• 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!

FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

You apparently dont realize that this is not necessarily true, as realizing anticipated results do not necessitate a well-designed plan...


No, I fully inderstand that you will defend The Obama, regardless.

Still editing out anything that might be harmful to your point I see. And I find it amusing you claim I will defend Obama regardless, when I have been critical of him, and when you have done nothing but search desperately to criticize him, up to and including just making crap up.
 
The issue of rationing health care is bogus!

In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Right now, the only entity that does that is your insurance company.

From my point of view, an advisory board is a tool to help keep health insurance companies honest because then they'd have someone looking over their shoulders.

The notion that ANY existing Government program on the planet earth does not require rationing is absurd in the extreme.

What you and others, who naively support Government run healthcare for reasons that anyone with a modicum of logic cannot begin to fathom, attempt to argue is that it must be BAD if Insurance companies attempt to control costs by negotiating with healthcare professionals on behalf of their insurers and whom may only allow certain levels of care but it is GOOD if faceless Government entities ration care by doing the EXACT same thing.

FACT: You cannot provide 300 million citizens unrestricted health care without some form of cost control and rationing.

FACT: Government controlled programs cannot be stopped, you cannot end them, fire them or even reform them because it is the GOVERNMENT; see Government history with exiting programs like SS, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and veterans administration.

FACT: Insurance companies can indeed be FIRED and you can CHOOSE to go elsewhere if there is competition thus maintaining quality as well as cost controls.

I am stunned and confused how any educated intelligent being on this planet with a modicum of honesty can argue FOR Government run programs when there is so much evidence of how massively ill equipped they are to manage ANYTHING, particularly their own budgets.

:roll:
 
Still editing out anything that might be harmful to your point I see.
Your red herrings, by definition, are not relevant, and therefore cannot be hamful to my point.

And I find it amusing you claim I will defend Obama regardless, when I have been critical of him...
Yes... which is why you so desperately refuse to ctiticize him for putting gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road.
:roll:
 
Except you are ignoring that I stated the program did exactly what it was designed to do. That is a well designed program.

clunkers, well conceived?

maybe, maybe not

but it sure appears to be HORRIBLY executed

and EXECUTION is kinda the IMPORTANT part, no?

i mean anyone can sit back in air conditioned offices and CONCEIVE of things, can't they?

according to democrat joe sestak, ms pelosi and pals have only kicked out TWO PERCENT of the money they've promised to dealers who've stuck their necks out based on congress' promises

and FOUR OF FIVE applications have been turned down for either this or that technicality

pelosi is treating car dealers exactly the same way obama treats members of his party---stick your neck out for me, even if you might get your head chopped off

Auto Dealers Paid for Just 2 Percent of 'Clunkers' Claims, Congressman Says - Political News - FOXNews.com
 
Two for the price of one. Like I said, I had my own business for many years and became intimately familiar with insurance laws and practices. My sister has been a benefits manager at several major corporations for many years.

It's not just BCBS. Do you think they would have this policy if they didn't have to??



The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has very specific requirements that health insurance companies and companies must follow.

talloulou, your stepfather can have uninterrupted coverage as long as your mother has continuous coverage for 63 days.... no questions asked.

I believe folks are raising a ruckus because they are uninformed. Asking your agent questions and doing a little research does wonders. This law has been in effect since 1996.

I looked into this and you are absolutely right. I even called my mother to let her know all her "fear" about how they will ensure my stepdad if she ever lost her job is unnecessary. She apparently knew about this law. Her fear stems from the time limit. If she lost her job and didn't get a new one within a specified time period and her Cobra ran out then my dad would be a new subscriber and could be denied coverage by most insurers at that point. And she pointed out one also has to be able to lose their job while simultaneously affording to keep Cobra as long as possible.

So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.:2wave:
 
Your red herrings, by definition, are not relevant, and therefore cannot be hamful to my point.


Yes... which is why you so desperately refuse to ctiticize him for putting gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road.
:roll:

SUVs and trucks that are more efficient than the ones replaced. No increase in gas demand as you claim. Go ahead though and look foolish. it's all on you.
 
SUVs and trucks that are more efficient than the ones replaced. No increase in gas demand as you claim. Go ahead though and look foolish. it's all on you.
Looking foolish is not being able to uderstand that "better" mileage can still be "piss poor' mileage.
 
I looked into this and you are absolutely right. I even called my mother to let her know all her "fear" about how they will ensure my stepdad if she ever lost her job is unnecessary. She apparently knew about this law. Her fear stems from the time limit. If she lost her job and didn't get a new one within a specified time period and her Cobra ran out then my dad would be a new subscriber and could be denied coverage by most insurers at that point. And she pointed out one also has to be able to lose their job while simultaneously affording to keep Cobra as long as possible.

So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.:2wave:

A friend of mine had a heart attack after losing her job then her Cobra ran out or maybe she could not afford it any more. I can not remember which but it hit her really hard when all this happened being uninsured anymore. She lost her truck her apartment. Everything is working itself out now. She moved in with a very generous long term friend and has since found work that provides insurance.
 
Looking foolish is not being able to uderstand that "better" mileage can still be "piss poor' mileage.

Better but still piss poor does not result in an increase in fuel demand as you claimed.
 
While I appreciate the work you put into this post (and, understand that I am genuine asking for information), doesnt all of this assume that there -is- a reduction in premiums?

Lets say you pay $10k for insurance per year, which nets you a $1500 savings in taxes. To break even, don't your premoums have to drop by $1500?

How do you know that will happen?
Actually, that concern reduces to zero.

Assume that insurance premiums do not drop, and 100% of current premium cost is transferred to the worker's pocket instead of the employer's. Assume also zero opportunities for administrative efficiencies and similar indirect savings. Shifting the tax advantage on insurance premiums from employer to employee, with zero cost reduction, would equate to a transfer of premium cost to labor cost--payrolls would necessarily rise to match. The net compensation of the employee remains the same, the net income of the employer remains the same, and the tax burden remains the same.

The worst case scenario, then, is for zero change in tax burden on businesses (employers) on direct expense alone.

This oversimplification ignores administrative efficiencies, and even ignores the fact that some employees would prefer more disposable income to health insurance from their employer, both of which are indirect benefits of such a reform.

Something that has at worst zero economic impact on businesses and provides greater flexibility and a broader market for health insurance is, even in the worst case, a net positive.
 
Better but still piss poor does not result in an increase in fuel demand as you claimed.
You may continue to excuse The Obama at your leisure. I shan't stop you.

-I- will wait unil gas goes up again, and when you're among the first to blame all the SUVs on the road for creating the demand that raised those prices, I will remind you that you supported The Obama and His efforts to put them there.
 
here is some garbage for you to peruse, highlighted by Greta van Susteren

VAN SUSTEREN: This is to show that you understand because the president wants transparency. "Section 133, requiring information transparency and planned disclosure." That's a good idea. (INAUDIBLE) OK. "A, accurate and timely disclosure. Subsection 1. In general, a qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the commissioner for the accurate and timely disclosure of plan documents, plan terms and conditions, claims, payment policies and practices, periodic financial disclosure, data on enrollment, data on disenrollment, data on the number of claims denial"...

(LAUGHTER)

VAN SUSTEREN: ... "data on rating practices, information on cost sharing and payments with respect to any out of network coverage and other information as determined appropriate by the commissioner. The commissioner shall require that such disclosure be provided in plain language" -- is my favorite! And then goes on to talk about plain language, which I just want to read for a second. "Plain language section 2. As defined in this subsection, the term plan language means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because the language is clean, concise, well organized and follows other best practices of plain language (INAUDIBLE)" -- these people are insane! These people are totally insane!
The Health Care Bill: Lost in Translation - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta - FOXNews.com
 
I looked into this and you are absolutely right. I even called my mother to let her know all her "fear" about how they will ensure my stepdad if she ever lost her job is unnecessary. She apparently knew about this law. Her fear stems from the time limit. If she lost her job and didn't get a new one within a specified time period and her Cobra ran out then my dad would be a new subscriber and could be denied coverage by most insurers at that point. And she pointed out one also has to be able to lose their job while simultaneously affording to keep Cobra as long as possible.

So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.:2wave:

Those are all valid fears. The law is not perfect, but it's better than nothing. If your mother wants to change jobs, she should definitely have new one lined up before quitting the one she has now. Cobra could tie her over for a couple of months if she had to use it, but it is very expensive.

The good thing about Cobra is that you have 60 days to enroll in it. I've left that option open a few times til my new insurance became effective. If a tragic illness had occurred before the 60 day deadline or before my new coverage started, I could have elected Cobra coverage.
 
Back
Top Bottom