Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Breaking News; Obama says give him a year to "fix" Obamacare

Nov 14, 2013 12:43AM PST

Seek your poison media channel. Boehner said Obamacare is "unfixable". Democrats have started fighting with White House Officials following Obama's short speech today requesting another year to "fix" the ACA. Looks like Democrats starting to distance themselves both from this ACA and the White House.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Approval numbers of Obama on negative side
Nov 14, 2013 1:04AM PST

39% approve, 54% disapprove. Described as "untrustworthy". That's just another way of saying what I've said for a long time now; He's the Liar in Chief.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/poll-obama-approval-ratings-drop-americans-say-hes-not-trustworthy/

"President Barack Obama's approval rating among American voters has dropped to its lowest number in Quinnipiac University polling since he became President, according to a survey released on Tuesday that also raised new doubts about trust.

As Obama juggles the bungled rollout of HealthCare.gov and questions over his initial promises about health care reform become magnified, only 39% of voters approve how he is handling his job, while 54% disapprove, the new data from the school's Polling Institute shows.

Approval numbers for the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, continue to illustrate wariness among American voters about health care reform, with only 19% saying they believe the quality of their health care will improve in the next year.

Forty-three percent say it will get worse, while 33% say the controversial law won't affect their health care, according to Quinnipiac.

Those numbers reflect less confidence in the law from a Gallup poll released in late October, when a quarter of Americans said they believed Obamacare would make things better, while 34% said it would make things worse and 36% said it would not make a big difference.

Poll: Disapproval of Congress at historic high"
(more in article)

- Collapse -
I'm reading a one year reprieve on cancellations
Nov 14, 2013 1:40AM PST

is the fix for those who lost the coverage plans they may have liked and wanted to keep. I'd not call that a promise kept, however.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/obama-gives-people-extra-year-keep-health-insurance-2D11591250

So the administration thinks the policies being cancelled were too bare bones and not adequate for the citizens who opted for them? Shouldn't we all be thankful that our government knows what's best for us? Gee! It like having a set of parents looking after us again. How nice. Wink

- Collapse -
I like this Newt quote about it.
Nov 14, 2013 2:58AM PST
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/cnns-gut-check/

CNN'S NEWT GINGRICH ON THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER: "They have had, since the passage of the bill, one month longer than the entire American participation in World War II. The time they signed the bill is about the time it took us to go from Pearl Harbor to defeating Germany, Italy and Japan. And they haven't gotten the website to work."
- Collapse -
So much for the mileage the Dems should have gotten....
Nov 14, 2013 3:20AM PST

......from the shutdown. I bet half the country doesn't even remember that now. The president is now suggesting what the GOP wanted in the first place (well, the second thing they wanted in the first place, anyway).

The actual problem is less with the ACA than with the combination of the website and the fact that the actions being taken by insurance companies (some of which are very opportunistic and aren't really due to the ACA at all), revealed a loophole in the law that those insurers had probably been looking for ever since the ACA was first introduced. Either the president was aware of that loophole and withheld that information when saying "you can keep it" or he (and everyone involved in drafting the legislation) didn't anticipate it. Neither one is good for him.

It's important for people to keep in mind that there are immense benefits from the new law, chief among which are protections for people with pre-existing conditions and new rules about what kinds of policies can be offered. Even though that is at the root of the current problem, some of those policies are so horrendous that they shouldn't even be considered insurance. Some of them don't even cover hospitalization, so if someone with such a policy ended up in the hospital, they're just as far up a creek as if they had no insurance at all.

Perhaps a requirement that insurers offer holders of those policies a bare-bones policy that meets the new requirements, but at no additional cost for the first X years or something like that.

- Collapse -
Companies always look to the future
Nov 14, 2013 3:28AM PST

What they see now is Obamacare in the future instead of just now. They aren't going to turn back on that concerning cancelled and those yet to be cancelled just because individuals are given a year's reprieve. Instead they will plan toward the future. Only a big change in that future requirements will bring a change, that means either a huge change in Obamacare, or scrapping it entirely and starting over, perhaps just expanding Medicaid for those who can't afford regular health insurance. In fact, if the Democrats could quit stumbling over Obama's feet, that would be the best approach for those who want to expand eventually to socialized medicine for the entire nation and ending most private health insurance for standard healthcare needs.

Your mention is mostly about deductibles before health insurance kicks in. yes, that's a problem for those with preexisting problems seeking healthcare. Those could best be covered through existing Medicaid system I believe with some changes for qualifications allowing them.

- Collapse -
Not sure about Medicaid as I never looked into it....
Nov 14, 2013 3:51AM PST

.....but around 8 years ago when I was between jobs I applied for private insurance. Three different insurance companies turned me down outright because of pre-existing conditions I had. Luckily I got a job with benefits, which solved my problem, but before the ACA insurance companies could reject you as a customer. Now they can't.

- Collapse -
same problem I had with car insurance....
Nov 14, 2013 5:22AM PST

...coming back from overseas. I used a Greek car insurance overseas and made sure to have my motor pool card validated which I'd needed for MCI (military custom inspector assignment) work, my Greek insurance company statement concerning clean record driving, and a statement from base security police concerning clean driving record. I'd been warned previously by others who'd returned of the ripoff.

Three insurance companies would only offer me beginner driver insurance costs, 2 were apologetic, but one (Nationwide) accepted the information and gave me the proper car insurance coverage at the proper price anyone who'd had the same "continuous" driving record stateside would get. In fact it was lower than they "possible" cost from the other 3 if their headquarters had accepted my driving record evidences.

I've stayed with them now for 25 years or more on both home and auto.

The worst and third offer I got at the time was from GEICO which at the time was "government employees insurance corporation" which I thought was an outrage they'd treat returning military members that way. Since those days I've steered many AWAY from GEICO and onto Nationwide, just as my way of balancing the good vs the bad as I view it. My feeling has always been to reward the good, punish by personal boycott the others. One older daughter continues with Nationwide, one with another, but she still refuses to consider GEICO, knowing my feelings about them.

Companies need to realize that some consumers, and I suspect many consumers, have long memories.

- Collapse -
Ah...the auto insurance go-round for veterans!
Nov 15, 2013 11:13PM PST

After having experienced this twice, I changed to USAA. The rates are great and the service outstanding. Perhaps you could check it out; you might be pleasantly surprised.

- Collapse -
understand the positon of never doing business
Nov 15, 2013 11:24PM PST

with someone again.

Does it really work nowadays when corporations buy and sell companies and brand names? Also companies change completely often times as one bunch of directors move out and another moves in.

I understand you position, and sympathize with it even.

But I have seen people refuse to do something better for them just because of a past bad experience. The old cutting off you nose to spite your face.

After a couple of decades, don't know if continuing to boycott a company is likely to make any difference, esp when it's not really the same company anymore.

- Collapse -
That's a point
Nov 16, 2013 2:10AM PST

I mean look at how many people buy German products from companies which supplied the Nazis. To this day however, I know there are some however who still won't buy anything that comes from Germany. I guess it comes back to how many others can provide the same product, at comparable or even better price, and how long one's memory is. For years I never bought anything from Western Auto because of the local one in my childhood town that cheated me when a teenager. (now there's a long story of deliberate deception). Eventually it went bankrupt, the local one closed and was bought out by another company and is now Advanced Auto. We do use Advanced Auto at times because it's not the same company, same management, and I don't live there anymore either. More often we use Auto Zone which is closer to my current home.

I could mention two others, but won't. It's not just avoiding past cheaters for the future, but also rewarding the good companies with your business. Reward the good, eschew the bad, can only make the world a little bit better.

- Collapse -
As for the shutdown, I have to rue that it would provide
Nov 14, 2013 6:22AM PST

a plus for one party and a minus for the other. That doesn't do much for those affected. The same goes for the ACA. Some will do better and some will do worse but everyone will have their choices limited and there's no doubt that the overall bill for the nations healthcare will rise by a tidy sum. My biggest problems with the ACA plan are two. One; I don't see where it will improve medical care overall or advance medical technology. Two; it will not address the overall cost of providing medical care. It's the cost that's the problem and not lack of insurance coverage. The plan just creates a trough of money to feed from and a bunch of government managers to make sure it's kept filled. It will do no good to condemn those who want a share of it.

- Collapse -
The high cost of medical care.....
Nov 14, 2013 10:01PM PST

.....is simply because our healthcare system is mostly private and for-profit. Most other first world countries have nationalized it. Single payer. That's the answer but as soon as anyone mentions it someone else starts shouting "SOCIALISM!!!" There would also be a huge backlash from the companies currently raking in billions in profits on our medical needs. But (IMO) that's the real solution to this problem.

- Collapse -
As far as "nationalizing" the US healthcare system,
Nov 15, 2013 8:49AM PST

I don't think it would be that simple. You do seem to have a problem with companies profiting from people's medical needs but it's not them we'd need to worry about most. You'd have to convince the professional medical community...doctors, nurses, researchers, etc., that working for the government and following government procedures is a better way to do things and that they'll be just as happy, if not more so, then they would before. I believe you'll find that the best people in medicine...those who set the standards for others...are not mercenary types. They are also free thinkers and bringers of new ideas. I can't see these folks caring to work under government supervision and be bound to the policies set by bureaucrats. You may lose some of medicine's best people and need to find replacements or breed your own.

- Collapse -
It depends on the support
Nov 15, 2013 4:17PM PST

Anything govt tosses funds at flourishes to extent it's funded, even when inefficient. Just look at what Bernanke's money has been doing for the bubbles forming in the stock market and the money balance of banks and large business lately. In the past govt has been the prime supporter of advancements in science and art. The American experiment in showing patents to protect scientific advancements done privately can beat govt backed science developments, but one still has to give credit to what govt has done in past in various fields to advance them. My worry is that govt would either shortchange the medical system so it became degraded, or stuff it with so much bureaucracy it became bloated and inefficient.

- Collapse -
As far as medical professionals go....
Nov 17, 2013 10:02PM PST

......they aren't bound to "government procedures" in single-payer countries. Some of those countries are renowned for their medical care. You might have to convince some people to go into medicine for the passion for the profession rather than the seven-figure salaries some of the better doctors earn, but I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who's only in it for the money anyway.

- Collapse -
They may be 'renowned'
Nov 18, 2013 12:52AM PST

for their medical care, but the waiting lists are long, and most people from other countries come here for their procedures than the other way around.

And I would disagree with your 'tone' regarding their seven-figure 'salaries' since doctors who specialize are worth every penny they get because they normally not only pay huge dollars to get that education, but they are constantly keeping up with technology in order to further their specialty.

- Collapse -
and the surgeons that own shares
Nov 18, 2013 7:49AM PST

of the implants they recommend and use? Recent study claims those surgeons do many more replacement than others.

How a heart doctor that has a table for of brocheres for his line of heart healthy vitamins and supplements in the waiting room when you go for a ECG or stress test. I saw that one personally thought I wasn't the one taking the test.

And it's not just 2 or 3, over and over again something comes out about a doctor or practice that has an abnormally high rate of procedure compared to averages that turn out to own a large share of the companies furnishing something for those procedures.

And you say specialist deserve so much, why do you think it takes 2 to 3 months to get a "regular" appointment with your family doctor? because not many go into that field anymore, it's not lucrative enough. Odd when you remember the stories from a generation or two before me and you where country doctors came to the house and often got paid in chickens and eggs etc when the people didn't have money, and our grandparents many country folk didn't have much money for a doc and medicine.

- Collapse -
One of the last things I'd want to see is government
Nov 18, 2013 1:07AM PST

dictating medical ethics and morals or not allowing a medical profession to use his/her best judgement in deciding how to treat a patient. I'd also not want to see government having a say in which area of medicine a person could pursue. You may prefer a doctor whose interest was other than money but I want one that's happy in their work. Being able to make personal choices is something I think enhances most people's happiness.

- Collapse -
I still don't see where.....
Nov 18, 2013 1:52AM PST

........governments are doing that now. Is that happening in the UK? Canada? Switzerland? Any of the other countries with single-payer systems?

- Collapse -
I agree with half of what you said
Nov 15, 2013 4:12PM PST

I don't believe the problem is because it's private, but do because it's too much a profit driven motive. Yes, we get a lot of new drugs from Big Pharma, but they aren't always as good as the older ones, and the only reason they are brought on the market and the now generic ones deprecated is a purely profit motive, not a best health choice motive. Patent medicine has taken a devilish twist where Big Pharma takes little risk by getting govt to pay for research while they then file the patents and take home the profits from it, at the tax paying public expense. Still, it's not just medicine driving up the cost of healthcare, but a host of other problems that socialized medicine probably couldn't do much about either. Lawsuits leading to bigger settlements and higher doctor and hospital insurance costs.

It's this mentality of "insurance will pay for it" when juries consider cases, instead of "we don't want to break the back of our local healthcare for everyone else just for this single person" sort of approach to settlements that needs some changes.

If all health insurance ended tomorrow, you would see medical costs collapse to a low long not seen in this country. It's the middle man that's driving up the costs. Obamacare tosses a biggger amount of middlemen into the way and at a less efficient and higher cost than the current insurance market does.

- Collapse -
if ins ended, yes you'd see medical cost die
Nov 15, 2013 8:31PM PST

and the population decrease, with average life expectancy rolling back probably to levels of 50 years ago. That would save a lot on social security and medicare wouldn't it?

However, I agree the too high portion of excess profit comes from various aspects that all contribute. While there are still idealists in medicine I'm sure, medicine and medical practice is no longer a "calling", it's a balance sheet driven business like any other.

Doctors who own shares in a prosethic manufacturer statistically do more replacement surgeries. Doctors who sell drugs in an inhouse pharmacy typically prescribe drugs more and the more expensive one. An so forth.

A doctor should make a good living, he's worked for it, but some at least are doing things driven solely by their profit and not be the patients care. Another problem is the family doctor being the lowest on the totem pole as far as income compared to various specialists when he/she may be the most important.

The same is true for hospitals, the manager's job there isn't to better patient care, it's to increase profits.

Of course it is true that some of the high cost of medical care is because there are expensive means to prolong and improve life now that didn't exist a few years ago, with newer ones all the time. An we the patient are responsible too. Because of my lifetime excess weight, I'll probably eventually need knee replacement and maybe even hip replacement. That's if my obesity doesn't kill me first. I've been extremely lucky I guess. Even with obesity, I don't have high blood pressure or diabetes. I do have a less than perfect cholesterol score, but it's much better than many others. I take drugs for it, but less than many. If I can continue to loose weight with more nutritious eating and more activity (since gall bladder removal I finally got serious about it) I hope eventually I may not need them.

Funny that, even though as far as I know weight doesn't have much to do with gall bladder problems, diet may I think. But that time in the hospital for the emergency surgery then back in for infection in the surgical site convinced me I needed to do more to avoid hospitals. Don't want to be back there. I'll never be a marathon runner, indeed I have no intention of subjecting my joints to the abuse of running period. But I do things now like they urge, stairs instead of elevators etc. Be careful on the stairs though, don't drop from one step to the next going down. As slow as I am going up stairs at work (anywhere from 20 to 80 feet worth) just to keep breathing and moving steady, I come down just as slow and carefully. Spread out over the day, but probably averaging over a 150 feet a day of stairs now. I've already discussed in another thread that I'm doing a lot of the whole grain stuff now along with more fruits, veggies, berries, nuts. I WILL eventually loose a 100 lbs, even if it is only a pound a week average.

And since I had my gall bladder out, it's amazing how many people I know at work and relatives have had the same surgery. Didn't know it was so wide spread.

- Collapse -
Would you agree that
Nov 15, 2013 10:49PM PST

increasing population combined with people also living longer results in increased medical needs and costs? People are a little like cars that, when they get older, need more patching up to squeeze another year out of them...and you don't dare load that old jalopy up for a family vacation if you really want to get there. Happy It does seem to be true that better nutrition and lifestyles lead to longer and improved quality of life. I'm not sure medical patch jobs are always as good. Making one thing clean always gets something else dirty.

- Collapse -
off course, and it's a major driver
Nov 15, 2013 11:34PM PST

of the medicare system budget need increases.

If most of died by 70, costs would go way down. And to be really cold, if we died before we qualified for social security or medicare, that saves over a quarter of the annual budget right there. Isn't social security, disability, medicare, and Medicaid up to over a third of the annual federal spending?

If you die younger, without a lingering costly illness, your lifetime medical care will 90% of the time be much less.

There are successful treatments now that didn't exist, or were much less successful, 50 years ago, for heart attacks, cancers, stokes, joint failures, allergies, etc. And they often cost a lot.

Patching something is never as good as maintaining it is it? of course, it's easy to forget maintenance until something breaks, be it mechanical machines or biological machines.

As far as the old jalopy getting you there, there are a few mountain hikes that weren't all that bad we did less than 10 years ago to get to waterfall views I'd really hesitate to start out on now.

Unless I checked my bars and there was good cell phone reception there of course to holler for help. I might would get a satellite phone before I dare start on over a mile hike through an isolated area now, LOL.

- Collapse -
(NT) Boy I wandered off track posting from costs to diet
Nov 15, 2013 11:36PM PST
- Collapse -
My Uncle
Nov 16, 2013 2:20AM PST

He had gall bladder removed in his early 60's, lived till this past year, died near age 92, same age his mother died, 4 years younger than his oldest brother, ten years older than my father died. Losing a gall bladder shouldn't shorten your life that much if at all. Maybe that will give you some hope regarding lifetime success following it's loss.

- Collapse -
not so worried that I lost it
Nov 16, 2013 2:33AM PST

So far the most important results seems the need to avoid fatty greasy food, at least in any quantity, and that's better for you anyway.

Too much fat, grease, or oil in one meal, and it supposedly takes a highly accelerated trip though your digestive system and in a hurry to exit. Some of the stories a nurse told me of people she knew........

But thanks for the encouragement.

So far after the first 6 to 8 weeks I've not had much of a problem. A few minor uncomfortable times, but nothing as bad as the horror stories. The longer since the illness the less problem I seem to have. Of course, I've changed my eating habits as noted before this. I had actually started to change before I got ill. The stay in the hospital just made me determined to do better diet and activity wise as I could.

As I said, it may take me a 100 weeks, but I'm going to lose 100 pounds, heck even if it takes 200 weeks. As long as month to month I loose something overall. I'm aiming for an average of 2 lbs a week till the end of this year, then averaging 5 pounds a month next year. If I make that, after then I'll be satisfied with anything as long as there is a net loss for each month for as long as it takes.

LOL, odd thread to find this discussion in, things do wander here and I started it this time certainly.

- Collapse -
I doubt the insurance companies
Nov 14, 2013 3:21AM PST

will just suddenly backup and reinstate the policies they have already cancelled. Why would they do that? Instead they will concentrate on pushing those cancellations into policies now which they expect will meet current and future Obamacare requirements. If after making such a move I discovered a year reprieve and then just have to do it all over again, then what would or should motivate me to do it twice, and incur the extra expense and problems of doing so? No, they'd just be gone unless they met the requirements I expected the company needing to meet a year later.

This is not a "fix". ONLY if the insurance companies know the law is repealed and therefore little chance they'd face the same a year from now will fix the problem of cancellations already given and already in the works to be issued by these health insurance companies.

- Collapse -
Liar in Chief at it again!
Nov 14, 2013 7:48PM PST

Just another "caring" Liberal. What a two faced, double tongued Liar this man is. If it wasn't for the hurt he's caused millions already, I'd wish the insurance companies would just outright refuse to renew or "reissue" the policies for another year which Obama has under attack. He is completely intransigent while claiming it's the Republicans who aren't willing to compromise. They should put HIS face on Obamacare website so HE can become the most HATED man in America, instead of some poor foreign born female he used as his "patsy". What's wrong with putting YOUR face on that website Obama?! The buck stops somewhere else? Yes, always with this Liar.


http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-obama-veto-republican-healthcare-bill-025437837--sector.html

White House: Obama would veto Republican healthcare bill
Reuters
29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill sponsored by a Republican congressman that would allow insurers to offer healthcare plans slated to be canceled because they do not meet the new U.S. healthcare law's standards, the White House said on Thursday.

The veto threat came hours after Obama, under fire for the botched roll-out of his signature domestic policy achievement, said health insurers could extend by at least one year policies that were due to be canceled because they do not comply with new minimum requirements.

The White House has said previously that the bill, sponsored by Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, would undermine the law known as Obamacare because it would allow plans that had been canceled to be sold to anyone, not just people who wanted to renew their existing plans.

- Collapse -
"I don't think there's anything for us to apologize for"
Nov 14, 2013 8:55PM PST

"I don't think there's anything for us to apologize for"

Ah, love that spirit of compromise, love that spirit of compassion, love that spirit of understanding, love that spirit of contrition, love that spirit of confession, love that......NOT!

http://news.yahoo.com/house-democratic-leaders-decline-to-apologize-for-obamacare-confusion-233815388.html

"Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill,the top four House Democrats -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Assistant Leader James Clyburn, Whip Steny Hoyer and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra -- were asked if they would apologize to any constituents who felt misled by Democrats. Each declined.

"I don't think there's anything for us to apologize for," Clyburn said after explaining that once enough Americans switch to exchange-based insurance plans, they will appreciate "what they did not have" through their prior insurance plans.

Their defensive tone was a stark contrast from Obama's earlier Thursday, when he accepted responsibility for the myriad problems associated with the rollout of his signature domestic policy measure. "


Now listen to the woman Pelosi who said it wasn't necessary to read the bill, just to vote for it. Listen to the compassion in her voice as she says;

""There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that said your insurance company should cancel you," Pelosi said. That's not what the Affordable Care Act is about. It simply didn't have it. Did I ever tell my constituents that if they like their plan, they could keep it? I would have if I ever met anybody who liked his or her plan. But that was not my experience. ... As far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned, what the president said was completely accurate."

Hoyer added that the law didn't force insurance companies to extend plans, but that people interpreted the Democrats' "keep your plan" talking point incorrectly.

"If you had a policy on the day that this bill was adopted, you got to keep it. You didn't get to keep it if the insurance companies didn't want to offer it to you. We didn't say the insurance companies had to give you the policies. We said if you like it, you can keep it, but nobody had in mind that the insurance companies were going to be forced to offer people insurance," he said. "[Obama's] statement, if it was limited to the bill itself, is absolutely accurate. The problem is, people interpreted that, and frankly, we said it expansively.""


Can you feel the love? The compassion?

Do you really believe these "Fantastic Four" are really going to compromise on anything including helping these people get cancelled insurance reissued? Of course not. Two reasons is because they don't care and they couldn't even if they did care, since the insurance companies are under no obligation to issue any health policies at all. I won't be surprised if many insurance companies don't just move out of the medical and health insurance business completely, at least till they've seen what's coming down the road against companies which risk the penalties and other hate filled policies these Democrats have in store for them.