Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Over and over and over and over and over again

EDITORIAL:
Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping

When what you say is proven not to be true, claim ignorance or allow someone to do it for you.

Good article. This part of the Obamacare discussion is really much to do about nothing .

When Obama said there were 57 states he misspoke. He didn't go back to say it over and over. It's funny that the NYTimes doesn't have the same "much ado" attitude about Bush and WMD statements made over and over again.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:When Obama said there were 57 states he misspoke. He didn't go back to say it over and over. It's funny that the NYTimes doesn't have the same "much ado" attitude about Bush and WMD statements made over and over again.

WMD' are on the same level as 57 states, and this?

kalm wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:When Obama said there were 57 states he misspoke. He didn't go back to say it over and over. It's funny that the NYTimes doesn't have the same "much ado" attitude about Bush and WMD statements made over and over again.

WMD' are on the same level as 57 states, and this?

I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

DSUrocks07 wrote:Over and over and over and over and over again

EDITORIAL:
Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping

When what you say is proven not to be true, claim ignorance or allow someone to do it for you.

You don't say.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
WMD' are on the same level as 57 states, and this?

I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

This is absolute bullshit.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

This is absolute bullshit.

The change is the rates (which I admit is a legit beef). Unless your insurance company has declined to offer any policies that comply.

Otherwise... Quit being a whiny bitch about it.

So when Obama plays loose with the facts, he has "misspoken," but when a Republican makes a mistake, they're either a "liar" or "stupid?"

Double standard. I wouldn't expect anything less from the uber-lib NYT....

SuperHornet wrote:So when Obama plays loose with the facts, he has "misspoken," but when a Republican makes a mistake, they're either a "liar" or "stupid?"

Double standard. I wouldn't expect anything less from the uber-lib NYT....

He fucked it up. Didn't kill 4,000 Americans. (Although it might end up costing as much as Iraq )

kalm wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:So when Obama plays loose with the facts, he has "misspoken," but when a Republican makes a mistake, they're either a "liar" or "stupid?"

Double standard. I wouldn't expect anything less from the uber-lib NYT....

He fucked it up. Didn't kill 4,000 Americans. (Although it might end up costing as much as Iraq )

Meh, those 4k military personnel are expendable. Amiright?

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
He fucked it up. Didn't kill 4,000 Americans. (Although it might end up costing as much as Iraq )

Meh, those 4k military personnel are expendable. Amiright?

Yes, they're WAY less important than scoring political points.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Meh, those 4k military personnel are expendable. Amiright?

Yes, they're WAY less important than scoring political points.

Now you are catching on.

If anything is done and it doesn't result in scoring political points, it was a futile effort. Get with the times yo.

kalm wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:So when Obama plays loose with the facts, he has "misspoken," but when a Republican makes a mistake, they're either a "liar" or "stupid?"

Double standard. I wouldn't expect anything less from the uber-lib NYT....

He fucked it up. Didn't kill 4,000 Americans. (Although it might end up costing as much as Iraq )

Those death panels will definitely kill more than 4,000 people...but they deserve to die anyway.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

Man, kalm, now you're carrying water for Obama as well? Does your back hurt from carrying so much while bent over?

Geesh, they only have to "change plans" ? That's it? For people that don't need all the additional benefits that will make up the "improved" policy, that could very well be a big deal, especially when they end up paying significantly more because they had to change plans.

I agree, it's not on the order of a discussion as the WMD were (although I agree with the other Blue Hen poster - I think "W" did think they had them - heck, most of the world thought they had them to, some just disagreed on whether we should care that they had them and how to act, but most thought they had them), but this is a pretty significant political issue. People were promised better coverage for lower costs, when all was said and done, and that for those with coverage already nothing would change. Granted, if someone really believed that fantasy then they didn't think it through or weren't very smart, but it was promised over and over again. And either Obama knew he was lying or he didn't understand it either. That's at least something relevant to discuss.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

Man, kalm, now you're carrying water for Obama as well? Does your back hurt from carrying so much while bent over?

Geesh, they only have to "change plans" ? That's it? For people that don't need all the additional benefits that will make up the "improved" policy, that could very well be a big deal, especially when they end up paying significantly more because they had to change plans.

I agree, it's not on the order of a discussion as the WMD were (although I agree with the other Blue Hen poster - I think "W" did think they had them - heck, most of the world thought they had them to, some just disagreed on whether we should care that they had them and how to act, but most thought they had them), but this is a pretty significant political issue. People were promised better coverage for lower costs, when all was said and done, and that for those with coverage already nothing would change. Granted, if someone really believed that fantasy then they didn't think it through or weren't very smart, but it was promised over and over again. And either Obama knew he was lying or he didn't understand it either. That's at least something relevant to discuss.

I've never been a plan of the ACA and yes, Obama was an idiot for ever claiming that people would get to keep their CURRENT plans. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the plans that had to be dumped due to non-compliance versus the new plans and what the real costs of providing better insurance are. I'm sure some costs go up, but there's also some long-term savings involved with preventative care. Was it a matter of people paying for healthcare they didn't need or that they couldn't afford, or didn't think they needed?

Our private plan was a good one and grandfathered in so I can keep it but I won't as there's a new plan with the exact same coverages but the premium is significantly less and even with the deductibles will be a net savings for the family. And there's no health questionnaire and only two pages I have to fill out to do so.

As I've said countless times, if costs are really the concern, we should take a look at how and what hospitals charge for (try paying cash for your next procedure and watch the bill get reduced by 40% or more) and remove the profit motive from insurance. Massive amounts of inefficiencies, costs, and over-charging exist in complicated systems. Insurance doesn't have to be that complicated - it's simply spreading the risk. Single-payer would be much better than what we've had or Obamacare.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I think Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. He was wrong, by he acted in good faith. It would appear that Obama flat out lied.

What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

2,000 words? I'm working on a report now that's 9,575 words and it isn't as involved as a law.

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:
What makes you think it more likely that Obama was lying versus playing loose with the facts/misspoke? I know the ACA was 2000 words long and Obama probably didn't read it, but it's too easy to fact the information and prove it was a wanton lie to try and get away with it.

I would guess they both trusted and believed their advisors and I think they're both dopes. But the mistake with WMD was far more significant than this current one.

The truth is nobody is loosing insurance coverage. If the private plan they had is not compliant with ACA they're simply required to change plans. They can do it within the same insurance company, they can't be denied coverage, they're benefits will improve, and they are no longer required to fill out a health questionnaire.

Slight pain in the ass? Yep. Do I like Obamacare? Nope. Has it been spun by the right as folks losing their coverage and "Obama lied" without mentioning the rest of the situation? Yep. Is this politics? Yep.

2,000 words? I'm working on a report now that's 9,575 words and it isn't as involved as a law.

I meant pages or however the fuck long it is.

Yeah, whatever happened to the kalm that thought this bill was written for insurance companies and thought Obama was a corporate centrist?

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
2,000 words? I'm working on a report now that's 9,575 words and it isn't as involved as a law.

I meant pages or however the fuck long it is.

Slow your role, son. Slow your role.

Pwns wrote:Yeah, whatever happened to the kalm that thought this bill was written for insurance companies and thought Obama was a corporate centrist?

It was and he is.

Woo-hoo!

We may have our first casualty of Obamacare.

If she dies, her picture should be posted in the White House.

http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-in ... c8dc88f169" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's an excerpt:

"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 percent 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 percent to 50 percent more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

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."


Obama...killer of innocent people.

So....this is the legislation that Obama has been pinning his entire term on, it's his baby, his legacy, his everything...abd he wasn't going to read the fucking thing?

I know it's long, but fora Harvard educated lawyer putting it something with his name on it you'd think he'd understand the importance I'd actually reading the fucking thing

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk