HolidayBuyer's Guide

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The ACA needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP

by Steven Haninger / October 29, 2013 2:36 AM PDT

If anything says it loudly enough, it's this.

White House knew that the promise to those who already had insurance was false

It's not just that there are a few exceptions but that cancellations would happen in great numbers. Yep...it's the old business model of sell the product anyway possible and fix it or apologize for it later. This is what happens when marketing rather than honesty becomes the way to win elections. No one can say there was no one who warned them. Too bad now...it's the law. Shame on those who pushed this so forcefully on the American people.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The ACA needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The ACA needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Just add another lie to Obama's record
by James Denison / October 29, 2013 3:26 AM PDT
Collapse -
Politicians should be bound by the same rules
by Steven Haninger / October 29, 2013 4:04 AM PDT

as pharmaceutical companies when they advertise. Side affects and remedies should be clearly stated. So if you feel any chest pains or notice cardiac arrhythmia when opening your insurance premium notice, see your doctor immediately...but check to see if you're covered first. Wink

Collapse -
Too bad those polygraphs we see on cartoons aren't real
by Josh K / October 29, 2013 4:11 AM PDT

I'd like to have one hooked up to each participant at each debate.

CANDIDATE: "The candidate next to me said _____________!"

BUZZZZZZZ

Collapse -
Me too
by Steven Haninger / October 29, 2013 4:20 AM PDT

That means the phony debates we get every 4 years would end and, if desired, we could watch our usual boneheaded TV shows.

Collapse -
Polygraphs, HELL!
by Paul C / October 29, 2013 11:56 PM PDT

I advocate electric leads to the most, er, sensitive part of the pol's anatomy. When the whopper is made, ZAP! At the very least, it'd be great entertainment... Devil

Collapse -
Try not to laugh out loud
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 12:02 AM PDT
In reply to: Polygraphs, HELL!
Collapse -
But, from what I've heard here,
by Steven Haninger / October 30, 2013 12:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Polygraphs, HELL!

most of these pols have nothing with which to attach the leads. Devil

Collapse -
It was done deliberately by design
by TONI H / October 29, 2013 4:15 AM PDT

They needed insurance companies to cancel individual (not employer type, but those would be good, too) policies and dump them into exchanges, preferably Obamacare, in order to get control and drive the private insurance companies out of business for good.

The adverse effect right now is that over 65% of those 'enrolling' are getting into Medicaid instead of Obamacare, which was also by design because this way the States have responsibility for them. All payments made for Obamacare are going into the Treasury, General Fund......none is going into an invisible 'lock box' like Social Security was supposed to have, so it will be raided and used for whatever Treasury decides to use it for.

Collapse -
Source? Proof? It was Republican opposition which
by Ziks511 / October 29, 2013 10:09 AM PDT

removed a non-Insurance Industry option from the Legislation in the first place.

I quote you, "They needed Insurance Companies to cancel Individual Policies ... in order to get control and drive Insurance Companies out of business." Does that make any sense to you? And if the Insurance Companies knew they were killing themselves by dropping Individual Coverage, why would they do it?

You remind me of a cartoon character who whips out a gun, shoots his opponent three times and then throws down the gun and says "The gun shot him" when the Sheriff arrives.

It was your party with your encouragement which re-wrote the legislation into the mess it is today. Try comparing the original proposal with the end product.

Rob

Collapse -
You have no clue again, Rob
by TONI H / October 29, 2013 7:07 PM PDT

This 'legislation' was NEVER about healthCARE......it's ALL about health INSURANCE that the government can control.........and it was ALL done by Democrats. And BO, without Congress passing the amendments to do so, made most of the changes by EO and the wave of his hand. You ARE right about one thing though....the END product ISN'T the LAW that got passed, which has made it WORSE than it originally was.

Collapse -
Sources? Proof?
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 12:25 AM PDT
Collapse -
Aren't you one of the biggest
by TONI H / October 30, 2013 12:46 AM PDT
In reply to: Sources? Proof?

critic of ANY opinion piece from Fox? What makes a CNN opinion worthy in YOUR opinion of more credibility?

Collapse -
No, Toni......
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 1:24 AM PDT

......I don't recall that. I criticize their "news" all the time though. The problem with Fox is that it's almost impossible to distinguish their "news" from their opinion pieces.

You're still welcome to support your claims, but I won't hold my breath.

Collapse -
Is it OK with you that the president's words stating that
by Steven Haninger / October 30, 2013 12:52 AM PDT
In reply to: Sources? Proof?

those who were happy with their plans could keep them but to now find that to not be the case?...and that the same goes for those who liked their doctor may not get to stay with the practice as was first stated? Is that OK too?

Collapse -
No, I think those words were misleading
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 1:27 AM PDT

Sure, you could keep your doctor, as long as your doctor didn't sever his relationship with your insurance company. That was the case before the ACA and it still will be.

As for keeping your plan, provisions were put into the ACA to grandfather in plans that were in existence prior to a certain date, but the statement made it sound like that safety net was bigger than it actually is.

Collapse -
Aren't words that are misleading or, perhaps,
by Steven Haninger / October 30, 2013 2:08 AM PDT

overstatements the same thing as "whoppers"? Wink

Collapse -
If they were intentionally misleading.....
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 3:38 AM PDT

........it was not a bright idea, since the truth was going to come out eventually. My (limited) understanding is that at the time the ACA was first being drafted, the claim was accurate, but then the HHS department issued new regulations that negated a lot of it. The problem is that the president continued to make the claim even after that happened:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

Included in the article is the White House claim that even if you have to change your plan, your new one will be as good or better, and subsidies are available to defray any additional cost (if you qualify). Even that still contradicts the original claim, though.

Collapse -
OF COURSE IT WAS INTENTIONAL!
by James Denison / October 30, 2013 7:21 AM PDT

Nothing said that better than Pelosi yelling at everyone to just vote for it, not read it. They wanted to get it past no matter what, no matter how bad it was, no matter how many lies they had to tell. What they did borders on the criminal, and some investigation into possible impeachment and censorship should happen after the next election if we can get enough in there to not just roll over like these old Republicans who won't.

Collapse -
Those morons couldn't fix a sandwich muchless their website.
by Tony Holmes / October 29, 2013 7:40 AM PDT

I would like to have one of those knuckleheads explain to me in detail why maternity benefits would be mandatory for me if I chose to enroll??
I admit I would have a lot of fun trying but I couldn't get a woman pregnant if my life depended on it,I don't have a prostate!! Grin

Collapse -
Well, the web site is probably fixable
by Steven Haninger / October 29, 2013 8:08 AM PDT

but I have my doubts about the (un)Affordable Care Act. The insurance model has always been one of buying what you might need based on your own circumstances. The new model is buying whatever the entire populous might need whether you're specific circumstances fit or do not. Remember that it's not a purchased service anymore but a tax.

Collapse -
Another example of liberals saying
by TONI H / October 29, 2013 8:44 AM PDT

WE know better than YOU what you need, so just let us handle it and 'maybe' we'll give you money (subsidy) to help you pay for it......on the backs of those desperate to get insurance for pre-existing conditions (their policies are more expensive than others), young people who rarely will need it, and those who have had their other individual insurance policies canceled and now are also desperate to get coverage for themselves and their families. And the ones being hurt the most by this new law???? The middle-class (remember, those people who have to work two or three part-time jobs now because all the full-time jobs are invisible?)

Collapse -
The technical issues on the website......
by Josh K / October 30, 2013 10:47 PM PDT

......are frankly less of a problem than the security shortcomings that have been revealed. A page crashing can be due to something as simple as a typo in the source code. I'm a web developer and I've had pages crash because of a misplaced parenthesis. It happens, and one purpose of testing is to catch things like that.

If the site was coded with poor security, that's a bigger issue and could involve extensive recoding to fix.

Collapse -
What amuses me, Steven, is that you and the authors missed
by Ziks511 / October 29, 2013 10:00 AM PDT

the clear implication of this paragraph

"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered."

So it is the Insurance Companies using this "Get Out of Covering This Person Free" card to re-write policies they didn't want to keep, and which you now blame on the Obama Administration. The HHS regulation was written badly, and I wonder if there wasn't some species of coercion, collusion, influence on the part of the Insurance Industry in that regulation.

What Obama said in 2008 and 9 and 10 isn't a deliberate misleading of the American public if the Insurance Industry wasn't weasling around to find any escape they can. Nor if regulations came into effect after the President made the statement was the statement made "knowingly".

Of course from your side of the argument none of this matters. It just means you get to join the chorus of nay-sayers whether the statement is truthful or not.

Rob

Collapse -
I'm just going by what the president claimed prior to there
by Steven Haninger / October 29, 2013 10:22 AM PDT

being anything in writing. If people made voting decisions in his favor based on what he said and are now disappointed in what was delivered, I can't blame them. You can always find ways to twist and turn the truth, justify a false promise, or blame someone other than the man who made that promise if you like. It changes nothing for those duped by a false knight.

Collapse -
I can always tell when it goes racist
by James Denison / October 30, 2013 1:41 AM PDT

white Liberals come running out to make excuses for someone.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.