Flashback to Obama 2010: Under ObamaCare Your Premiums Will Fall “By As Much As 3000%”
As ObamaCare continues to crack up, and premiums are set to soar an average of 22% next year — and as much as 116% in Arizona — it’s just good fun to sit back, relax, and press play as we watch President Obama circa 2010 tell us that our premiums are going down by as much as 3000%:
For Americans who get their insurance through the workplace — how many people are gettin’ insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right, well, a lot of those folks — your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000% which means they could give you a raise!
That’s not a typo. He said three thousand percent.
(OK, OK. The White House later said Obama misspoke. He meant to say annual premiums would fall by $3000. Yeah, well, that didn’t happen either.)
As a bonus, he also said this in the same speech, delivered in Strongsville, Ohio on March 15, 2010:
So if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Remember that one? I thought you might! Wow, that “misspeaking” problem of his is really bad, huh?
I hope you all enjoyed this stroll down memory lane. The silver lining is that, once Hillary or Trump (OK, Hillary) gets into office, at least this guy has to leave.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
No, I did not keep my plan. Nobody did. The “ACA-compliant” requirement made that a lie from the beginning. And apart from the lie, it’s what’s driving up the cost of the premiums.
nk (dbc370) — 10/25/2016 @ 9:32 pmYou fool, hillary = obama.
otto (6617e7) — 10/25/2016 @ 9:42 pmbtw there will be death panels, I wish someone had told us this earlier, elizabeth mcgaughey, certainly left enough clues,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/25/2016 @ 9:53 pmand a parallelism,
https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/status/791042743497785345
narciso (d1f714) — 10/25/2016 @ 10:23 pmObamacare failing with a Democrat in the White House — and unable to fix it — is about the one positive I can see from a Clinton presidency.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/25/2016 @ 10:23 pmAnd even if your carrier is solvent, the market is in chaos. I have talked to so many people who no longer can see their doctors, who can’t even find one in network. Doctors’ offices don’t know what networks they are in, hospitals don’t….chaos. Surgeries are canceled, then reset. Thanks to He Who Must Not Be Named.
Our intrepid news class is puzzled as to why this is happening.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/cbs-anchors-bewildered-obamacare-percent-premium-hikes-happened/
Patricia (5fc097) — 10/25/2016 @ 10:29 pmWould those of you who are self employed tell us the amount of your monthly insurance payment and your deducible.
It is amazing that none of this ever falls back on Obama. I think the media feels like it is the Republicans’ fault for not helping him. This is just going to get worse but apparently not for Obama.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/25/2016 @ 10:41 pmUmmmm,
ObamaCare “failing” with a Dem in the WH is a planned feature,
Not a bug
And leads to govt. as single payor
And Canadians have no place to go for their health care.
Or do you think the public has become smarter since 2010?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/26/2016 @ 4:33 amWasn’t there a certain poster here for a while (Caylee Bovee) that was a huge fan of Obamacare and others things that the Free S*** Army wanted? Haven’t seen her around in a while – must be having problems making ends meet due to her Obamacare policy costing so much…
Pimp Daddy Welfare (9a4346) — 10/26/2016 @ 5:42 amClean up your mess, Obama and Democrats.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/2015-02-05_1647-two-responses-to-isis.jpg
Colonel Haiku (43fb26) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:00 amThat was true, as far as it went.
What he didn’t say, is that your plan might not keep you, that is, might not still be around. But once Obamacare was in place, nobody would be kicked off any plan, or even denied coverage. That is true. (you’ve got to realize the way Obama thinks, so he can live with himself)
That one was closer to the truth, but not absolute. Your doctor might decide to retire, or might go private (not accept any insurance) or only accept coverage from insurance you didn’t have, and the way Obamacare worked there were many more narrow networks, something people don’t like at all.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:14 amno sammeh, the law fundamentally transformed the plans, so no plan could be compatible, honestly that would be enough to stop listening to any promise he ever made,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:16 amPatricia (5fc097) — 10/25/2016 @ 10:29 pm
It wasn’t actually a requirement of Obamacare that there be narrow networks. But the economics heavily promoted that.
Now I don’t know if Obama was too oblivious or ignorant of details to realize that. I don’t know if he understands even today.
He’s never understood why people didn’t like HMOs in the 1990s.
As far as he’s concerned, every doctor is just like every other doctor (assuming he’s been licensed) He’s never picked them, so anyone wanting a particular doctor is just prejudiced (in the general, not specifically racial or sexual way)
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:22 amOf course Barack knew it would fail — that was the strategy; pass a law which would necessitate insurers to drastically raise the premiums.
Then the Democrats would say, “See, we passed a law called the Affordable Care Act, and now the insurance companies are taking advantage of it by milking everyone! This private insurance industry is broken. Therefore, we need a system like they have in England!”
And all the trained Low Information Voters will clap!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:31 amthe problem is more the supply of doctors, which this bill didn’t address,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:35 am12. narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:16 am
But Obama wasn’t talking about
the plan keeping you. He was talking about you keeping your plan. This was a difference Obamacare had with Hillarycare in 1994, where indeed you could get kicked off your insurance if you moved, or lost your job, or waited too long to re-enroll when the annual re-enrollment period came along, as under Hillary’s 1994 plan, each health maintaence organization would have a quota of peopele it was allowed to have.
Well, actually most of his arguments on any disputed subject were specious. You didn’t need to wait for that.
People just didn’t listen carefully. When he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” he was only speaking from the viewpoint of the customer. Obviously, no one could keep a plan that an employer cancelled, or that ceased to be offered, and there was nothing in prior law that mandated that any insurance that was once offered continued to be made available indefiniitely. Obamacare didn’t change that. That’s all that he was saying.
This was not something that meant nothing – this was a distinction from the 1994 Clinton plan, where indeed you might not be able to stay on a plan that was still being offered.
Under Hillarycare a person might have to change plans and doctors everytime they moved across a health alliance boundary, or, in some cases, when they lost their job if they were getting insurance through their job, and bigger companies might still do that, or if they waited too long to decide what plan to take during the annual enrollment period and their old plan was oversubscribed.
The Democrats killed that bill because it was so horrible, but they didn’t alert the voters, so they lost control of Congress because Bill Clinton, in trying to make the Republican Party look extremely partisan because not one Reublican voted for his budget and taxes, actually wound up making the Democratic Party look partisan, because people weren’t born yesterday and they realized that not one Republican voted for probably was bad and it the Democratic Party that was partisan because so many Democrats voted for it. People were afraid of what legislation a Democrat controlled Congress might pass. And the same thing in 2010 and 2014. And what’s now a potent issue.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:45 amWhen will liberals answer for Obamacare’s failures?
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:47 amThe strategy was to move from one thing to another, but not because this was going to fail. More like the Civil Rights bill of 1957.
They are not talking about a system like they have in England, but like what they have in Canada. But any kind of government paid insurance runs up against the desire to save money by not paying for things, and we get into death [anels, at least for types of treatment, if not individuals.
Obama probably truly did not anticipate that insurance companies would not simply change their plans and charge higher premiums, but drop them altogether. He didn’t understand anything about the health care market, and still doesn’t, and doesn’t want to.
When he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” he was speaking legally, not practically. (He also ignored that many plans would be non-ACA compliant and would have to be changed, although he didn’t anticipate that they might change in way so that people would not be able to keep their doctor, or that premiums would vastly increase.
The supply of doctors in another issue. The simplest way to handle this is to pay for the cost of medical school off the top. Up to maybe let’s say the 85th percentile of whatever medical schools charge. Otherwise, one way or another people will be paying for that anyway, only double or triple.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:50 amBlame Republicans.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:52 amObama will pick up any argument handed to him by credentialed people without thinking it through.
The thing wrong with dropping “by as much as 3,000%” is that in some cases, it would drop to zero, and you can’t divide by zero.
What really gets me is his calmness about consigning people to Medicaid. Which has some clawbacks provisions, by the way, and some other requirements.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:54 amN
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:55 amSammy, if there were so many people who couldn’t afford insurance, why wasn’t the Democrats’ plan to just expand Medicaid?
(I’ve got my popcorn and soda — I’m ready.)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:55 amThe problem is ignoring established insurance protocols by accepting preexisting conditions, elective procedures and covering items so low in cost they don’t require insurance in the first place and all they do is pump up premiums.
No insurance can “buy” a claim, that is no insurance can insure someone who already has a loss and that is what buying preexisting conditions is. It’s like trying to buy homeowners after the fire or life insurance after you die. They want to cover your health after you’re sick and that’s doomed to failure. Preexisting conditions should be in a high risk pool (like bad drivers are) and all the insurance companies along with government (to cover their policyholders) put money in to cover the costs.
Also under no circumstances should elective surgery or sex change operations, vasectomy’s, nose jobs, liposuction, hair transplants and other beautification procedures be covered. Neither should birth control pills, condoms or aspirin. These items are strictly personal and inexpensive. Insurance is to cover catastrophic loss not a $24 birth control pill especially for an 80 year old man.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:00 amNow it’s not like the Republicans have any thought-through alternative. And it’s not easy to figure out what to do.
There might be an obscure person or two who has a solution that would work and satisfy people, but it’s not getting any attention.
Competition across state lines just won’t cut it.
The problem:
Medical care has to be:
1) Available to everyone, as much as is needed.
2) Inexpensive to most people.
3) Costs cannot be contained if the government, or even insurance pays most of most medical bills. If the government does pick up costs, it will inevitably, after a few years, try to ration care.
4) Availability of needed medical care cannot be achieved by making sure everyone has X number of dollars to spend, because needs are different.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:01 amBecause “Obama probably truly did not anticipate …” is why free markets should be favored.
Obama very cleverly kicked people out of their health care plans by requiring all sorts of coverage that the consumer would not necessarily purchase if given the freedom to do so.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:04 amHeh, heh, heh.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:05 amso all plans must have maternity coverage, except for those most likely to use it, all must have birth control, but there isn’t a mandate on say dental, it’s like a picasso painting in hell!
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:08 amObama’s a lawyer and like most lawyers he figures once he completed law school he was an expert in law, economics, education, health care, health insurance, medicine, automobiles, climate change, light bulbs, infrastructure, the military, sexual relations, construction, agriculture and oh, hell everything.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:10 am“Now it’s not like the Republicans have any thought-through alternative.”
Really?
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:11 amactually he doesn’t understand how auto insurance works, (he should do ads for liberty mutual), or much of anything beside alinsky strategies,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:12 amMaternity coverage should be optional but if you don’t take it you will not be covered if you get pregnant. Dental insurance should be sold separately because everybody does not have teeth and most, not all, most dental costs are not high enough for insurance. Glasses should never be covered they add unneeded costs to everybody’s premiums for a $200 item every few years that about 30% use. Insurance should cover the high stuff not a cheap pair of glasses.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:15 amThe main justification for Obamacare was to give everyone health insurance. An estimated one in 10 or 29 million are uninsured.
So from a cost-benefit analysis, was Obamacare worth it? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:16 amSammy,
Costs will always be rationed as long as someone else is paying for it.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:19 amThat’s how the world works.
You realize that, right?
it’s the spring surprise, I was just considering what might be necessary prerequisites,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:20 amRev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:00 am
Not tradional insurance.
However, you can insure the uncertainty.
The government can pick up pre-existing costs, and pay for it by taxation. If every person is assigned an assumed cost, and theer is an incentive to estimate that right, the cost aboive that can be insured. Even the worst cases can be insured. You just need a $1 million deductible or something. I have some ideas.
Taxes would be collected, and then a rebate of X number of dollars given per person, perhaps adjusted by age and sex.
There would be an element of being given a minimum amount given to spend. If not spent 65% of it could be rolled over for one year. If not spent the second year, whatever is left from the first year could be used to buy medical care gift cards. A Doctor or practice would be limited in how much in gift cards it could sell, because if it was too high they might not be able to ffulfill their obligations. This would be say the first $850 a year in expenses.
Then we get the doughnut hole. There would be a maximum size to the donight hole. Expenses could be paid for:
1) The remainder of the rebate not used to pay for insurance
2) Borrowing from the federal government, to be paid back through the income tax sstem – maybe a maximum of $3,000. No interest for 3 years.
3) Privately borrowing from credit card companies. Maximum rate. Some won’t be eligible.
4) Paying for it by having it reduce future Social Security benefits. The government will lose something on this because some people will die.
Maximum let’s say of $30,000 a yearm $90,000 a lifetime.
Everything else insured. Everyone charged the same premium, but not given the swme deductible. Insurance cases auctioned off to the lowest bidder. Government pays all expenses above the standard deductible (minus the bid)
The problem is determining wo truly belongs in he high risk pool. I would use expenses the previous year or two. This is somewaht essy to determine but does leave some cases where people suddenly need coverage. But eerybody would get the $5,000 or so. If not used for insurancem it would turn into medical gift cards.
Hard to avoid. The government should be in the business of determining what is necessary and what is not. It’s even difficult to determine what is medical care and what is something else. We can only go by the majority of what the business does.
Maybe different kinds of insurance with different premiums, but everybody getting the same money and being charged the same premium and differences between risks of different people being recognized only through differences in the deductible.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:23 ampeas in a pod,
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/hillary-2007-you-can-keep-your-doctor-and-plan-if-you-like-it/#comments
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:23 amSure we did. Leave Medicaid for the poor, Medicare and supplements for the elderly and the free market for everyone else. All we needed was to pass a law making insurance transferrable between states and allowing associations to form groups. The industry would flourish and the care would be the envy of the world (which it already was just the left refused to admit it). The problem occurred because the left suddenly decided EVERYONE has to have health insurance whether they want it or not and it all has to be the same because discrimination.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:23 amhttps://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN12O2ON
Chaser to the shot about rate hikes. Folks are finding that the PPACA discriminating against older citizens.
Charles (c8cd6c) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:27 amCruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:19 am
It’s got to matter to buyer at the point of purchase, so much so that medical costs are advertosed
Riht now only 12% of medical costs matter at the time of purchaee. Tioo low. It’s got to be 70% or 80% and 30% or 40% of the people have to recognize quality too.
I think I have devised a system in which 1) other people pay for most of it, and yet 2) costs matter to the buyer but also 3) There is no strong incentive to avoid spending money for medical care for yourself or your family.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:27 amHere’s a little math to shed some light on magnitude of this lie.
Decreasing the premium by ONLY 100% would reduce the premium to zero.
Decreasing the premium by 3000% means that if your premium was $500.00/month before Obamacare, then the insurance company would not charge you anything to provide your coverage, in fact, they will pay you $14,500.00/month and provide your health insurance.
Mike S (89ec89) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:28 amack caught a little of her hooping,
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/mika-elizabeth-warren-on-the-warpath-for-hillary/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:29 amSF @29.“Now it’s not like the Republicans have any thought-through alternative.”
37. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:23 am
Not good. Medical care is unaffordable to most people. The market is broken.
Do you go see a doctor in another state? Sometimes, yes.
Indeed, insurance causes oover-consumption. People who were poor but needed emergency medical care always got put on Medicaid at the time when they needed it retroactively. Now they want everyone eligible to get it. This does not improve medical outcomes, but drives up the amount of money spent..
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:31 amPeople will accept catastrophic care with low promiums, or moderately high premiums with aspirin covered, but not oth high premoums and high deducibles. Anyone who didn’t realize this is an idiot.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:32 am40. Mike S (89ec89) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:28 am
It means Obama didn’t realize what he was saying – he had no ability to recognize nonsense. He didn’t care to try to comprehend what he was saying.
I assume he thought it meant the premium – only the premium – would be 1/30 of what it was before.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:35 amthere’s so much stinking hypocrisy, hercules would just burn down the stables,
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/10/26/rapper-jay-z-headline-concert-hillary-profane-lyrics-women-will-perform/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:36 amSammy, devising a system where “other people” pay for most of it is called socialism.
Again, how come the Democrats didn’t just say, “Let’s expand Medicaid to cover all these ‘uninsured’ Americans!” ?
By the way, what do you think would happen to the cost of auto insurance if your insurer were obligated by the Affordable Auto Insurance Act to cover any or all of the following; gasoline, oil change, new windshield wipers, new fuel pump, new tires, rotation of tires, tune-up, a car wash, or to have your brakes replaced?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:41 amand yet mcturtle gave them enough money to keep this leviathan creaking along, then did a proforma repeal with no bite
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:46 am31. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:15 am
How wuld that work? Would a woman have to decide by age 20? 17? 25? What if she changes insurance plans? Five years in advance with no coverage for any pregnancy that occurs sooner? A year in advance? Wouldn’t that encourage abortions?
They can get pretty high. Not everybody wants it. A lot of it is cosmetic and what dentists do varies according to what people are willing to pay. Medicare has avoided it.
Factory Eyeglass Outlet does glasses for about $40 wth the frame which they supply (if you supply it, no docount. It takes a week or so to get it. I know a place that will do most simple prescriptions same day for about $50 plus the frame (you can get cheap frames by cannabalizing $1.99 a pair of reading glasses which you can get sometimes for $1.99) If people paid for it, more places would advertise.
I agree. Except people should be issuied a rebate meidical account – all should be done without means testings – Medicaid should be abolished – it’s very pernicious.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:55 amBy the way, what do you think would happen to the cost of auto insurance if your insurer were obligated by the Affordable Auto Insurance Act to cover any or all of the following; gasoline, oil change, new windshield wipers, new fuel pump, new tires, rotation of tires, tune-up, a car wash, or to have your brakes replaced?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:41 am
Don’t be giving the Democrats any new ideas, GD it!
Colonel Haiku (43fb26) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:56 am46. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:41 am
Socoailism is when the government owns things.
Other people pay for K-12 education. Whih often isn’t any good and is horribly redundant. As Milton Friedman said a voucher system would be much better. You can’t do this with medical care because needs are not identical. Non-public charity has become moribund.
Nobody likes Medicaid. Bernie Sanders said Medicare and he wasn’t the first.
https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall
It would go up. The total amount sepdnt by all people combined would also go up.
Indeed, I propose medical insurance not covering the first X number of dollars, (throughan incentive to spend that money) giving people the money (the X number of dollars) through a tax rebate, the taxes to obtain the money maybe from some form of consumption or excise tax, and a certain amount lost if not spent but convertible to medical gift cards.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:05 amyes, that will do it,
http://www.weaselzippers.us/303487-hillarys-plan-to-heal-divided-country-after-election-hold-a-big-national-dance-to-bring-us-together/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:07 amPatterico:
That’s not asilver lining. Hillary is worse. She knows what she’s doing. Obama’s Secretary of Education at least cruticized the NAACP for coming out against charter schools.
The Department of Justice is taking over the Eric Garner case from the local FBI because the FBI couldn’t find an indictable offense, (Garner was not killed by choking, like they keep on repeating, but had an asthma attack (for which he never carried an inhaler) and/or a heart attack maybe brought on by stress but not by any rough treatment exactly – they did not take it seriously enough thinking he was engaged in a form of civil disobediance by playing dead but it still just doesn’t amount to deprivation of civil rights.
Errors in judgement are not indictable. Small violations of policy, not intended to harm anyone, doesn’t make a federal case either.)
Although DOJ took over the case they probbly won’t actually bring an indictment while Obama is president. It would take Hillary aas president to make a political indictment. Obama’s never done that, although his DOJ may have let some people off.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:15 amhe’s going to hanging around in kalorama, for at least a year, it was very dubious that the officers involved in garner incident could be charged, but as with the detainee issue, you don’t like the result change the referees,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:21 amExplain kalorama please.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcca6) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:32 ama very posh dc suburb, where he will hanging his hat, it was in the papers,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 9:34 amWould those of you who are self employed tell us the amount of your monthly insurance payment and your deducible.
For two, on a silver plan PPO, early 60s:
2016: $1420, 2017: $1720 per month.
Deductible: $2500 per person (in network)
Max Out-of-pocket: $6850 per person (in network)
The premiums will total more than $20K. Assuming that both persons use up their Max OOP, the annual outlay would be over $34,000. Note that a pre-tax income of $62,000 eliminates any subsidy, but at $61,000 the subsidy is about $14,000. Maybe Obama was talking about a 3000% marginal tax rate.
Another lie of Obamacare was that “no one will have to spend more than 7.5% of their income on health care.” It is quite possible (see above) that someone “covered” under Obamacare would have to spend over HALF their pre-tax income on medical care. Still, I guess it’s better than having to spend all of it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:11 amNow it’s not like the Republicans have any thought-through alternative.
Well, TRUMP doesn’t, but the rest of that is BS.
John McCain had a very detailed and workable plan in 2008. Basically, he got rid of the separation between individual and company plans. Everyone would buy their own insurance, no exclusions, no state boundaries. Companies could pick up costs, or not. But the employee would choose the plan that suited them and take it from job to job (not having to restart deductibles, change doctors, etc, each time). Since everyone is in the same pool, the discounts and other benefits of a large group plan would apply and the cherry-picking nature of individual plans would go away.
But McCain’s plan had an individual mandate and Obama attacked him for it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:20 amMaternity coverage should be optional but if you don’t take it you will not be covered if you get pregnant.
In individual plans, maternity coverage was generally optional. Insurance companies viewed taking such an option as saying “We intend a pregnancy” and charged accordingly.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:22 amIt means Obama didn’t realize what he was saying – he had no ability to recognize nonsense.
We’ve known for a long time that Obama was innumerate.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:23 amJonathan Gruber says, not unsurprisingly, that “it’s working!” Obviously he still thinks we are too stupid to see what is in front of our faces.
He also says, OTOH, that the way to fix the problems is tougher penalties on people who choose the fine over the insurance. Hey, I have an idea–if tougher penalties are the answer, why not add some criminal penalties? You could be arrested and put in jail instead of being fined! Would work like a charm.
Patricia (5fc097) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:33 amkalorama is still in DC proper; but still less of a duck-and-dodge scenario than their Chicago digs (3 blocks from my high school, I used to joke amongst high school friends that my goal in 2012 was to ensure that the older daughter became a fellow alumnus).
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:39 amHow did it work before, Sammy? If a person wants maternity they buy it! If she changes her insurance plans she buys it from the new insurer. When you say five years in advance you realize it cant be five months after she’s pregnant, right? Why would it “encourage” abortions? Abortions aren’t covered unless to save the life of the mother, otherwise they are elective and a person should pay for them themselves.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/26/2016 @ 10:41 amThank you Kevin M. #56. That is a terrible insurance policy.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 12:42 pmhttp://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/26/obamacare_failure_and_lies_revealed_by_wikileaks_should_disqualify_democrats
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/26/2016 @ 2:42 pmGood link Sammy. Here’s Rush:
“Today, the Drive-By Media in no way wants to hold the state, people in government, accountable for anything. The only enemy in America today is the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and that’s it. That’s the sole focus.”
And:
“What they have done to the American health care system should disqualify the Democrat Party for a generation, and it would have in any other year, if it weren’t for the fact that the president of this party happens to be African-American and therefore immune to any critical analysis.”
We have become a Third-World Banana Republic.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 6:28 pmcrikey that is a terrible policy, the one I was complaining about has 10K. but the premiums are much more reasonable,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 6:32 pm10K deductible? You’re joking.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 6:39 pmis that considered high or low,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 6:42 pmIf she ekes it out, this should be her cleaner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen
urbanleftbehind (847a06) — 10/26/2016 @ 6:42 pmWith Obama, it’s all about the messaging. I remember he had some MD’s at the White House to endorse Obamacare and the WH had to scramble to find white doctor coats to dress them up.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 10/26/2016 @ 7:57 pmyes, everything is astroturf, nothing is real except the consequences of their policies,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/26/2016 @ 8:02 pm