Obamacare in Action - No Insurance for New Children

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Some-insurers-stop-writing-apf-1129458619.html?x=0&.v=1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

Why would they keep adding them- especially when they're locked in until they're 26 if the employee works there that long or if they retire.

These are all issues that have been raised before they voted on this- insurance coverage would degrade and costs would increase. The insurers are just rolling in dough through this legislation and it only served to harm working people.

 

[Sparta]

You realise that if it weren't for the insurance industry drumming up all that nonsense about Socialism in the senate (thanks to your crazy, and frankly, easily exploitable lobbying system), then you guys would actually have universal health care and you wouldn't be having this problem?

You do know that right?

 

[Insano]

Also, stop using the word Obamacare.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The teabaggers must be delighted.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You realise that if it weren't for the insurance industry drumming up all that nonsense about Socialism in the senate (thanks to your crazy, and frankly, easily exploitable lobbying system), then you guys would actually have universal health care and you wouldn't be having this problem?

You do know that right?

I am against a socialist healthcare system. However, THIS is even worse (Obamacare, which is compulsory insurance enrollment and heavy industry regulation to increase profits to the insurance company- not socialist healthcare)

Wall St and these mega insurance corporations have had Congress and Obama in their pocket for a long time now.

Reform to insurance availability was needed, as some states had already implemented CORRECTLY. The feds introduced this idiotic law and it's causing so many problems.

The teabaggers must be delighted.

Wow stop with the vulgar names. And are you kidding me? Who would be delighted to learn their children cannot be added to their insurance? These are the exact reasons the teaparty groups were fighting the bill. Why would they be delighted when its what they were trying to stop from happening in the first place. If anybody should be happy it should be those who voted for and supported the bill- they're the ones who wanted all of this.

 

[Stigmata]

I am against a socialist healthcare system. However, THIS is even worse (Obamacare, which is compulsory insurance enrollment and heavy industry regulation to increase profits to the insurance company- not socialist healthcare)

Wall St and these mega insurance corporations have had Congress and Obama in their pocket for a long time now.

"Socialist" healthcare would almost completely eliminate this.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Wow stop with the vulgar names. And are you kidding me? Who would be delighted to learn their children cannot be added to their insurance? These are the exact reasons the teaparty groups were fighting the bill. Why would they be delighted when its what they were trying to stop from happening in the first place. If anybody should be happy it should be those who voted for and supported the bill- they're the ones who wanted all of this.

The teabaggers/Republicans are strong supporters of corporate profiteering, this will improve health insurance shareprices.

 

[Qonfused]

I can't take this thread seriously because Obamacare is in the title.

 

[Krynn72]

I can't take this thread seriously because Obamacare is in the title.

Same. Especially when he then gets offended by someone calling the Teabaggers... "the Teabaggers."

 

[Raziaar]

It's funny how the Teabaggers don't like being called Teabaggers... yet they have no issue calling people like myself communist and marxist even though I am no such thing.

Keep attempting to stick your balls of protest into the mouth of moderate America, Teabaggers. You're going places.

 

[Krynn72]

http://www.thefoxnation.com/jon-stewart/2010/04/22/jon-stewart-calling-it-obamacare-derogatory

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well good God. God forbid I use a common media term. Let's ignore the article, the facts and substance at hand, and get all roiled up about the term "Obamacare"

That'll be sure to distract from the issue! Then we'll say the Republicans are big business led so it's not the Democrats fault at all, even though they're the ones who passed the law! Makes total sense!

 

[Krynn72]

Looks like its just you, and us, and a couple of pairs of sour, sweaty, balls.

I'm not going to get upset at the government over what corporations are willfully doing to circumvent the law.

 

[Raziaar]

Everybody loves a good teabagging.

 

[Yuri]

I'm not going to get upset at the government over what corporations are willfully doing to circumvent the law.

Uh, I think the point is they are not circumventing the law.

I like the idea that nicknames are derogatory, either Obamacare or Teabaggers. One is just funnier that's all

 

[Krynn72]

If I'm understanding it correctly, the new legislation requires insurers to ignore medical issues when accepting children under insurance plans, and that companies are now just not giving any children insurance in order to circumvent that requirement entirely.

 

[V-Man339]

I would have agreed with your, thread starter, but no, you had to start the entire thing with the word Obamacare.
Like they said, I cannot find any reason to take anyone who uses a word like that seriously. Ever.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I would have agreed with your, thread starter, but no, you had to start the entire thing with the word Obamacare.
Like they said, I cannot find any reason to take anyone who uses a word like that seriously. Ever.

I'm sorry but that's what it's called here in the media.

I can make it sound actually WORSE by calling it what it really is objectively-

"COMPULSORY PRIVATE INSURANCE IN ACTION - NO INSURANCE FOR NEW CHILDREN"

Better? I don't think it's possible to edit thread titles though. If you would disregard data and the article based on a common media term then that's just ridiculous. Obamacare isn't in the least 'derrogatory' and it's just used to indicate the specific health care plan pushed by Obama & his administration to Congress. There were other plans and ideas thrown around in Congress that went under other 'pet names' as well. Once again focus is thrown on the 'words used' rather than the substance itself. If a mod wants to go ahead and edit the title to say what I quoted above I'd be all for it.


The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Obama's plans for health care reform in general, was often nicknamed "Obamacare".[87] The term was usually used pejoratively, but some supporters of the act suggested after being passed that it be embraced and used positively.[88]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/obamacare-is-victory-i-welcome

If I'm understanding it correctly, the new legislation requires insurers to ignore medical issues when accepting children under insurance plans, and that companies are now just not giving any children insurance in order to circumvent that requirement entirely.

Which is an arguement that was made by those fighting this legislation from the get go. That this would be an inevitable outcome. Nice ninja edit of your original post earlier in the thread btw. "**** off teabagger" had a better ring to it than the img you editted over it with.

 

[Raziaar]

I always find it interesting how people blame the group that is trying to do the right thing.

Like with credit card reform, making it so banks are able to less effectively screw over card owners, these people choose to blame the reform, rather than the underhanded, devious tactics circumventing the regulations to screw people over even more. They don't blame the banks at all, they blame the people trying to limit the ability for the banks to screw customers over, even though it is the banks who are finding new ways to shove a dick up your ass.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I always find it interesting how people blame the group that is trying to do the right thing.

Like with credit card reform, making it so banks are able to less effectively screw over card owners, these people choose to blame the reform, rather than the underhanded, devious tactics circumventing the regulations to screw people over even more. They don't blame the banks at all, they blame the people trying to limit the ability for the banks to screw customers over, even though it is the banks who are finding new ways to shove a dick up your ass.

Except this wasn't some 'unexpected twist' or something. People were screaming that these would be the results of this legislation. Were theey just deaf, incompetent, or plain didn't care? It was clear as day and those who vocalized this were clear as could be.

It is the insurance companies, AND the federal government. Why were some states able to effectively put 'insurance availability reform' (which was what was truly needed) into place and the feds couldn't?

I got over the whole defending your party/candidate/etc no matter what long ago. I wish people here would. This is a huge deal- the entire concept in general that you can FORCE all citizens to BUY something through the commerce clause.

There are serious issues with this bill that undermine civil liberties for potential future abuse, as well as implementation issues such as this article that were brought up by the opposition from DAY ONE!

You ALL know I am a fiscal conservative, and even I say socialized medicine would've been better than this piece of crap. Socialized medicine doesn't force anybody to do anything. It degrades service, but not civil liberties. This bill degrades both.

 

[Stigmata]

You have to realise, most of the problems stemming from the healthcare "reform" bill are the result of lobbyists putting politicians in their pocket. The corporations are at fault, AGAIN. And again, and again, and again. The legislation was a half-failure, but it's not because of misguided initial intent.

 

[Raziaar]

Sorry, things need to be fixed, even if companies are going to be dicks about it and try to screw their customer base as a result. That's just being spiteful, revealing their true intentions.

I'm not going to smother change and improvement because company a or individuals n are going to be complete assholes because they disagree with it. It's the right thing to do.


I don't know what you're talking about supporting a candidate or a party or whatever. That has nothing to do with any of this.


You're basically telling us that we should allow companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions, because those companies will react to the legislation by not allowing coverage for any children if they don't get their way.

You do understand how ridiculous that sounds, right? It's bending against the will of a bully.


Won't somebody please think of the children!? Unless they have pre-existing conditions in which case they can go **** themselves because they're ruining it for the rest!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You have to realise, most of the problems stemming from the healthcare "reform" bill are the result of lobbyists putting politicians in their pocket. The corporations are at fault, AGAIN. And again, and again, and again. The legislation was a half-failure, but it's not because of misguided initial intent.

The Congress is at fault. THEY have the votes and they put it into law. Obama signed it into law. The corporations did not sign it into law. They spent money, wined and dined, but those that voted "D" put the ones who were 'swayed' into power.

This was clear as day what was going to happen and people were screaming it- there ARE NO EXCUSES. If this was guaranteed to be the result than no legislation should have been signed into law in the first place by Obama. They were so desperate to claim a 'victory' for the party and satisfy the elite that they rushed this into law, consequences be damned- and most without even reading it!!

This administration has more wall street interests steering it than ever before, including Republican ones. The problem is they're not steering it into a direction that's healthy for business in general, they're steering it to serve a select elite at the detriment of their own companies health and the working public.

Sorry, things need to be fixed, even if companies are going to be dicks about it and try to screw their customer base as a result. That's just being spiteful, revealing their true intentions.

Then follow the artfully worded legislation that states already enacted successfully.

I'm not going to smother change and improvement because company a or individuals n are going to be complete assholes because they disagree with it. It's the right thing to do.

You don't have to. But I'm not going to let Congress give me a clearly BROKEN product from the get go and claim "its broken cuz insurance companies"

It's called being proactive. Like I said- these issues were brought up. Yet nothing was done to remedy them. They were aware it was going to happen.

It's like if your city was building a wooden bridge, and was told it would not be able to sturdy because it is 100% guaranteed beavers will chew at the ropes, but it insisted on building it anyway because they needed a way across and did nothing to change the design. The nit collapses and they say "its those damn beavers fault. wouldn't have gone down like that if not for them" It is the city's fault! It was clear what was going to happen and NOTHING was done to fix it. Congress is to blame, this wasn't a surprise action nor was it unexpected. At least if it was unexpected that'd be different.

I don't know what you're talking about supporting a candidate or a party or whatever. That has nothing to do with any of this.

Not necessarily you. I am saying there are members here who will absolutely not admit to any Democrat or liberal legislation or bills possibly being flawed. Just as there are conservatives who won't. If they can't see through logic to see that this is via fault in the legislation and Congress itself they're blind.

You're basically telling us that we should allow companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions, because those companies will react to the legislation by not allowing coverage for any children if they don't get their way.

You do understand how ridiculous that sounds, right? It's bending against the will of a bully.

"Bob stole my money and thats not right, but if I confront him he will shoot me in the face before I can even react, 100% guaranteed."

It's not the smarter choice to make things worse than they are from the start. It wasn't right that certain kids aren't covered- sure, but now NONE are covered and there is nothing you can do about it. Great progress????

Insurance companies wanted this from the get go. Now they can deny all new children, save a bunch of money on company policies, and have an excuse to do so (skyrocketing cost that would result.) This is something they would do now if they had a scapegoat reason to do so. They lobbied for it and Democrat controlled Congress GLADLY accepted.

 

[Krynn72]

Nice ninja edit of your original post earlier in the thread btw. "**** off teabagger" had a better ring to it than the img you editted over it with.

I do believe my original post was "Go suck some balls, teabagger." Get your facts straight.

The government did the right thing. The corporations retaliate by denying people coverage. I don't see how you could fault the government for doing something good, even if they did know that the insurance corporations would be cocks about it. Frankly, I don't even see what the problem is. People will get their insurance from somewhere else. Free market bitch.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I do believe my original post was "Go suck some balls, teabagger." Get your facts straight.

The government did the right thing. The corporations retaliate by denying people coverage. I don't see how you could fault the government for doing something good, even if they did know that the insurance corporations would be cocks about it. Frankly, I don't even see what the problem is. People will get their insurance from somewhere else. Free market bitch.

They didn't do something good. This was a clear, predicted, forewarned result of the legislation. It was not a 'retialiation' but a cutthroat business practice that was waiting to be enacted once a reason made itself available. Congress was TOLD this would happen by the people opposing it, so why did they let it happen? Cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't make any sense in the least.

Good example from wikipedia - "The Embargo Act of 1807, passed by the United States Congress in protest against British and French interference in U.S. shipping. The Act had the side-effect of prohibiting nearly all U.S. exports and most imports, greatly disrupting the U.S. economy."

Idiotic legislation is not acceptable. Blaming the French and British in that scenerio is stupid as well when it is clearly Congress' fault.

Most of you are against SB1070. That law doesn't have racial profiling in it, but it's CLEAR it will be rampant as a direct result of it, as well as civil liberties violations of citizens for not having ID on them. For both of those reasons it is right to oppose SB1070 until a suitable fix can be made.

If you can see that for SB1070, why can you not see it for the compulsory healthcare insurance? Are you guys that blinded by the 'ideology line' is my question. This bill has done NOTHING to improve healthcare. It has so far driven costs up and is making coverage less available. So why this huge defense of those who crafted it?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Corporations used to screw people, a bill was passed to stop that, but it wasn't a great bill and the corporations can still screw people, therefore it's all the governments fault and corporations are angelic victims of government tyranny.

 

[Krynn72]

If you can see that for SB1070, why can you not see it for the compulsory healthcare insurance? Are you guys that blinded by the 'ideology line' is my question. This bill has done NOTHING to improve healthcare. It has so far driven costs up and is making coverage less available. So why this huge defense of those who crafted it?

First off, don't make stupid comparisons. These two laws are apples and oranges. Secondly, this LAW has improved healthcare, because now I have some . I'm on my parent's plan again. In just a few years, much more of this law will be in action, meaning things like no more denying people based on pre-existing conditions, no more removing lifetime limits on benefits, no more co-pays on preventative health care, etc. Horray for the new healthcare legislation!

And you know who has done NOTHING to improve healthcare? Insurance companies. I still fail to see why we should be angry at the government for trying to help us when its the corporations who keep ****ing us every way they can. Not only that, but these knee-jerk reactions by the companies to screw us will go away in time as people realize that this new legislation isn't the devil that conservative media has made it out to be. I am very much happy with the way it turned out, especially considering the ridiculous opposition by the right wing, which forced them to remove all sorts of very beneficial elements that used to be there.

The fact is, this bill is improving healthcare. It may not look like it right now, because companies are being babies about it, and the conservative media is using it as a means to slander the current administration in order to improve chances of a republican president in 2012, but it WILL improve things, and the cost will not be so bad once things settle down and people stop being retards.

 

[Tagaziel]

OP, do you honestly believe major reforms are going to have instant positive effects? If you do, please stop posting and attend a Klan meeting in blackface.

 

[Krynn72]

If you do, please stop posting and attend a Klan meeting in blackface.

I get it!

 

[Yuri]

If I'm understanding it correctly, the new legislation requires insurers to ignore medical issues when accepting children under insurance plans, and that companies are now just not giving any children insurance in order to circumvent that requirement entirely.

I admit I don't know very much about the issue, but I don't think it is very effectual to blame corporations for finding exploitative loopholes in legislature. If it is not illegal due to a flaw in the law (heh), corporations will take the advantage and complaining about how ruthless, greedy and evil they are doesn't really accomplish anything. But complaining to the government may, as they have the ability to change the legislature.

I mean, in general, so perhaps the specifics of this issue means it doesn't apply.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I admit I don't know very much about the issue, but I don't think it is very effectual to blame corporations for finding exploitative loopholes in legislature. If it is not illegal due to a flaw in the law (heh), corporations will take the advantage and complaining about how ruthless, greedy and evil they are doesn't really accomplish anything. But complaining to the government may, as they have the ability to change the legislature.

I mean, in general, so perhaps the specifics of this issue means it doesn't apply.

This right here.

People are getting defensive about this very issue and people are acting like it's completely out of the lawmakers hands, even though the issue was brought up.

Are you all too blind to see this? Why was this pushed through not simply using a successful state's law as a model?

That even would've passed with possible bi-partisan support.


Krynn I'm glad it turned out fine for you. Unfortunately now for my mother she can't find a doctor willing to take her. She's got Medicaid as primary and Blue Cross Blue Shield as secondary. Doctors practice doesnt make enough off of Medicaid anymore for it to be worth it so Medicaid patients are being driven away in droves from medical offices. Awesome effect of this legislation.

 

[63]

Spoiler

 

[Stigmata]

Pretty much.

So this is the rub: Not all, but *most* of the government was complicit in this. The reason they were complicit, is because corporations (specifically insurance companies and medical suppliers) paid off the politicians who had a say in the legislation. They bought the ability to basically insert whatever text they wanted into the bill. This is why the bill was so goddamn bloated. This is why there are so many loopholes. This is why it sucks.

They are BOTH at fault. Corporations won't save you, they're the reason your country is in this mess in the first place. Politicians won't save you, they're also the reason your country is in this mess in the first place. Solution? Get some new politicians. This is on you, Rakurai. You may be just one person, but it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS. It's everyone's responsibility. Do something about it.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh, it's Rakurai, you know he's going to do something about it. Something big... something epic. He doesn't toss around e-mails or anything... he steps up and the world embraces his opinion.


But seriously though, yeah... politicians and big business are the problems, with the main problem being big business, and the politicians who support it or get paid off by it. No sense of humanity, doing things for the simple goodness of it. It's all about profit, and poor sick people aren't a source of profit.

 

[Krynn72]

People are getting defensive about this very issue and people are acting like it's completely out of the lawmakers hands, even though the issue was brought up.

Nobody gives a shit that it was brought up before. I feel the same way now as I did during the whole debate. I know the corporations will **** us any way they can, no matter what the government does. So I'll support the government trying to improve things, while not supporting the corporations what try to **** us. Is that so god damn hard to understand? Guess what would have happened if they used that state law as a model... THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD FIND A WAY TO **** US. ITS WHAT THEY ****ING DO. ITS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO **** US AS MUCH AS THEY CAN. So I'll support the best option we can get, which apparently is this half-assed legislation that you ****** ass self-righteous ignorant ****-wit conservatives whittled it down to, ****ing it up for everybody. You all bitch about shit sucking, WELL ITS YOUR GOD DAMN FAULT THIS NEW SHIT SUCK. We had a good ****ing thing going for awhile and then Obama tried to reason with you ****ing assholes in the name of bipartisanship and cooporation, but all you cockbags decided to play politics with people's health and GOD DAMN STONEWALLED ever ****ing thing that was good in it. ****ING ****** COCK SUCKING ******SHIT GOD DAMN IT

Disclaimer: I was trying to make a point, I think. But looking back at the whole situation got me pissed the **** off. The rant isn't directed you Rakurai, or anyone else in specific for that matter.

 

[lord_raken]

Corporations will always seek profit however they can. That is undeniable and unchangeable. If they didn't their products wouldn't be produced and the economy would die. You all shouts your hate of companies but you forget that without them you would have nothing but a patch of land and a stick to till the earth while trying to eak out a meager existence. Yes they are often ass holes but they make our standard of living and modern world possible. They make our food we eat, the medicine that keeps us healthy and the infrastructure we use everyday. You can trust a company to try and make a profit but you have to be wary of government.

The role of government on the healthcare subject is first to preserve the liberty and freedom of the people and second to regulate so to maximizes the number of people who have access and STILL allow companies to make a profit.

Helping improve access to healthcare is a good thing but it must be done in a way that will promote the greatest amount of freedom and potential prosperity. This bill feels like something forced upon us just to prove that it could be done with little regard to the actual long term outcome.

 

[Sparta]

The role of government on the healthcare subject is first to preserve the liberty and freedom of the people and second to regulate so to maximizes the number of people who have access and STILL allow companies to make a profit.

Helping improve access to healthcare is a good thing but it must be done in a way that will promote the greatest amount of freedom and potential prosperity. This bill feels like something forced upon us just to prove that it could be done with little regard to the actual long term outcome.

In theory, this is exactly how it should work. In practice, however, the "liberty and freedom of the people" only extends as far as the corporations freedom to profit.

I admit I don't know very much about the issue, but I don't think it is very effectual to blame corporations for finding exploitative loopholes in legislature. If it is not illegal due to a flaw in the law (heh), corporations will take the advantage and complaining about how ruthless, greedy and evil they are doesn't really accomplish anything. But complaining to the government may, as they have the ability to change the legislature.

I mean, in general, so perhaps the specifics of this issue means it doesn't apply.

The problem here is that the corporations are the people who actually made it possible for the loophole in the first place, almost entirely by lobbying senators and congress not to include such a law as that would hinder the profits of one of America's largest industries during a recession.

Yes, The government passed the bill that had the loophole, but the loophole wouldn't be in place (and like I said at the start of the thread) if it weren't for these corporations claiming every attempt at government intervention in healthcare is socialism.

Also, Rakurai, you're silly for being flat-out against socialised healthcare. Tens of thousands in the U.S. die every year because your country doesn't have it, just so insurance companies can have the "liberty and freedom" to profit as much as they want.

 

[No Limit]

They are trying to pull as much shit as possible to make this law look horrible before it fully kicks in 2014 and they can no longer pull shit like this. So this is a temporary side effect that will be gone within another couple of years.

And the reason people don't take you seriously when you use terms like Obamacare is that it shows you're a typical right wing hack that reads or watches way too much right wing bullshit. I did not support this legislation but I'm willing to have an honest debate about it, not dumb down the issue to policially motivated terms. Weren't you the one that was here beating up on Pelosi when that was the right wing mantra of the time right after Obama got elected?

 

[Druckles]

The way I see it, your entire government is taking bribes from companies because they think free healthcare for those who can't afford it is a bad idea.

That's ****ed up, man.

 

[No Limit]

The way I see it, your entire government is taking bribes from companies because they think free healthcare for those who can't afford it is a bad idea.

That's ****ed up, man.

To be fair to health insurance corporations it's only one of the many private industries that bribes our government on a day to day basis.