• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than half of employer based coverage illegal on Jan 1st

Are you serisouly making the claim the right doesn't demonize their opponents?

It seems clear I was saying that the woman in the video was demonizing her opponents. There is no need to guess.
 
This whole notion that the employer is now responsible, for fixing what ACA is ****ing up, is perposterous!

In no way am I claiming the employer is responsible, but in my example they are far from the victim.

The discussion should be entirely focused on why ACA is coming in a making existing plans illegal, and why that is the problem.

I wouldn't call this the problem, but it most definitely is a problem with the law.
 
OK everybody. NOW can we all agree that the Democrats and Obama are incompetent thieving idiots?
 
I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. In my example it's clear (to me anyways ;)) that the employer is using Obamacare as an excuse to cut the employees compensation package. I am in no way happy with how this law is turning out. The thing to me though about these stories is they stop short of the whole story. They report that employers plans are illegal under Obamacare and they have to drop them. I haven't seen any stories that ask if the employer is going to a different plan or is changing their compensation package to compensate.

To say that "using it as an excuse" is a little disingenuous. The government has incentivized business to do just that, and just like with the HHS regulations for insurance plans, its intentional.

For the exchanges to work, they need to get as many people off traditional individual(small business, self-employed, etc) and group(employer-based) policies and onto the exchanges. Without the additional bodies, the exchanges will be essentially high risk, high use policy holders only, which will drive up the costs. The government also needs additional dollars from penalties to pay for the subsidies, and making it attractive for businesses to pay them is the easiest, and populist, way to achieve that goal.

Without the additional penalty money and larger population on the exchange, not only will the costs to those that purchase be too high, but the government tab will be too.
 
Who do you have? I have Anthem Blue Cross, Blue shield and my plans are going up $50 per month for the same co-pay and deductible?

Good for you. I told you what I was comparing...Go back and read it again.
 
Good for you. I told you what I was comparing...Go back and read it again.

I simply asked a question, and no I don't give enough a **** about you to go find out through previous posts. Have fun.
 
I simply asked a question, and no I don't give enough a **** about you to go find out through previous posts. Have fun.

The feeling is mutual. But, have the integrity to do your own research, thanks.
 
The feeling is mutual. But, have the integrity to do your own research, thanks.

I'm glad your costs went up. Just for you I hope they skyrocket.
 
I'm glad your costs went up. Just for you I hope they skyrocket.

I'd take your bait if I didn't think you'd go runnin' off to mommy and daddy. You feel so strongly, don't address me anymore, and I'll do the same.
 
I'd take your bait if I didn't think you'd go runnin' off to mommy and daddy. You feel so strongly, don't address me anymore, and I'll do the same.
Barrack Obama has really brought Americans back together again, hasn't he?

"In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long".

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals."

It doesn't seem to have come off as planned.
 
That's another lie

Changes to plans may result in a plan losing it's grandfathered status but it can't result in someone losing coverage altogether.

LOL. That's really funny. People lose their health insurance because of the law and the same law makes insurance more expensive. The "result" will be millions of people without health insurance because of simple math as it relates to what a person can afford.
 
LOL. That's really funny. People lose their health insurance because of the law and the same law makes insurance more expensive. The "result" will be millions of people without health insurance because of simple math as it relates to what a person can afford.

No one is losing coverage because of the law, but millions will now have coverage because of the law.
 
Morning j.

Let's look at it this way. If you lose your employer based health insurance because it is deemed no longer legal under the PPACA and your employer choses not to get a different (and legal) plan forcing you to go to the exchange to get your health insurance without giving you a raise equal to the amount of their contribution to your health insurance they are effectively giving you a pay cut. In that scenario your employer is the bad guy and not the PPACA.

LOL. A person's employer is not in business to provide insurance for anyone. Many times they do if it's in their best interest to do so. When it becomes unaffordable for an employer to do so because of this law, it is the government that is the bad guy. As usual.
And that "effective" pay cut one might get would be the employees price he has to pay for the government doing something it had no business doing, fining the employer.
 
No one is losing coverage because of the law, but millions will now have coverage because of the law.

Go right on believing that. In the meantime, consider signing up for a class in math or budgeting. Just as soon as you grasp the concept of either, you will have the ability to understand why people are losing coverage because of this law.
 
No one is losing coverage because of the law, but millions will now have coverage because of the law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-jarrett-says-nothing-obamacare-forces-peop/

Our ruling

Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."

Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.
 
Losing a plan is not the same as losing coverage

Depends on your definition of coverage. Most media outlets( CBS, ABC, NBC ) are equating "lose your plan" with "losing coverage".
 
And you always believe what the media says! Amirite?

Do you think the story is a lie? The woman gave her name and the city where she lives so its easy to enough to track her down. When you do you can tell her what a great thing Obamacare is and that she must be mistaken, that Barrack Obama himself promised it would she would be looked after.

There is no hope.
 
Do you think the story is a lie? The woman gave her name and the city where she lives so its easy to enough to track her down. When you do you can tell her what a great thing Obamacare is and that she must be mistaken, that Barrack Obama himself promised it would she would be looked after.

There is no hope.

:doh Forget it...Not worth the points. :peace
 
Do you think the story is a lie? The woman gave her name and the city where she lives so its easy to enough to track her down. When you do you can tell her what a great thing Obamacare is and that she must be mistaken, that Barrack Obama himself promised it would she would be looked after.

There is no hope.

I think it's only half the story

And Obama didn't force any insurer to cover her doctors, or force her doctors to refuse to accept her coverage
 
Back
Top Bottom