with some group thinking they were wrong. You fail to see how it is possible that you are wrong. It's hubris not to consider that possibility.

as for slavery, I'm not enslaved at all. Like many, you cartoonishly exaggerate life today. This hyperbole of yours causes many if us to nit take your arguments seriously.

sKiTzo · Oct 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
As the courts have denied, it's not undeniable. You do understand this, right?

The world Of the founding fathers was different. They could not anticipate the questions of today. You assume they are stuck in time and would have dine differently have they lived these two hundred plus years. This is not logical.

That at said, they wrote a rather complicated document, and gave room for interpretation, charging the courts with ruling on meaning. They have done this since the beginning, always with some group thinking they were wrong. You fail to see how it is possible that you are wrong. It's hubris not to consider that possibility.

as for slavery, I'm not enslaved at all. Like many, you cartoonishly exaggerate life today. This hyperbole of yours causes many if us to nit take your arguments seriously.

It's funny that for 200+ years America didn't have a problem interpreting it. This is because it is really not a complicated document. The constitution and bill of rights each fit on one page. The fact that legislative bills of today are thousands of pages long should be a clear indication that something is wrong. You say they could not have anticipated today's world. Could you be more specific? I doubt it. It will be interesting to see if you can elaborate on what they "didn't anticipate".

Your other big point, that there was so much "room for interpretation". If this is true, then you'll have no problem elaborating on this, as well. It's all very simple and straight-forward, in my opinion. Please, provide some instances where you think there is "room for interpretation". Wanting to delete or change something, is not the same as "room for interpretation".

Standing by...

Boo Radley · Oct 28, 2013

sKiTzo said:
It's funny that for 200+ years America didn't have a problem interpreting it. This is because it is really not a complicated document. The constitution and bill of rights each fit on one page. The fact that legislative bills of today are thousands of pages long should be a clear indication that something is wrong. You say they could not have anticipated today's world. Could you be more specific? I doubt it. It will be interesting to see if you can elaborate on what they "didn't anticipate".

Your other big point, that there was so much "room for interpretation". If this is true, then you'll have no problem elaborating on this, as well. It's all very simple and straight-forward, in my opinion. Please, provide some instances where you think there is "room for interpretation". Wanting to delete or change something, is not the same as "room for interpretation".

Standing by...

Now here you're factually incorrect. Since day one cases have come before the court and the court has been interpreting since the very beginning, with people disagreeing all along, and that was with the founding fathers still alive. So, you start off mistaken in your thinking.

You'll find different amendments that often are in conflict with one another. Equal protection is one that comes to mind. once it was made law, it had an effect on existing laws, even if there was no intent for it to. This is why conservatives are losing the same sex marriage battle.

j-mac · Oct 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
They have, and such is the process. You have to make a better argument. Not a we "know" it is unconstitutional one.

I agree that today the effect of "legislating from the bench" is the process, but you agree that SCOTUS decisions can be reversed. As an example, we no longer have Dred Scott [sic], that holds true for amendments as well. No longer is prohibition in effect.

So, for yourself, as well as other democrats in agreement with the ACA, to argue that now this is a "right", or that it is "the law of the land", as in it can not be reversed, or that attempts to do so, are somehow bordering on illegal is laughably preposterous.

The SCOTUS hung the law going forward in the last argument over this was thin at best. It hung on the administration arguing that the "penalty", when during the entire time the bill was becoming law, the administration lied to the american people arguing that it wasn't. And then lying to the SCOTUS that it was a tax.

There will be other challenges to this law, I am confident of that, unless the make up of the government shifts to a republican control, and the law is repealed.

What you have to come to terms with, as well as other demo's, that this law, was one passed on a party line vote, that was not explained fully, or lied about in its explanation to the people, and didn't have the support of the people at any time in either its passage, or now in implementation. And as more and more of it is revealed, and the inherent unfairness of wealth re distribution that is what this laws foundation is, it will further anger the people...And could very well jeopardize any hope in the future of "progressives" gaining power if the people wake up to how progressivism has crept into both parties to corrupt them.

Boo Radley · Oct 28, 2013

j-mac said:
I agree that today the effect of "legislating from the bench" is the process, but you agree that SCOTUS decisions can be reversed. As an example, we no longer have Dred Scott [sic], that holds true for amendments as well. No longer is prohibition in effect.

So, for yourself, as well as other democrats in agreement with the ACA, to argue that now this is a "right", or that it is "the law of the land", as in it can not be reversed, or that attempts to do so, are somehow bordering on illegal is laughably preposterous.

The SCOTUS hung the law going forward in the last argument over this was thin at best. It hung on the administration arguing that the "penalty", when during the entire time the bill was becoming law, the administration lied to the american people arguing that it wasn't. And then lying to the SCOTUS that it was a tax.

There will be other challenges to this law, I am confident of that, unless the make up of the government shifts to a republican control, and the law is repealed.

What you have to come to terms with, as well as other demo's, that this law, was one passed on a party line vote, that was not explained fully, or lied about in its explanation to the people, and didn't have the support of the people at any time in either its passage, or now in implementation. And as more and more of it is revealed, and the inherent unfairness of wealth re distribution that is what this laws foundation is, it will further anger the people...And could very well jeopardize any hope in the future of "progressives" gaining power if the people wake up to how progressivism has crept into both parties to corrupt them.

It is the law until changed. You, again, have to make a better argument. Not close down the government, or throw a tantrum, but make a better argument. I accept laws as laws, even those I disagree with. If I seek to change them, I make the argument. If my argument is heard and fails, I go back and seek a better one. I don't whine about the "activist" court. That is how the system works, and always has btw.

And all laws have had some explanation issues, some deceptive issues, lacking support from one party or the other, and needing other tweaks. None of this is new only seen under Obama. It's more par for the course. Whether either of us like that or not, it's disingenuous to only see it as it relates to this law or this president. It is the over the top exaggerations about Obama that cause me the most concern. We have a process, it was followed, and change also requires a process. Republicans should stop whining and simply follow the process.

j-mac · Oct 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
It is the law until changed. You, again, have to make a better argument. Not close down the government, or throw a tantrum, but make a better argument. I accept laws as laws, even those I disagree with. If I seek to change them, I make the argument. If my argument is heard and fails, I go back and seek a better one. I don't whine about the "activist" court. That is how the system works, and always has btw.

And all laws have had some explanation issues, some deceptive issues, lacking support from one party or the other, and needing other tweaks. None of this is new only seen under Obama. It's more par for the course. Whether either of us like that or not, it's disingenuous to only see it as it relates to this law or this president. It is the over the top exaggerations about Obama that cause me the most concern. We have a process, it was followed, and change also requires a process. Republicans should stop whining and simply follow the process.

I know that you don't like 'broken up' postings, so I'll try and be coherent as I respond in full.... I don't think that micro posting about what constitutes "a right" is anything helpful to the discussion, so I'll let that go. We all have to accept laws, as they are in place whether we agree with them or not, so on that point I do agree with you, however, to say that, or imply that a law, that is disputed in court all the way up to the SCOTUS, where the decision is rendered on an argument is 180 degrees from what it was sold as being, is what I think leads to that charge.

As for the process, all of the competing back and forth, and rhetoric is bound to be there when you have such political division, and derision promoted by an administration, and party in power used as a method to squelch opposition to a policy, or in this case a law. The charges of one party passage, and subterfuge in passing the law are absolutely correct, and fact. It is the tactic of blaming opposition on divisive charges of racism, or ideological disagreement cloud the issue of whether or not the law is good for the people, or why this particular law consistently fails to gain popular support outside ideological parameters. And I think that republicans are following the "process" which is why you saw the repubs after this most recent battle, back off, and move to a more pragmatic approach of letting the failure of the web site raise questions about administration commitment to the so called "signature achievement"... So we need to stay tuned.

Boo Radley · Oct 28, 2013

j-mac said:
I know that you don't like 'broken up' postings, so I'll try and be coherent as I respond in full.... I don't think that micro posting about what constitutes "a right" is anything helpful to the discussion, so I'll let that go. We all have to accept laws, as they are in place whether we agree with them or not, so on that point I do agree with you, however, to say that, or imply that a law, that is disputed in court all the way up to the SCOTUS, where the decision is rendered on an argument is 180 degrees from what it was sold as being, is what I think leads to that charge.

As for the process, all of the competing back and forth, and rhetoric is bound to be there when you have such political division, and derision promoted by an administration, and party in power used as a method to squelch opposition to a policy, or in this case a law. The charges of one party passage, and subterfuge in passing the law are absolutely correct, and fact. It is the tactic of blaming opposition on divisive charges of racism, or ideological disagreement cloud the issue of whether or not the law is good for the people, or why this particular law consistently fails to gain popular support outside ideological parameters. And I think that republicans are following the "process" which is why you saw the repubs after this most recent battle, back off, and move to a more pragmatic approach of letting the failure of the web site raise questions about administration commitment to the so called "signature achievement"... So we need to stay tuned.

I appreciate the not breaking up as I find more mistakes in reading take place when posters do that. The only think I don't follow is your use of the words what constitutes rights as I don't believe I used those words.

Now, as for your post. I assume the 180 degrees you mention is because Obama said it wasn't a tax and the courts said it was. That's more a case of semantics than is is a 180 degree difference. It's all in how you see the penalty. Little more than that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

However, we agree it is the law. That's plain. And no matter the "like" level, it remains the law. Political division wasn't invented by Obama, though I find the vitriol for him quite over the top. Even wild Bill Clinton didn't get this much heat over so little. And republicans step outside the process, closing down the process, all because they didn't get what they wanted. Don't get me wrong, democrats have not been, are not now, and never will be any better on the whole. But on this one issue, it was republicans who threw the temper tantrum. It may cost them. But they can't honestly call it proper.

I will ask this, how does the technical web site difficulties actually speak to the quality of the law itself? I agree Obama may suffer for it. But it says nothing about the law itself, does it?

j-mac · Oct 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I appreciate the not breaking up as I find more mistakes in reading take place when posters do that. The only think I don't follow is your use of the words what constitutes rights as I don't believe I used those words.

Now, as for your post. I assume the 180 degrees you mention is because Obama said it wasn't a tax and the courts said it was. That's more a case of semantics than is is a 180 degree difference. It's all in how you see the penalty. Little more than that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

However, we agree it is the law. That's plain. And no matter the "like" level, it remains the law. Political division wasn't invented by Obama, though I find the vitriol for him quite over the top. Even wild Bill Clinton didn't get this much heat over so little. And republicans step outside the process, closing down the process, all because they didn't get what they wanted. Don't get me wrong, democrats have not been, are not now, and never will be any better on the whole. But on this one issue, it was republicans who threw the temper tantrum. It may cost them. But they can't honestly call it proper.

I will ask this, how does the technical web site difficulties actually speak to the quality of the law itself? I agree Obama may suffer for it. But it says nothing about the law itself, does it?

On the 180 degrees I speak of you have that right, and promises mean something, words mean something don't they? So, when he sold this penalty to the people, he argued that this law, (bill at the time) didn't raise taxes, and in fact sold it as a way to reduce the deficit, when we now know both things at this point to be false. He then, under the direction taken in the SCOTUS, argued the exact opposite, that this penalty was not a fine, a penalty, or anything other than a tax. He NEVER would have gotten the support to pass it saying that.

Whether or not you think Obama gets unfair political treatment from his opponents is really a matter of opinion, and irrelevant to me. But, you are right in that the technical issues don't speak to the law itself directly, but they do speak to larger issues like how big government handles things. Not to mention the money wasted, and lack of accountability for the screw up, as is seemingly his M.O.... And just to say, that with the law that just had to wait 3 years after passing it to see it implemented, to have its face, its out front billboard if you will, for the people to use, see, and browse with is a total disaster, and experts say will have to be scrapped if there is to be any security, or proper use....We have to wonder what is upcoming, don't we?

Boo Radley · Oct 28, 2013

j-mac said:
On the 180 degrees I speak of you have that right, and promises mean something, words mean something don't they? So, when he sold this penalty to the people, he argued that this law, (bill at the time) didn't raise taxes, and in fact sold it as a way to reduce the deficit, when we now know both things at this point to be false. He then, under the direction taken in the SCOTUS, argued the exact opposite, that this penalty was not a fine, a penalty, or anything other than a tax. He NEVER would have gotten the support to pass it saying that.

Whether or not you think Obama gets unfair political treatment from his opponents is really a matter of opinion, and irrelevant to me. But, you are right in that the technical issues don't speak to the law itself directly, but they do speak to larger issues like how big government handles things. Not to mention the money wasted, and lack of accountability for the screw up, as is seemingly his M.O.... And just to say, that with the law that just had to wait 3 years after passing it to see it implemented, to have its face, its out front billboard if you will, for the people to use, see, and browse with is a total disaster, and experts say will have to be scrapped if there is to be any security, or proper use....We have to wonder what is upcoming, don't we?

Political promises don't mean squat for either party, not that you guys really have what was broken correct. And it really makes no difference how you frame the penalty. Whether it is a tax or a penalty, no one pays it who doesn't break the law. So it is disingenuous to pretend it is an across the board tax. This is part of what I mean about your side being a little disingenuous.

As for the shutdown practice. Do really think that didn't cost money? Wasn't felt? Not wasted? If you believe any of that, I would ask that you re-examine. And republicans have not been forth coming in taking accountability. What you blame Obama for in these terms is exactly the same as what your party does. That you seem to only be able to see it one way is what bothers me. True, you have no reason to care, but you should at least be able to admit the double standard you live by.

And frankly, there has been no real disaster yet. Nothing has really happened but a very poor sign up effort. other than that, the sky has not fell, the world is still going on largely as it was. Remember the story of the bot who cried wolf? That can happen to your side in a heart beat if the excessive and hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't calm down. The disaster you've predicted will be hard pressed to happen even if this bill is terrible. Which put you in the position of needing epic and historic failure to win. Think about sitting in that position.

j-mac · Oct 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Political promises don't mean squat for either party, not that you guys really have what was broken correct. And it really makes no difference how you frame the penalty. Whether it is a tax or a penalty, no one pays it who doesn't break the law. So it is disingenuous to pretend it is an across the board tax. This is part of what I mean about your side being a little disingenuous.

As for the shutdown practice. Do really think that didn't cost money? Wasn't felt? Not wasted? If you believe any of that, I would ask that you re-examine. And republicans have not been forth coming in taking accountability. What you blame Obama for in these terms is exactly the same as what your party does. That you seem to only be able to see it one way is what bothers me. True, you have no reason to care, but you should at least be able to admit the double standard you live by.

And frankly, there has been no real disaster yet. Nothing has really happened but a very poor sign up effort. other than that, the sky has not fell, the world is still going on largely as it was. Remember the story of the bot who cried wolf? That can happen to your side in a heart beat if the excessive and hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't calm down. The disaster you've predicted will be hard pressed to happen even if this bill is terrible. Which put you in the position of needing epic and historic failure to win. Think about sitting in that position.

Ok, 1st....

2. What do we have incorrect about it?

3. If it doesn't matter how you frame it, then why go to the trouble to totally change the approach to the SCOTUS?

4. Only in DC could a shutdown cost us more money, and yes it was wasted because our own party progressives sided with demo's, and allowed themselves to be used to undermine the outcome.

5. So because repubs failed to take accountability in your mind it is excusable for politicians you support to do the same eh? That is failed logic at an early age Joe....

6. Do you really think that everyone should think exactly like you do about everything? That would be awfully boring don't you think?

7. I think anyone reading my postings would say I have been if nothing else, consistent. BTW, you have as well.

8. "Yet" is the operative word here. Do we really have to wait for the disaster to hit before we do anything?

9. The whole plan depends on early sign up...

10. I remember the story...I also can see through delay tactics for negotiation as well...But I'll make you a deal, if this turns out that O-care does indeed work, and do all the things in the long run that you say, then I will acknowledge that, if you can do the same.

11. Of our conversation today, please show me where I am being hyperbolic.

12. I would rather not have been put in that position to start with, and that could have only happened with a demo side willing to actually work with the opposition, rather than continually use us as whipping boys, demonize us, and use repubs as cover for their own foul ups...

Whew....12 points in one post? And you wonder why people have to break up your postings?

Boo Radley · Oct 28, 2013

j-mac said:
Ok, 1st....

2. What do we have incorrect about it?

3. If it doesn't matter how you frame it, then why go to the trouble to totally change the approach to the SCOTUS?

4. Only in DC could a shutdown cost us more money, and yes it was wasted because our own party progressives sided with demo's, and allowed themselves to be used to undermine the outcome.

5. So because repubs failed to take accountability in your mind it is excusable for politicians you support to do the same eh? That is failed logic at an early age Joe....

6. Do you really think that everyone should think exactly like you do about everything? That would be awfully boring don't you think?

7. I think anyone reading my postings would say I have been if nothing else, consistent. BTW, you have as well.

8. "Yet" is the operative word here. Do we really have to wait for the disaster to hit before we do anything?

9. The whole plan depends on early sign up...

10. I remember the story...I also can see through delay tactics for negotiation as well...But I'll make you a deal, if this turns out that O-care does indeed work, and do all the things in the long run that you say, then I will acknowledge that, if you can do the same.

11. Of our conversation today, please show me where I am being hyperbolic.

12. I would rather not have been put in that position to start with, and that could have only happened with a demo side willing to actually work with the opposition, rather than continually use us as whipping boys, demonize us, and use repubs as cover for their own foul ups...

Whew....12 points in one post? And you wonder why people have to break up your postings?

1. Doesn't really address any point I made. Kind of silly actually.

2. I'm not sure thing you're asking about. The penalty is only given to those who break the law and not anyone else. So to pretend it's an across the board tax is dishonest, and to play gotcha on a technicality isn't much better.

3. This one doesn't make much sense. Lawyers made a case, put forth a few arguments. The court ruled. It's done.

4. Shutdowns coat everyone money. I thought you were a business guy. You never had a **** with it, and it was so damning to the public, republicans could never have held out longer.

5. Not my logic at all j. I'm actually pointing out that it's the logic you're putting forth. You seem to only hold Obama accountable.

6. Of course not, and have said no such thing. You even asking this implies you don't understand debate and discussion. Odd that you feel the need to throw this in.

7. Ok. Not sure what you want.

8. Well, you're acting like it's happened. You may not have noticed it, but these predictions have largely been wildly off.

9. Not really. There's still plenty if time.

10. Always. But it will likely be in the middle somewhere. I'm not expecting nirvana.

11. 180 degrees, when it's more semantics than anything else, and the complete disaster when nothing has actually happened. However, if you read it closely, I was going beyond just you. I said your side.

12. I, your side did much the same thing during the Bush years. There is virtually no difference between republicans and democrats on this.

And no, you really didn't have to do thus. Your were actually doing better before this.

j-mac · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
1. Doesn't really address any point I made. Kind of silly actually.

2. I'm not sure thing you're asking about. The penalty is only given to those who break the law and not anyone else. So to pretend it's an across the board tax is dishonest, and to play gotcha on a technicality isn't much better.

3. This one doesn't make much sense. Lawyers made a case, put forth a few arguments. The court ruled. It's done.

4. Shutdowns coat everyone money. I thought you were a business guy. You never had a **** with it, and it was so damning to the public, republicans could never have held out longer.

5. Not my logic at all j. I'm actually pointing out that it's the logic you're putting forth. You seem to only hold Obama accountable.

6. Of course not, and have said no such thing. You even asking this implies you don't understand debate and discussion. Odd that you feel the need to throw this in.

7. Ok. Not sure what you want.

8. Well, you're acting like it's happened. You may not have noticed it, but these predictions have largely been wildly off.

9. Not really. There's still plenty if time.

10. Always. But it will likely be in the middle somewhere. I'm not expecting nirvana.

11. 180 degrees, when it's more semantics than anything else, and the complete disaster when nothing has actually happened. However, if you read it closely, I was going beyond just you. I said your side.

12. I, your side did much the same thing during the Bush years. There is virtually no difference between republicans and democrats on this.

And no, you really didn't have to do thus. Your were actually doing better before this.

It's too many different points to address fully. You should keep it to a couple so we can have a meaningful discussion and not get carried away in all directions, ok? I'll let you go first.

Boo Radley · Oct 29, 2013

j-mac said:
It's too many different points to address fully. You should keep it to a couple so we can have a meaningful discussion and not get carried away in all directions, ok? I'll let you go first.

You're a funny dude.

There has been no disaster yet. That seems a simple enough point.

sKiTzo · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Now here you're factually incorrect. Since day one cases have come before the court and the court has been interpreting since the very beginning, with people disagreeing all along, and that was with the founding fathers still alive. So, you start off mistaken in your thinking.

You'll find different amendments that often are in conflict with one another. Equal protection is one that comes to mind. once it was made law, it had an effect on existing laws, even if there was no intent for it to. This is why conservatives are losing the same sex marriage battle.

This was exactly the response I expected from you. You didn't disappoint! Your response is nothing but generalization about how wrong I am and how right you are - but all I wanted were specific examples - that means cherry pick the exact words or phrases that you feel are "open to interpretation". The other claim you made was that the founding fathers "didn't anticipate the questions of today". You said equal protection comes to mind, which conflicts with previous amendments? So what you're really saying is that they didn't anticipate amendments that conflict with or seek to change previous amendments. Or, they did actually, and warned that we would have to protect against these future traitors.

Still waiting to discuss which part exactly you think might be open for interpretation. That means you're going to post the words, phrases, or paragraph that isn't clear in its meaning. Because that's what you do when you make a claim that someone disagrees with.

Boo Radley · Oct 29, 2013

sKiTzo said:
This was exactly the response I expected from you. You didn't disappoint! Your response is nothing but generalization about how wrong I am and how right you are - but all I wanted were specific examples - that means cherry pick the exact words or phrases that you feel are "open to interpretation". The other claim you made was that the founding fathers "didn't anticipate the questions of today". You said equal protection comes to mind, which conflicts with previous amendments? So what you're really saying is that they didn't anticipate amendments that conflict with or seek to change previous amendments. Or, they did actually, and warned that we would have to protect against these future traitors.

Still waiting to discuss which part exactly you think might be open for interpretation. That means you're going to post the words, phrases, or paragraph that isn't clear in its meaning. Because that's what you do when you make a claim that someone disagrees with.

Again, I think you're looking at it wrong. Neither one of us being Constitutional scholars, the best evidence of what I say is that it has been challenged from day one. If it were clear, do you think there would be so many challenges?

j-mac · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
You're a funny dude.

There has been no disaster yet. That seems a simple enough point.

True, and to be honest, "disaster" is a subjective term, is it not? The way in which the implementation is written into the law, the "disaster" (which I think is a strong term), may be a trickle, or a frog boiling exercise if you will, rather than a one time, all at once blast. And I think this was by design.

We see today, that millions of people in the individual markets are being told that their policies do not meet standards set forth in the law, and therefore will have to be dropped, and replaced with either plans through their carrier with plans that do meet the law, or from the exchange with plans that do. These plans put forth in a study recently by Heritage, show that in 45 out of 50 states will cost more, and in some cases much more. Employers have also started sending out letters, I got one myself, that stated explicitly, that premiums starting January 1 will go up 50% from a premium today that is $47.50 per week (my share), to $74.50 per week (my share), and although my office visit co pay, and prescription co pay will remain the same through 2014, my deductible will rise from $500. per year, before 80/20 kicks in, to $1000. per year, per individual in household. This is not what was sold to me, or maybe a better term is not what I heard in 2009 from President Obama, and Speaker (at the time) Nancy Pelosi was going to be the case. Also, in that letter I received, it also went into an explanation of how during the 2014 year, another recalculation would have to be done to ensure that our plans and what they covered would would meet standards of the PPACA, and if found that they had to be changed at that point the possibilities would be even higher costs, or dropping this coverage, and re writing the available plans to meet regulations, and standards of the PPACA.

Now, what that tells me, is that the individual plans are going through this now, and people being dropped, those with 'group plans' like myself, are going to go through this next year, and that is due to the waivers to business that were granted by Obama.

This to me signals a disaster, and a continuing one through the next couple of years, am I wrong?

Boo Radley · Oct 29, 2013

j-mac said:
True, and to be honest, "disaster" is a subjective term, is it not? The way in which the implementation is written into the law, the "disaster" (which I think is a strong term), may be a trickle, or a frog boiling exercise if you will, rather than a one time, all at once blast. And I think this was by design.

We see today, that millions of people in the individual markets are being told that their policies do not meet standards set forth in the law, and therefore will have to be dropped, and replaced with either plans through their carrier with plans that do meet the law, or from the exchange with plans that do. These plans put forth in a study recently by Heritage, show that in 45 out of 50 states will cost more, and in some cases much more. Employers have also started sending out letters, I got one myself, that stated explicitly, that premiums starting January 1 will go up 50% from a premium today that is $47.50 per week (my share), to $74.50 per week (my share), and although my office visit co pay, and prescription co pay will remain the same through 2014, my deductible will rise from $500. per year, before 80/20 kicks in, to $1000. per year, per individual in household. This is not what was sold to me, or maybe a better term is not what I heard in 2009 from President Obama, and Speaker (at the time) Nancy Pelosi was going to be the case. Also, in that letter I received, it also went into an explanation of how during the 2014 year, another recalculation would have to be done to ensure that our plans and what they covered would would meet standards of the PPACA, and if found that they had to be changed at that point the possibilities would be even higher costs, or dropping this coverage, and re writing the available plans to meet regulations, and standards of the PPACA.

Now, what that tells me, is that the individual plans are going through this now, and people being dropped, those with 'group plans' like myself, are going to go through this next year, and that is due to the waivers to business that were granted by Obama.

This to me signals a disaster, and a continuing one through the next couple of years, am I wrong?

While someone might call a flower out of place at a wedding reception a disaster, most reasonable people would not. So, yes, it is a strong term, a hyperbolic term in this case. Adjustments often make people uncomfortable, but to reach what would be a disaster, they ahve to be much worse off than they were. this is not likely. By most accounts, the insurance will be better not worse. More care will actually be paid for, and not merely randomly passed on to others, and and more people will actually get care.

Again, not a perfect bill, but the term disaster is decidedly misused here.

And logically there is no reason for your care to go up unless you're getting better care. If that is not the case, I suggest your issue is with your provider taking advantage of the situation. As more people will be enrolled, giving them more premiums, which should more than pay for preexisting conditions, the logic behind a major increase is just not there. Many years ago, before Obama, our costs doubled. This year, the total increase, with the penalty, was 2.5%. Hardly earth shaking, and less than the year before. So, I question these stories and why you're being taken advantage of.

When the smokes clear, I suspect this will all be more hype than substance.

j-mac · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
While someone might call a flower out of place at a wedding reception a disaster, most reasonable people would not. So, yes, it is a strong term, a hyperbolic term in this case. Adjustments often make people uncomfortable, but to reach what would be a disaster, they ahve to be much worse off than they were. this is not likely. By most accounts, the insurance will be better not worse. More care will actually be paid for, and not merely randomly passed on to others, and and more people will actually get care.

Again, not a perfect bill, but the term disaster is decidedly misused here.

And logically there is no reason for your care to go up unless you're getting better care. If that is not the case, I suggest your issue is with your provider taking advantage of the situation. As more people will be enrolled, giving them more premiums, which should more than pay for preexisting conditions, the logic behind a major increase is just not there. Many years ago, before Obama, our costs doubled. This year, the total increase, with the penalty, was 2.5%. Hardly earth shaking, and less than the year before. So, I question these stories and why you're being taken advantage of.

When the smokes clear, I suspect this will all be more hype than substance.

I just told you what was sent to me Joe....:shrug: I can't make you believe it, but I am not as trusting of government as you seem to be...

Boo Radley · Oct 29, 2013

j-mac said:
I just told you what was sent to me Joe....:shrug: I can't make you believe it, but I am not as trusting of government as you seem to be...

I didn't say you didn't. I said, there's no logical reason for it. I suggest that they may be taking advantage of you. Not that you were lying.

Nor does trusting the government have anything to with it. The government didn't send you the notification.

j-mac · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I didn't say you didn't. I said, there's no logical reason for it. I suggest that they may be taking advantage of you. Not that you were lying.

Nor does trusting the government have anything to with it. The government didn't send you the notification.

No, you're right. The government though does have a role here. And as for my logical application, I don't think that is fair for you to say. After all it isn't you getting this notice. That the insurance company is taking advantage? How? If their explanation is that they must comply with the law, how is it even their call?

Boo Radley · Oct 29, 2013

j-mac said:
No, you're right. The government though does have a role here. And as for my logical application, I don't think that is fair for you to say. After all it isn't you getting this notice. That the insurance company is taking advantage? How? If their explanation is that they must comply with the law, how is it even their call?

Nothing in the law really raises their costs. Not sure what you mean about your logical application. But the law does not say raise rates. And as they are getting new customers, getting more premiums, the likelihood that there would be legitimate reasons for a rate increase are small. Like I said, unless you are now getting better insurance.

And if I told students they need to pay me an extra $50 dollars a semester due to ACA, would you think they had the right to question me on it? What anyone says and what is should not be taken for granted. There has to be a logical rationale, and more specific than just the law being passed.

jmotivator · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Nothing in the law really raises their costs.

False. Full stop. Do not pass go.

They are required to carry anyone off the street even if insuring them is a guaranteed loss, and they are now required to include a host of other "freebees" like birth control and wellness visits and on and on. Would you please at least learn the ACA regulations before defending them? Thanks in advance.

j-mac · Oct 29, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Nothing in the law really raises their costs. Not sure what you mean about your logical application. But the law does not say raise rates. And as they are getting new customers, getting more premiums, the likelihood that there would be legitimate reasons for a rate increase are small. Like I said, unless you are now getting better insurance.

And if I told students they need to pay me an extra $50 dollars a semester due to ACA, would you think they had the right to question me on it? What anyone says and what is should not be taken for granted. There has to be a logical rationale, and more specific than just the law being passed.

If the ACA is mandating through either by law, or new regulation the coverage of more items that they didn't have to provide before, would you think that would cost more? or less? Further, better has nothing to do with it, who decides "better"? Isn't that, or shouldn't that be my choice?

Also, I think you are confusing just how much control I, individually have over a policy offered through my employer. Questions, in my experience, about coverage, or specific coverage's contained within the plan are negotiated between the employer, and the insurance company. My questions to the insurance company would result in them referring me back to my employer, who's explanation would simply be that was the best plan for the money that they could offer. So, really in the end no real answers for me, other than "well, that's what we offer, either you want it, or you don't."

Michael66 · Oct 29, 2013

jmotivator said:
False. Full stop. Do not pass go.

They are required to carry anyone off the street even if insuring them is a guaranteed loss, and they are now required to include a host of other "freebees" like birth control and wellness visits and on and on. Would you please at least learn the ACA regulations before defending them? Thanks in advance.

Good quality and all inclusive health care really is an evil thing to Americans isn't it! Why is that? Is it that Americans consider their poor and middle class fellow Americans less important in some way?

Americans expressing their feelings on good affordable health care for all sounds more like hate than anything else. There's just no logical reason for it. And expecially when affordable universal health care for all is much more cost effective. (statistically) Americans pay more than any other country in the entire world

When the teabaggers complain about paying too much taxes one would think that they would welcome the chance to pay less?

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

Computer Gaming Nerd