pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
PA Dem Rep: People Losing Their Insurance Under Obamacare ‘A Good Thing’
#1


BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
December 6, 2013 1:32 pm

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D., Penn.) called the possibility of more Americans losing their insurance policies under Obamacare “a good thing” in an interview on MSNBC Live Friday.

A member of the “strike team” sent by the White House to promote the law, Cartwright continued the talking point that those losing their insurance would ultimately benefit from that happening.

“They have immense deductibles,” he said. “They have annual and lifetime caps. There’s so many people out there with what I call phony insurance policies, and the fact that they’re going to lose those policies, sooner or later, I think is a good thing. Because what we’re up to here is we are strengthening the health care system in this country.”
Live Free or Die
Reply
#2
The worst part is this douche nozzle will probably still win reelection in his gerrymandered district. How Pottstown and Scranton end up in the same congressional district in a state the size of PA is beyond me.
Ammunition, it's the new lead bullion. Buy it cheap and stack it deep.
Reply
#3
This is what liberals are spreading....that the insurance policies lost were junk. But so far I haven't met anyone who lost a policy they did not like....
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#4
Look; if we're going to do this thing we have to be "all in."

Anything else is fucking with a limp dick.

Many of my friends who've lost their policies had those that excluded maternity care--- which they loved because they were past child-bearing years. Never mind that their savings were at the expense of the parents of their grand-children (i.e., their children).

The point, I say the POINT of insurance is that you spread ALL risks. You can't get car insurance that excludes a collision during a left turn because you tend to avoid left turns.

The people who have babies don't have as many heart attacks, strokes, or Type 2 diabetes as those who are older. The older folk who have the latter diseases don't end up with complicated pregnancies. But THEIR GRANDCHILDREN do come down with juvenile leukemia!

The only way it works is if everyone's policy covers everything.

Ever notice that the people who end up buying the high-deductible policies are generally the ones who can't afford those deductibles? That's because they also can't afford the lower-deductible policy!

Under ACA, they can. The hospital and the doctor get paid, and the insured doesn't have to declare bankruptcy.

The people who need insurance the most are those for whom it costs proportionately the most. The ACA seeks to relieve at least some of that.
gascolator, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2012.
Reply
#5
Stop talking and go to the website. Tell me how $500 a month and a $6000 deductible is better. I know it's not and I know you don't realize how bad the policies are. If you did you wouldn't have posted such bs.. these policies are not going to solve anything. If someone that is poor racks up $6000 in hopital bills they will go bankrupt just as fast as before...
Reply
#6
(12-07-2013, 07:56 PM)gascolator Wrote: Look; if we're going to do this thing we have to be "all in."

Anything else is fucking with a limp dick.

Many of my friends who've lost their policies had those that excluded maternity care--- which they loved because they were past child-bearing years. Never mind that their savings were at the expense of the parents of their grand-children (i.e., their children).

The point, I say the POINT of insurance is that you spread ALL risks. You can't get car insurance that excludes a collision during a left turn because you tend to avoid left turns.

The people who have babies don't have as many heart attacks, strokes, or Type 2 diabetes as those who are older. The older folk who have the latter diseases don't end up with complicated pregnancies. But THEIR GRANDCHILDREN do come down with juvenile leukemia!

The only way it works is if everyone's policy covers everything.

Ever notice that the people who end up buying the high-deductible policies are generally the ones who can't afford those deductibles? That's because they also can't afford the lower-deductible policy!

Under ACA, they can. The hospital and the doctor get paid, and the insured doesn't have to declare bankruptcy.

The people who need insurance the most are those for whom it costs proportionately the most. The ACA seeks to relieve at least some of that.

I hope nobody on here actually believes this propaganda...

"The only way it works is if everyone's policy covers everything" is exactly what is wrong with the ACA. By forcing insurers to cover everything under the sun, they are forcing the insurers to double/triple/etc the premiums. I bet these increases will then be blamed on "corporate greed"
Lkttomasz, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Apr 2013.
Reply
#7
gascolator;127836 Wrote:Look; if we're going to do this thing we have to be "all in."

Anything else is fucking with a limp dick.

Many of my friends who've lost their policies had those that excluded maternity care--- which they loved because they were past child-bearing years. Never mind that their savings were at the expense of the parents of their grand-children (i.e., their children).

...

Did you seriously just use the "Do it for the children" argument? Here?

ACA gives the young (and actuarially speaking, low-risk) the biggest dry boning of all. It's structured to pay for the older and poorer (and therefore higher risk) by forcing the young and healthy who typically don't bother much with health insurance into the shared risk pool. Their low utilization and high premiums offset the high-utilization of their older, sicker elders.

When Obamacare fails (and it will) I fully expect to hear the "Well, we just didn't go far enough" argument too.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?
Ammunition, it's the new lead bullion. Buy it cheap and stack it deep.
Reply
#8
Rik Bitter;127843 Wrote:
gascolator;127836 Wrote:Look; if we're going to do this thing we have to be "all in."

Anything else is fucking with a limp dick.

Many of my friends who've lost their policies had those that excluded maternity care--- which they loved because they were past child-bearing years. Never mind that their savings were at the expense of the parents of their grand-children (i.e., their children).

...

Did you seriously just use the "Do it for the children" argument? Here?

ACA gives the young (and actuarially speaking, low-risk) the biggest dry boning of all. It's structured to pay for the older and poorer (and therefore higher risk) by forcing the young and healthy who typically don't bother much with health insurance into the shared risk pool. Their low utilization and high premiums offset the high-utilization of their older, sicker elders.

When Obamacare fails (and it will) I fully expect to hear the "Well, we just didn't go far enough" argument too.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?


It's also forcing healthy people who take care of their bodies to help pay for people who are careless and have poor habits.

The way costs were kept down is because insurance was narrowing their risk. Other insurance does it too....ever had a homeowners policy that wouldn't cover you if you had a Rottweiler? It's called keeping premiums down by lowering risk. When you force everyone into the same pool, the price goes up for everyone....except the poor, who get it free. As usual.

Once again, the middle class and lower middle class gets screwed.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#9
(12-07-2013, 10:42 PM)Rik Bitter Wrote:
gascolator;127836 Wrote:Look; if we're going to do this thing we have to be "all in."

Anything else is fucking with a limp dick.

Many of my friends who've lost their policies had those that excluded maternity care--- which they loved because they were past child-bearing years. Never mind that their savings were at the expense of the parents of their grand-children (i.e., their children).

...

Did you seriously just use the "Do it for the children" argument? Here?

ACA gives the young (and actuarially speaking, low-risk) the biggest dry boning of all. It's structured to pay for the older and poorer (and therefore higher risk) by forcing the young and healthy who typically don't bother much with health insurance into the shared risk pool. Their low utilization and high premiums offset the high-utilization of their older, sicker elders.

When Obamacare fails (and it will) I fully expect to hear the "Well, we just didn't go far enough" argument too.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

Under the ACA, I was under the impression that insurance companies can still charge different premiums based on age? So young people's "shared risk pool" would be other young people

Please correct me if I'm wring
Lkttomasz, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Apr 2013.
Reply
#10
gascolator;127836 Wrote:The point, I say the POINT of insurance is that you spread ALL risks. You can't get car insurance that excludes a collision during a left turn because you tend to avoid left turns.
Don't lecture on the definition of insurance when you support a plan that ignores pre existing conditions. Insurance premiums depend on actuarial tables that have now been thrown out the window. What it does is allow you to buy insurance after the collision and not pay extra. The ACA is not insurance reform, it abolishes insurance and in it's place puts a wealth redistribution scheme.

And your example is rubbish. You CAN buy car insurance with no collision at all. Why would a consumer buy a collision policy for a 15 year old clunker that is not worth as much as the premium?

There is so much wrong with the ACA that makes no sense to even try and fix it. Healthcare is a commodity not a right and no one should be forced to buy something against their will.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bundy thing escalates, one shot RugerGirl 23 2,295 01-31-2016, 12:26 AM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  U.S. Rep Chaka Fattah Stole NASA Grant Money to Repay Illegal Campaign Loan ArcticSplash 9 1,893 09-04-2014, 12:04 AM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  Rep. McCarthy says US should have all options 'on the table' with Iraq Philadelphia Patriot 18 1,720 06-28-2014, 04:28 PM
Last Post: Rik Bitter
  Rep. Gowdy: 'I Have Evidence' of Benghazi Cover-Up das 13 1,944 06-03-2014, 06:30 PM
Last Post: DeadEye
  Here's What A Real Pres. Would Do. Good Read. das 4 973 05-30-2014, 01:13 PM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.