The HCRA

[Exterminator]

I'm keeping my current insurance; are you?

[The Troll]

   good one!

But the bottom line is this....the POTUS did, without any doubt in this world to any thinking, rational human being....LIED.
He is, a LIAR.  PERIOD.  (To steal his phrase.....if you like your current insurance, you can keep it..."PERIOD".

  What is the difference if Obama lied about not being dropped from a bad insurance policy or George W. Bush lying about weapons of war in Iraq which killed over 5,000 of our young men and women and crippled for life and wounded over 40,000 our men and women.     How about that Henry.      I never hear you curse George W. for that.

[me]

I'm keeping my current insurance; are you?

At least as far as you know now.  Does it comply to the Obama regulations?  Are you sure?

[me]

  What is the difference if Obama lied about not being dropped from a bad insurance policy or George W. Bush lying about weapons of war in Iraq which killed over 5,000 of our young men and women and crippled for life and wounded over 40,000 our men and women.     How about that Henry.      I never hear you curse George W. for that.

Tell that to the people who have cancer who no longer have coverage and their doctors aren't in any of the alternate Obama plans.  Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is.  Just remember all the letters haven't gone out yet and you may be the recipient of one even though you're on Medicare because you have that GM Cadillac plan.  What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors? 

[Exterminator]

At least as far as you know now.  Does it comply to the Obama regulations?  Are you sure?

Yes and yes...it is going up a whopping $20.00 a month, though.  Woooo....

[Exterminator]

Tell that to the people who have cancer who no longer have coverage and their doctors aren't in any of the alternate Obama plans.  Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is.  Just remember all the letters haven't gone out yet and you may be the recipient of one even though you're on Medicare because you have that GM Cadillac plan.  What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors?

You clearly couldn't be bothered to read the truth I posted and prefer to continue to spread these bullshit lies of yours.

[Exterminator]

[Bo D]

Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is.   

If you're 60 and need pre-natal care, then you're in more trouble than any health care plan can fix.

What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors?

And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?

[me]

If you're 60 and need pre-natal care, then you're in more trouble than any health care plan can fix.
That was what the people thought who had to take those policies under Obamacare thought too.  Have you been on the site to see the choices in the policies and the prices?

And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't.  You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list.

[Bo D]

60 years old - PRENATAL CARE???? Do you understand the term "prenatal?"

"And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't.  You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list."

The HMO that I have does not pay a penny for out-of-network doctors.

[Palehorse]

More flotsam from the racist crowd.

Oh, those Obama care horror stories they've been telling? They've fizzled out and guess what, they were way over-blown.

There's a surprise! 

[me]

60 years old - PRENATAL CARE???? Do you understand the term "prenatal?"

"And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't.  You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list."

The HMO that I have does not pay a penny for out-of-network doctors.

Guess you have a substandard plan then because the one my ex had covered out-of-network doctors but only paid what they paid the ones in the network.  Having had 3 kids, yes, I understand pre-natal care and it's something not needed by anyone, male or female, who is 60yrs old which is why it should not be one of the requirements under the HCRB. 

[Palehorse]

I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.

            ByEdie Littlefield SundbyNov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET   Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers. My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits. [/i]

   Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.[/i]

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. [/i]


The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pull

ing out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are. Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs.

Perhaps that's the point.

LIES! (Surprise) 

. . .Here are just some of the mythical stories journalists have helped dispel — and the lessons we can learn from them about the reality of the Affordable Care Act:
Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.

But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month — $40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."
Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."
The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?
Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-four gallbladder cancer survivor, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the Affordable Care Act for her canceled insurance policy. In her essay, Littlefield wrote that because of Obamacare, "I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan." But, according to Igor Volsky of Think Progress, Sundby's insurer, United Healthcare, "dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby."
Earlier this year, United, which has publicly supported the Affordable Care Act, announced that it would pull out of the individual market in California. A company representative said it withdrew because its individual plans have never had a huge presence in the state. According to United, and in compliance with state law, the company won't be able to re-enter the California individual market until 2017.
By then though, competitors will get stuck with sicker patients like Sundby signing up in the first wave of Obamacare. This means that companies like United can cover cheaper patients if it decides to go back to the California individual insurance market.. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/

So not only do we have yet another case of drastic embellishment of facts, but outright lies being told, and then being used as "facts" to support the whining, crying, kicking, and screaming of idiots!

[Palehorse]

LIES! (Surprise) 

. . .Here are just some of the mythical stories journalists have helped dispel — and the lessons we can learn from them about the reality of the Affordable Care Act:
Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.

But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month — $40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."
Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."
The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?
Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-four gallbladder cancer survivor, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the Affordable Care Act for her canceled insurance policy. In her essay, Littlefield wrote that because of Obamacare, "I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan." But, according to Igor Volsky of Think Progress, Sundby's insurer, United Healthcare, "dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby."
Earlier this year, United, which has publicly supported the Affordable Care Act, announced that it would pull out of the individual market in California. A company representative said it withdrew because its individual plans have never had a huge presence in the state. According to United, and in compliance with state law, the company won't be able to re-enter the California individual market until 2017.
By then though, competitors will get stuck with sicker patients like Sundby signing up in the first wave of Obamacare. This means that companies like United can cover cheaper patients if it decides to go back to the California individual insurance market.. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/

So not only do we have yet another case of drastic embellishment of facts, but outright lies being told, and then being used as "facts" to support the whining, crying, kicking, and screaming of idiots!

. . .UnitedHealth alerted Sundby way back in January that it was pulling out of the California individual insurance market entirely. An inescapable question is whether it did so because of Obamacare, or whether it's just using Obamacare as an excuse to do something it was itching to do anyway. UnitedHealth's own statements point to the latter.

The firm informed investors of its decision in May, when it announced it would exit the individual market in all but a dozen states. Since Obamacare's coverage standards are the same in all states, plainly it wasn't Obamacare—or Obamacare alone--that prompted its departure from California.

The more likely explanation is that UnitedHealth simply couldn't compete in California's individual market and no longer wished to try. As Igor Volsky of Think Progress and others have pointed out, the company served fewer than 8,000 individual customers in the state, where its chief focus is on the large-employer market. A company spokeswoman told MarketWatch that it had been struggling to deal with this tiny slice of business for quite some time: "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members," she said. (Emphasis ours.)

The company also told investors that it was wary of the individual insurance exchanges in general because it figured that the wave of new enrollees in the first year or so would be the sickest and therefore most expensive. Apparently it's willing to face that risk in only a dozen states. Its message isn't an uplifting one: The company is cutting back on individual coverage because it doesn't want to serve high-cost patients—patients like, for example, Edie Littlefield Sundby.

What this tells you is that Sundby was fated to lose her UnitedHealth plan sooner or later, Obamacare or not. California law allows insurers to leave its customers high and dry if they choose to abandon an entire market. Sundby's insurer wanted out, and skipped town as soon as it could find a plausible excuse.

Its behavior is, indeed, a flaw of the Affordable Care Act, just not the one the Wall Street Journal wants you to think about. The flaw is that the act leaves the insurance system in the hands of profit-seeking firms like UnitedHealth, which don't want to serve customers most in need because they're not where the biggest profits are. The solution, naturally, is for government to cut commercial insurers out of the system entirely, but one suspects that's not what the editors of the Journal would favor.

It's important to understand what Sundby's options would be in a non-Obamacare world, once UniHealth abandoned her: They'd be dire. As a stage-4 cancer patient, she'd be uninsurable except at an enormous price, and possibly not at all. (As far as UnitedHealth is concerned, she's already uninsurable.) The only reason she can find any replacement insurance policies to choose from today is that the Affordable Care Act now forbids carriers to reject her, to refuse to cover her cancer treatment, or to base her premiums on her medical condition.

It's not a rap on Sundby to point out, moreover, that she's not representative of the typical individual insurance customer affected by the Affordable Care Act. (She and her husband are software entrepreneurs.). . .

So it appears my theory is pretty damn near to exactly what transpired in this case. . .

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-horror-story-20131105,0,6361694.story#axzz2k6AOoV3S

[me]

More flotsam from the racist crowd.

Oh, those Obama care horror stories they've been telling? They've fizzled ot and guess what, they were way over-blown.

There's a surprise! 

Sibelius Drops New Bombshell: Employer Plans Will Also Drop Workers From Coverage By Joseph R. Carducci on November 6, 2013


I don't care if you've been under a rock or had your head in the sand for the past few weeks, you have still most likely heard about the millions of people who have lost their health insurance recently. This was not due to some type of 'glitch' in this system, this IS the system. This is exactly as Obama has designed ObamaCare to function.

Yes, we all know Obama promised everyone that they could keep their plans. He promised us that if we liked our healthcare plans no one would take them away. He even emphasized this by looking right into the camera and appearing to push back a single little tear from cheek and said "period." In my mind this meant that there would need to be no more explaining and no more equivocating, nothing.

This Wednesday, the HHS ObamaCare Queen herself, Kathleen Sebelius was to be found on Capitol Hill. This time her royal duty was to protect Obama's hide once again as she testified in front of the Senate Finance Committee. As expected, she was grilled about Obama and his broken promises. Specifically about how people were losing their health plans left and right. Presumably, many of them would have liked to remain insured given the fact that before ObamaCare passed something like 90 percent of insured Americans were happy with their plans.

Obama had also repeatedly stated that plans which were held before ObamaCare passed and went into effect would be 'grandfathered' in. Of course, this week we have Obama doing some fancy talking trying to explain and equivocate, adding new wrinkles to his so-called promise. Apparently, there were to be some caveats with these prior-held plans like they had to meet the new ObamaCare standards. If not, they will be canceled. This is why we have already seen several million Americans receive cancellation notices from their insurers.


During her testimony today, the HHS Queen informed us that the same caveat applies to employer based insurance plans as well. In other words, if you are currently covered under a plan provided by your employer, watch out! Chances are quite good that it will not meet these new ObamaCare 'standards.' But, if we listen to the explanations and equivocations from Obama this should not matter, because all of these plans were 'sub-standard' anyway, right? No matter that we obviously picked the best options from our choices, no matter if we like the plan or not, it was just another lousy option according to our perfect community organizer in chief.

I love how now Obama is trying to talk his way out of this way. Everyone with even half a brain understands that he is now a liar...and a liar in the worst way. He did not even lie to make us feel better. He lied to get a lousy, sub-standard healthcare plan passed that he KNEW was going to force millions into options that will end up costing them a lot more money and offer care that we either don't need or will not use. He knew all this ahead of time and deliberately shoved this down our throats.

The estimates are now running quite high. As the employer mandate takes effect later, we will eventually see something like 93 million Americans losing their healthcare plans. This is a combination of those who have lost their plans through the individual market and the employer market. Sad. That is indeed some caveat...and Queen Kathleen continues to protect this guy and say that he kept his word!

What do YOU think? Are you worried about losing an employer based plan? Do you think Obama has kept his promise? Should we have expected a 'caveat?' Is 93 million people just no big deal, or do the Democrats now have a big problem?

http://downtrend.com/jrc410/sebelius-drops-new-bombshell-employer-plans-will-also-drop-workers-from-coverage/

Now listen real close to what she says "must" be included in "all" insurance policies starting in 2014.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2