|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: If You Like Your Health Care Plan|
If You Like Your Health Care Plan
Posted - 11/14/2013 1:24:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
You can keep it for another year. This fix will do little to solve problems that were created by the ACA.
President Obama said
“I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I’ve proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans.”
Obama's chickens are coming home to roost. Any hope Democrats had of taking Congress is gone.
Democrats may lose the Senate. Democrats are scared. They should be.
Posted - 11/14/2013 2:39:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
A president in name only
"I have been as clear as I can be..." is as hollow a comment as when people say he's been a competent president.
His apology today, blared across the nation by his news media, is another hollow comment. He's an egomaniac who does almost everything for political reasons.
The three million extremists idiots who didn't vote for Romney last time around because he parted his hair on the wrong side...or for some other irrational reason...should be ashamed they allowed a radical-on-Soros-puppet-strings run this country; along with his minions like Reid and Pelosi.
Posted - 11/14/2013 2:57:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
First you folks on the right...
wanted a one year extension.
Now that you got it, you bitch about it.
Face it. You're only complaint is that the American people elected Barack Obama President.
Get over it.
Posted - 11/14/2013 3:10:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Get over it."
Tell that to the 50+ million who will lose their plans because of the ACA.
Tell that to the millions who will pay higher cost because of the ACA.
We have a president who knowingly lied and refuses to fix something he F'd up.
Posted - 11/14/2013 10:23:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
Obamacare plans will cost MORE 'in many cases' even with government subsidies, officials admit for the first time
The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.
In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.
In October of that year he said during a campaign rally in Columbus, Ohio that 'we are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html#ixzz2kg1JLCQX
Posted - 11/15/2013 6:22:39 AM | show profile | flag this post
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — Moments after President Obama said he would allow insurers to continue health plans that were to be cancelled under the Affordable Care Act, leading Republicans blasted the President for agreeing with an idea that they had supported.
“It’s true that we’ve been strongly in favor of Americans being allowed to keep their existing plans,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “But now that the President is for it, we’re convinced that it’s a horrible idea.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) went further in ripping the President, calling Mr. Obama’s tactic of adopting ideas proposed by him and fellow Republicans “beneath contempt.”
“The President should be aware that any future agreeing with us will be seen for what it is: a hostile act,” he said.
Minutes later, White House spokesman Jay Carney helmed a hastily called press conference, hoping to stem the quickly escalating coöperation scandal.
“The President understands that he has offended some Republicans in Congress by agreeing with them,” Mr. Carney said. “He wants to apologize for that.”
But far from putting an end to the controversy, the President’s apology drew a swift rebuke from another congressional Republican, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who called it a “blatant provocation.”
“If the President is going to continue agreeing with us and apologizing to us, he is playing with fire,” he warned.
Posted - 11/15/2013 9:25:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
Yep, time for Republicans...
to get over it.
Posted - 11/15/2013 9:55:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
Except that there is no legal way for the president to extend anything.
He can say whatever he wants, doesn't make it true.
Politicians and Lies 101
Posted - 11/15/2013 10:42:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
The president has no Constitutional or statutory authority
for ANYthing he's done to alter the ACA since it was signed. His mandate is to ENFORCE the law, not to unilaterally change it.
Posted - 11/15/2013 4:04:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
However, congress DOES have such authority and
39 Democrats joined with all but four house Republicans...in direct defiance of the president...and passed a measure that would allow Americans to keep their non-conforming health plans for one year.
Now the ball is in the senate's court to help fix this colossal screwup...even though Obama has threatened to veto it. But I doubt he'd have the balls to do that given the mood of the entire country.
Posted - 11/15/2013 10:38:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
Gee you people are dumb.
What's been the point here? A) That a "law" can't be changed/adapted/revised somehow? and B) If somehow. someway ObamaCare has been changed/adapted/revised somehow, it's illegal to the point of impeachable offenses??
Please stop it. The stupid hurts. It's a "Law" for Chrissakes, not a Constitutional Amendment. (benthere) "Except that there is no legal way for the president to extend anything." Uh, yea. There is. Even dumber, (and for that you have to go to cruise) "The president has no Constitutional or statutory authority for ANYthing he's done to alter the ACA since it was signed." Uh yea, there is. Besides signing statements, there is that clever provision in a LAW that says you can change it, especially the enforcement, as conditions change.
A very critical of Obama--but still very well written-- piece on this was done by Forbes: "Obamacare's Manifold Errors Force Major Changes In The Failed Law". Everything from the congressional opt-out, to the Employer mandate delay was and is perfectly legal.
Besides all that--Let's re-visit that statement one more time. "The president has no Constitutional or statutory authority for ANYthing he's done to alter the ACA since it was signed. "His mandate is to ENFORCE the law, not to unilaterally change it."
Wait a minute. For one thing--that's bullshit if the law allows itself to be changed. But in the second place, if you're arguing on this on "mandate" grounds--if the law was legally passed by both Houses of
Congress--signed by the president--and certified by the SCOTUS--where is your outrage that ObamaCare isn't being embraced by everyone?? Mandate donchaknow.
Posted - 11/16/2013 12:58:17 AM | show profile | flag this post
Are you drunk?
You're making no sense at all.
Posted - 11/16/2013 8:50:47 AM | show profile | flag this post
Mpdodgson said it. The stupid hurts. Maybe he's trying to dull the pain.
Posted - 11/16/2013 12:39:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
From Jonathan Turley, constitutional lawyer (he has also written for the WaPo)
From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications. What is most striking about these areas is that they are precisely the type of controversial questions designed for the open and deliberative legislative process. The unilateral imposition of new rules robs the system of its stabilizing characteristics in dealing with factional divisions.
I cannot find the authority under the ACA to grant millions of Americans an effective waiver or delay. The White House will clearly defend this as simply an exercise of discretion in the enforcement of laws. There is certainly support in such claims, though they are controversial. I just published an academic piece the explores the constitutional problems with the expansion of the powers of the “fourth Branch.” See Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 Boston University Law Review ___ (2013) and Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2103 Wisconsin Law Review ___ (2013). I also wrote a column on the subject for the Washington Post. I fail to see how the legislative process can have meaning if a president can effectively rewrite laws in the name of agency discretion. It is an argument that adds to the already dangerous concentration of executive power under this President.
The President used a clearly misleading argument to secure support for the ACA. He is now trying to reduce the outcry over that argument with a political recalibration of the law. To do so, he is acting in a clearly LEGISLATIVE fashion in my view. ...
The White House may find a provision in this law (that few members actually read) where it gives him the power to unilaterally grant exceptions and delays to different groups. However, they have not suggested it and I cannot see it.
There is a difference between EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE.
mp, you are all over the map.
Posted - 11/16/2013 12:54:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
"It's a "Law" for Chrissakes not a Constitutional Amendment"
Both carry the same force and effect. The differences are how they are enacted and how they can be changed.
Posted - 11/16/2013 12:58:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
treats both laws and amendments the same. He changes or ignores either at his whim.
Posted - 11/16/2013 1:02:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
...changes or ignores either at his whim in contravention of his Constitutional responsibility, disregarding the tripartite nature of the US government and the role of congress in the legislative process.
Posted - 11/18/2013 9:12:13 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is all one big panic...
By dems who are afraid of being voted out of office lining up with repubs who would rather see this country destroyed than go through health care reform. Health policies canceled by insurance companies were done so because the policies were either crappy and didn't cover anything or it was a convenient way for insurers to dump the patients who weren't making them enough money. If you knew anything about how the health insurance biz operates, you would not be surprised by this at all. People who liked their old policies have never gotten sick and had to use them. Insurance companies offered high deductible, low coverage policies that people bought because they couldn't afford anything else. It doesn't mean they were good. The people who were dropped can get better policies through the health exchange. Some will cost more, some less. If people would let the new system move forward, these problems will be worked out. The fact is, the repubs have been fighting this tooth and nail to the point where they have literally stopped working on anything else in order to defeat this and take away health care from millions of Americans. They are nothing short of unconscionable and probably a lot worse. This Congress has passed NOTHING. It has all been an attempt to thwart Obama at every chance. We need to throw every one of them out of office.
Posted - 11/18/2013 11:33:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
Look at the following juxtaposition
proudliberal says: "a convenient way for insurers to dump the patients who weren't making them enough money"
Then he contradicts himself: "People who liked their old policies have never gotten sick and had to use them"
This does not compute. People who never get sick are CLEARLY making the insurance companies money. They pay their premiums and never have claims.
This idiot has no friggin' idea what he's talking about. This is how Obama water carriers will willingly suspend their disbelief when their president tells them Obamacare is good for them.