CNN Feed goes dead as Obamacare victims begin speaking

[rocket88]

Can you explain/define what an "obamacare victim" is. Maybe its just me but I'd call someone a "victim" who wasn't even allowed to buy insurance and or died from lack of care. thanks in advance.

It's someone killed by the death panels. #alternativefacts

 

[Aberration]

Can you explain/define what an "obamacare victim" is. Maybe its just me but I'd call someone a "victim" who wasn't even allowed to buy insurance and or died from lack of care. thanks in advance.

I consider myself an ACA "victim". I had insurance not through my employer. Even the Bronze ACA plan in Oregon was $300/mo more, for a higher deductible and higher out of pocket max. My plan was a supposed evil HSA and was cancelled. I certainly think being forced to pay more for less is being a victim of an ill thought out law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jmotivator]

I consider myself an ACA "victim". I had insurance not through my employer. Even the Bronze ACA plan in Oregon was $300/mo more, for a higher deductible and higher out of pocket max. My plan was a supposed evil HSA and was cancelled. I certainly think being forced to pay more for less is being a victim of an ill thought out law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don't count in Vern world.

 

[Moderate Right]

You don't count in Vern world.

Yep. Yet another anecdote falsehood according to Vern. There are no victims with Obamacare.

 

[reinoe]

Can you explain/define what an "obamacare victim" is. Maybe its just me but I'd call someone a "victim" who wasn't even allowed to buy insurance and or died from lack of care. thanks in advance.

I'm an Obamacare victim. I work in the insurance industry. Every paycheck for two years I had a "re-insurance fee" taken out of my paycheck in order to cover the costs associated with Obama's failed social engineering project. Just about everyone in the health insurance field has to pay such a fee. I am an Obamacare victim.

 

[Vern]

I consider myself an ACA "victim". I had insurance not through my employer. Even the Bronze ACA plan in Oregon was $300/mo more, for a higher deductible and higher out of pocket max. My plan was a supposed evil HSA and was cancelled. I certainly think being forced to pay more for less is being a victim of an ill thought out law.

I'm sorry you paid more Aberration. There are some people who were better off under the plan of "status quo" but that was only if they didn't lose their job. You do realize that your costs were actually subsidized by the fact that insurance companies could say no. And do you know that republicans sabotaging the risk corridor program and encouraging people to not sign up, made your premiums higher. But just so you know, the insurance company cancelled your plan rather than make it compliant. Let me ask you, if you think 20 million people gaining insurance, improving the quality of care and lowering the deficit is "ill thought out" you must really hate the replacement plan?

 

[Vern]

Yep. Yet another anecdote falsehood according to Vern. There are no victims with Obamacare.

MR, you keep leaving out the part that you repeatedly post falsehoods so I ignore anything you cant back up.

 

[Vern]

You don't count in Vern world.

jm, help me understand your obedient hatred of Obamacare. I think a few simple yes no questions will help us get to the bottom of it

Do you acknowledge that 20 million people gained insurance?
do you acknowledge that Obamacare reduces the deficit?
do you acknowledge that Obamacare has improved the quality of care?

So jm, just post your answers and we can discuss areas where you show a reality deficiency.

 

[Vern]

There were more people there that didn't tell their story. They were cut off.

I don't debate with people who talk so condescending to me, so have a good night.

You know, I don't like to debate people who post things that have no basis in fact and feign umbrage when confronted with reality. But since this is a debate forum I somehow manage to soldier on. Anyhoo the only story the other people could tell was about money. Now when you feel up to discussing actual victims who were helped by Obamacare, you come on back.

 

[holbritter]

You know, I don't like to debate people who post things that have no basis in fact and feign umbrage when confronted with reality. But since this is a debate forum I somehow manage to soldier on. Anyhoo the only story the other people could tell was about money. Now when you feel up to discussing actual victims who were helped by Obamacare, you come on back.

The purpose of this thread was that CNN has a habit of "technical difficulties" with news feeds when reporting on something that doesn't fit their agenda. So no, I'm not debating Obamacare with you. Start a different thread.

Off topic: the only story the other people could tell was about money I'd say money was pretty important. Isn't that one of the reasons for Obamacare in the first place? People couldn't afford insurance? These people are now hurt since their apparently unimportant money used for insurance has now risen.

 

[jmotivator]

jm, help me understand your obedient hatred of Obamacare. I think a few simple yes no questions will help us get to the bottom of it

Do you acknowledge that 20 million people gained insurance?

Yes. Do you acknowledge that in that same time the number of people delaying health care due to cost continues to rise? Do you acknowledge that the life expectancy in the US dropped? Do you acknowledge that premiums and deductibles skyrocketed? What good is healthcare you can't use?

do you acknowledge that Obamacare reduces the deficit?

No. Do you acknowledge that ACA has been a huge money sink for many Americans?

do you acknowledge that Obamacare has improved the quality of care?

No. See declining life expectancy and increasing delays to seek treatment due to cost.

So jm, just post your answers and we can discuss areas where you show a reality deficiency.

Yes, let's discuss your questions, and let's have you answer my questions.

 

[Moderate Right]

MR, you keep leaving out the part that you repeatedly post falsehoods so I ignore anything you cant back up.

You ignore that fact that there are many losers with Obamacare.

 

[Vern]

You ignore that fact that there are many losers with Obamacare.

once again you resort to the falsehoods to reply to me. I do ignore the personal stories from people who repeatedly post falsehoods out of some deluded loyalty to conservatism.

 

[Vern]

while you answered yes to the first question, based on your flailing response and reading comprehension you’re still a little reality deficient in that category. The two “no” answers show that you really want to cling to a false narrative.

Yes. Do you acknowledge that in that same time the number of people delaying health care due to cost continues to rise? Do you acknowledge that the life expectancy in the US dropped? Do you acknowledge that premiums and deductibles skyrocketed? What good is healthcare you can't use?

No (you have a reading comprehension problem). Yes (denying facts is a conservative thing). Skyrocketed? No. Not everybody who doesn’t get subsidies is paying more. The problem is you have to ignore the 90% Obamacare has helped, focus on the 10% that didn't get subsidies and then pretend the entire 10 %‘s premiums have skyrocketed. The last question isnt really a question. And your point ignores that its just a documented fact, uninsured people die at a higher rate.

No. Do you acknowledge that ACA has been a huge money sink for many Americans?

First off, nothing in the forbes “editorial” backs up the claim in the title. You have to understand, the conservative media knows most if not all conservatives rarely read past the title. He typed a lot of word and he has charts but again, the claim is not backed up. Please cut and paste the part that says “Obamacare increases the deficit”. Good luck. Anyhoo, healthcare has been a sinkhole (to borrow your hyperbole) for a long time but the ACA has made it better for 20 million people. And it’s lowered the deficit.

No. See declining life expectancy and increasing delays to seek treatment due to cost.

Well I already addressed your reading comprehension problem for the poll but if you’re going to need to do more than post “hey look” to link the surge in “heart disease and stroke, diabetes, drug overdoses, accidents” to Obamacare. And I do have to chuckle that “hey look” didn’t apply to a mortgage bubble that started 4 years into the Bush admin and the worst recession since the depression 7 years into his admin. But I digress.

As usual, "costs" are concern to conservatives. And I routinely point out the things republicans did to drive up the costs. I cant find any conservatives who want to discuss that. Do you want to discuss that? Oh should we review your answers to my questions now that I've cleared up some of your confusion?

 

[Vern]

The purpose of this thread was that CNN has a habit of "technical difficulties" with news feeds when reporting on something that doesn't fit their agenda. So no, I'm not debating Obamacare with you. Start a different thread.

Off topic: the only story the other people could tell was about money I'd say money was pretty important. Isn't that one of the reasons for Obamacare in the first place? People couldn't afford insurance? These people are now hurt since their apparently unimportant money used for insurance has now risen.

Er uh Hol, I know milo wants you to believe that CNN has a habit of “technical difficulties” and as a conservative you really want to believe whatever the conservative media tells you. Anyhoo, speaking of not believing reality, you’ve yet to address the fact that Obamacare got rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion. What do you think that means? If anybody could always buy insurance, why was it such a big deal and included in the republican plan?

Oh and Hol, if you were really “concerned” about people’s insurance costs you would be mad at republicans for sabotaging the risk corridor program, not expanding Medicaid and encouraging people to not sign up. But thanks to Obamacare, subsidies are tied to income and cost. So people receiving subsidies are protected from rising rates. The small number of people who don’t get subsidies are not all paying more. But if they are, they should thank republicans.

 

[holbritter]

Er uh Hol, I know milo wants you to believe that CNN has a habit of “technical difficulties” and as a conservative you really want to believe whatever the conservative media tells you. Anyhoo, speaking of not believing reality, you’ve yet to address the fact that Obamacare got rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion. What do you think that means? If anybody could always buy insurance, why was it such a big deal and included in the republican plan?

Oh and Hol, if you were really “concerned” about people’s insurance costs you would be mad at republicans for sabotaging the risk corridor program, not expanding Medicaid and encouraging people to not sign up. But thanks to Obamacare, subsidies are tied to income and cost. So people receiving subsidies are protected from rising rates. The small number of people who don’t get subsidies are not all paying more. But if they are, they should thank republicans.

it's like talking to a ****ing brick wall!

 

[jmotivator]

No (you have a reading comprehension problem).

No reading comprehension problem here. Do you know like that I acknowledged your statement? :roll:

Yes (denying facts is a conservative thing).

LOL. Says the guy that that can't seem to grasp that I acknowledged their question in the affirmative.

Skyrocketed? No.

Skyrocketed? Yes.

Not everybody who doesn’t get subsidies is paying more.

Cool, and by that same logic not everybody will lose health insurance under the GOP plan. See how that works? I'm guessing you will pretend not to.

The problem is you have to ignore the 90% Obamacare has helped

Bogus statistics pulled from your nether region is no way to win a debate, Vern. Please show your work that says that 90% of people are better off under Obamacare. I won't hold my breath.

focus on the 10% that didn't get subsidies and then pretend the entire 10 %‘s premiums have skyrocketed.

You are continuing your argument that you based on made up numbers. When you prove the premise get back to me.

The last question isnt really a question. And your point ignores that its just a documented fact, uninsured people die at a higher rate.

Wrong again. That last question is the most important question. Having health insurance is useless if you still can't afford to go to the doctor when you are sick and catastrophic illness still bankrupts you. All health insurance does for people who can't afford the deductible is force them to pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance they can't afford to use.

First off, nothing in the forbes “editorial” backs up the claim in the title. You have to understand, the conservative media knows most if not all conservatives rarely read past the title. He typed a lot of word and he has charts but again, the claim is not backed up. Please cut and paste the part that says “Obamacare increases the deficit”. Good luck. Anyhoo, healthcare has been a sinkhole (to borrow your hyperbole) for a long time but the ACA has made it better for 20 million people. And it’s lowered the deficit.

Proving you didn't read the article in question and commenting on it anyway is about as effective at making you look dumb as your attempt to pull fake statistics out of your butt like they help your argument.

Well I already addressed your reading comprehension problem for the poll but if you’re going to need to do more than post “hey look” to link the surge in “heart disease and stroke, diabetes, drug overdoses, accidents” to Obamacare. And I do have to chuckle that “hey look” didn’t apply to a mortgage bubble that started 4 years into the Bush admin and the worst recession since the depression 7 years into his admin. But I digress.

You said I had reading comprehension problems after I agreed with you. :lamo

As usual, "costs" are concern to conservatives. And I routinely point out the things republicans did to drive up the costs. I cant find any conservatives who want to discuss that. Do you want to discuss that? Oh should we review your answers to my questions now that I've cleared up some of your confusion?

As usual, costs aren't a concern to liberals, and the cost of insurance to those suffering under Obamacare are of no concern to you.

You really have taken a long and contentious road to only wind up agreeing with my statement that you don't care about Aberration's financial and medical hardships brought about by Obamacare. :roll:

 

[jmotivator]

it's like talking to a ****ing brick wall!

What did brick walls ever do to you?

Just remember that debating someone like Vern is not about convincing them, it's about convincing the audience. Folks like Vern are fun to debate because they are awful at connecting with the audience.

 

[holbritter]

What did brick walls ever do to you?

Just remember that debating someone like Vern is not about convincing them, it's about convincing the audience. Folks like Vern are fun to debate because they are awful at connecting with the audience.

That makes sense. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Aberration]

I'm sorry you paid more Aberration. There are some people who were better off under the plan of "status quo" but that was only if they didn't lose their job. You do realize that your costs were actually subsidized by the fact that insurance companies could say no. And do you know that republicans sabotaging the risk corridor program and encouraging people to not sign up, made your premiums higher. But just so you know, the insurance company cancelled your plan rather than make it compliant. Let me ask you, if you think 20 million people gaining insurance, improving the quality of care and lowering the deficit is "ill thought out" you must really hate the replacement plan?

The only reason losing your job is a problem is because employees don't really know the true cost of their insurance. I am completely in support of companies disclosing how much they pay and instead of offering extremely limited insurance choices, just giving that to the employee as part of their pay and letting them choose what to do with it.

Not sure what you are getting at with the insurance company saying no.

The point is the plan was better than ACA. So why was it not compliant? They canceled it because they then offered compliant plans. Which is in essentially no different than making my plan compliant.

If you think getting 20M people insured under a plan they can't afford the deductible for and so avoid coverage, at everyone else expense is thought out.... Yes I really hate the replacement plan. It costs more. Why would anyone be happy being forced to pay more for something so other people can benefit. They shouldn't have a right to the fruit of my labor. I worked hard to not be in the poverty of my parents, and few people have excuses to not have put in the same effort as me. And looking back, it wasn't all that much. 2 years of schooling after high school. Big whoop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Vern]

it's like talking to a ****ing brick wall!

hol, you posted a falsehood "Anyone could buy insurance before Obama care". Its just beyond pathetic that you'd rather whine about me, claim its off topic and "feign umbrage" rather than admit you're really don't have a firm grasp of the simple facts. This is not a chat room. Just so you know, I often post that when it comes time for conservatives (and conservative like posters) to choose integrity or narrative, they always choose narrative.

 

[holbritter]

hol, you posted a falsehood "Anyone could buy insurance before Obama care". Its just beyond pathetic that you'd rather whine about me, claim its off topic and "feign umbrage" rather than admit you're really don't have a firm grasp of the simple facts. This is not a chat room. Just so you know, I often post that when it comes time for conservatives (and conservative like posters) to choose integrity or narrative, they always choose narrative.

Really. Why don't you explain how it is a falsehood? What was stopping anyone from buying insurance before Obama care? And I'm not a conservative.

 

[Vern]

Okay JM, this may take a while and a few posts but I'm going to help you.

No reading comprehension problem here. Do you know like that I acknowledged your statement? :roll:

LOL. Says the guy that that can't seem to grasp that I acknowledged their question in the affirmative.

I clearly acknowledged you said yes. I then pointed out that you seemed determined to flail at that fact. Go back and read the first sentence of post 64 very slowly. As a conservative you brain functions to believe what it wants to believe. So you have work harder to understand simple concepts.

Now this is going to be even more difficult for you to grasp. You posted a link to a gallup with this blurb: "Do you acknowledge that in that same time the number of people delaying health care due to cost continues to rise?" This is funny yet sad for two reasons. Funny yet sad reason 1. the gallup poll showed a decline (that means it went down). Gallup disingenuously "misparaphased" the decline as " essentially the same". Funny yet sad reason 2. you somehow interpreted it as "continues to rise". A normal reasonable rational person would look at it and say "starts to decline". So lets review

You said "continues to rise"
Polling company disingenuously says " essentially the same"
Data shows a decline

that my friend is why I said you had a reading comprehension problem. JM, when I post something you shouldn't immediately look for an excuse to ignore it. Now let these facts soak in. Don't worry, we'll discuss the rest of your post. I just want you to give time to absorb this info.

 

[Vern]

Really. Why don't you explain how it is a falsehood? What was stopping anyone from buying insurance before Obama care? And I'm not a conservative.

Hol, insurance companies could refuse to offer you insurance not only due to a pre-existing conditions but even the appearance of a pre-existing condition. that's why getting rid of the "pre-existing condition" exclusion in Obamacare was such a big deal. the republican "replacement" plan even has a version of it. People not allowed to buy insurance were actual victims.

and I did not call you a conservative.

 

[holbritter]

Hol, insurance companies could refuse to offer you insurance not only due to a pre-existing conditions but even the appearance of a pre-existing condition. that's why getting rid of the "pre-existing condition" exclusion in Obamacare was such a big deal. the republican "replacement" plan even has a version of it. People not allowed to buy insurance were actual victims.

and I did not call you a conservative.

And there are insurance companies that will give them insurance if you pay them enough. Nothing is stopping someone from buying the extra coverage. Is it ideal? Of course not. But it can be done.