Need a liberal's help

[BackInTex]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

[Al Gore]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

It means if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take it away from you!

[O'Bummer]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

It means if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take it away from you!

[jarnon]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

(Ignoring sarcasm) It means that thanks to Obamacare, your insurance company can't drop you or raise your rate astronomically if you get sick.

[Governor Blago]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

It means if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take it away from you!

[Dawn Clark Netsch]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

It means if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take it away from you!

[SloppyDrunkGuy]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

It meansh....... HIC! HIC!!! Uhhhh, what wuzh the quezhtun again? (HIC!)

[Bubba Squirrel]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

That depends on what your definition of "please" is....

[Dominick the Donkey]

I'm a donkey... does that make me a liberal?

[Rainbow Donkey]

I'm a donkey... does that make me a liberal?

Not unless you believe in unicorns and rainbows!!!!

[littlebeast13]

I think I just need help....

lb13

[Gov Goodhair]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

Son, I'm anything but Liberal but I believe I can answer your question. There are three things involved here. First, if you like your current insurance plan. Second, you can keep it. Lastly, uhm, I'm having a little trouble here...OOPS!

[silverscreenselect]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

This is a current popular right wing talking point, which explains why BiT is posting it here. He and all his buddies listen to Rush Limbaugh and and that crowd every day so that whenever The King of Oxycotin spouts out some half-truths they get excited and spread it around.

What he's referring to here is the "Essential Health Benefits" provision under Obamacare that requires that all plans offer certain essential health benefits such as maternity care. Many states already have their own minimum coverage laws, which always result in an increase in pricing. In those states that don't have them, a lot of existing plans won't qualify under Obamacare.

What BiT fails to point out is that people are getting expanded coverage of the sort that it's not feasible to purchase on an "a la carte" basis because of adverse selection. If maternity care is not required then only women who think they might have coverage will buy which causes rates for coverage to increase drastically.

People who have plans with exclusions are "happy" with those plans until they get sick and find their illness or treatment isn't covered under the plan. Then, they're not so happy.

[a1mamacat]

I think someone OD'd on MMs.

(would that be covered? )

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

This is a current popular right wing talking point, which explains why BiT is posting it here. He and all his buddies listen to Rush Limbaugh and and that crowd every day so that whenever The King of Oxycotin spouts out some half-truths they get excited and spread it around.

What he's referring to here is the "Essential Health Benefits" provision under Obamacare that requires that all plans offer certain essential health benefits such as maternity care. Many states already have their own minimum coverage laws, which always result in an increase in pricing. In those states that don't have them, a lot of existing plans won't qualify under Obamacare.

What BiT fails to point out is that people are getting expanded coverage of the sort that it's not feasible to purchase on an "a la carte" basis because of adverse selection. If maternity care is not required then only women who think they might have coverage will buy which causes rates for coverage to increase drastically.

People who have plans with exclusions are "happy" with those plans until they get sick and find their illness or treatment isn't covered under the plan. Then, they're not so happy.

Shorter version: The Government decides if you are happy with your current insurance. After all the government did not actually ban incandescent lightbulbs they just made it too expensive to purchase them.

[Ignorant Juicebag]

If your insurance company lies to you, you can sue them. If a politician lies to you have no remedy

[Bob Juch]

If your insurance company lies to you, you can sue them. If a politician lies to you have no remedy

Yes you do, it's called voting.

[flockofseagulls104]

if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. No one can take that away from you.

I've never been good at reading between the lines or analyzing for secondary meanings.

Please explain the above quote.

I would assume they would say t means whatever you want it to mean at the time you want to know.

One Example:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Ask any liberal what that means and you'll probably get a different answer from every one of them. And for some of them, the answer might change depending on what day of the week it is or even the time of day. Words are living things, after all.

[silverscreenselect]

Words are living things, after all.

Words do change meaning over the years, as this article indicates. "Awful" originally meant "inspiring wonder." "Bimbo" meant "one of the guys." "Garble" meant "to sort something out."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... gh-2173079

And, when you quote the Second Amendment, like Justice Scalia, you conveniently omit the opening clause, because it doesn't fit in with your concept of what the amendment should mean.

[BackInTex]

OK, I get it. Its a lie and you liberals don't think you should or want to explain it. Because you can't, truthfully.

Let me help. The quote comes from Mr. O himself about his own Ocare.

And not as SSS stated, my interest and 'stick pointing' did not come from Rush, who I seldom listen to but from coverage I saw this morning on CBS news. They repeatedly showed O saying the quote then they were interviewing several people who lost their coverage (or will Jan 1) because the plan they were on did not include required coverage under Ocare thus their insurance companies were dropping their plans. They were offered new plans off the Ocare site for as much as 10X the cost of their current plans something of course none of them could.

Everyone responded as expected, so nothing new.

[silverscreenselect]

They were offered new plans off the Ocare site for as much as 10X the cost of their current plans something of course none of them could.

I've yet to see a documented instance of someone having their insurance premium increase 10 times as much under Obamacae. These have been anecdotal claims based in many cases on looking for the most expensive plan on an exchange website, which in most cases provides a much higher level of coverage than the individual currently has. They also don't take subsidies into account.

In addition, all new policies have caps on deductibles and out of pocket expenses. No matter how many medical bills you have in a year the most you can be out of pocket is $6250 for a person and $12500 for a family (including any deductibles). And, unlike with many private insurance policies, the policy can't be cancelled next year or the rates jacked up or various ailments excluded.

Unless you look at the entirety of your costs, including premium, deductible, and OOP maximum, you can't fairly compare two policies. And, as far as the essential health benefits are concerned, a lot of people who don't have some of them under their current policies are probably unaware of the gaps in their coverage and remain unaware up until the time they try to file a claim and find out that they don't have coverage for something they probably thought they had.

If I were on my own buying coverage, my rate would go up (since I wouldn't qualify for a subsidy), but not by anything approaching what these doom-and-gloom tales are claiming.

[Bob Juch]

OK, I get it. Its a lie and you liberals don't think you should or want to explain it. Because you can't, truthfully.

Let me help. The quote comes from Mr. O himself about his own Ocare.

And not as SSS stated, my interest and 'stick pointing' did not come from Rush, who I seldom listen to but from coverage I saw this morning on CBS news. They repeatedly showed O saying the quote then they were interviewing several people who lost their coverage (or will Jan 1) because the plan they were on did not include required coverage under Ocare thus their insurance companies were dropping their plans. They were offered new plans off the Ocare site for as much as 10X the cost of their current plans something of course none of them could.

Everyone responded as expected, so nothing new.

Here's the core of the article, not just BiT's extract:

For many, their introduction to the Affordable Care Act has been negative: a broken website, and now cancellation notices from insurance companies followed by sticker shock over higher prices for the new plans. It's directly at odds with repeated assurances from the president, who has said "if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you."

But people across the country are finding out they're losing their existing insurance plans under Obamacare because requirements in the law, such as prenatal and prescription drug coverage, mean their old plans aren't comprehensive enough.

In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.

That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette. Last month, she received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she's being offered would run $591 a month -- 10 times more than what she currently pays.

Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

According to HealthCare.gov, Barrette is eligible for some subsidies, CBS News' Jan Crawford pointed out on "CBS This Morning." But Barrette told CBS News she has no idea what those subsidies would be because she cannot log on to the website -- an issue U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is sure to be asked about when she testifies on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

Yes, insurance companies that have been offering substandard policies won't be able to offer them next year.

[Bob Juch]

Here's the full details about that $54 policy:

The name of Dianne Barrette is speeding around the newsphere today. This 56-year-old resident of Winter Haven, Fla., surfaced on a CBS News story today as a victim of Obamacare. Reporter Jan Crawford, in a “CBS This Morning” story, addressed the contradiction between President Obama’s pledge that those who liked their health-care plans could keep them and the ongoing disappointment of folks who are now getting kicked off of their existing plans because they do not meet federal requirements. Crawford found Dianne Barrette, who claimed that she’s looking at a tenfold hike in her plan. Here’s some transcript:

Last month, [Barrette] received a letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she’s being offered would run $591 a month, ten times more than what she currently pays. “What I have right now is what I’m happy with, and I just want to know why I can’t keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?” [says Barrette]

Perfect sound bite for Fox News! In a chat with the Erik Wemple Blog, Barrette confirmed that three Fox News producers had called to sign her on. She’ll be appearing tomorrow on the imbecilic morning show “Fox & Friends,” “Your World” with the great Neil Cavuto and on Greta Van Susteren’s program, “On the Record.”
“You guys are going to be sick of my face,” jokes Barrette, who works as a realtor and pulls in about $30,000 per year.

More coverage may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover “extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,” says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? “Outpatient only,” responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care. On the other hand, says Barrette, it does cover “most of my generic drugs that I need” and there’s a $50 co-pay for doctors’ appointments. “It’s all I could afford right now,” says Barrette.

In sum, it’s a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick “plan.” When asked if she ever required hospitalization, Barrette says she did. It happened when she was employed by Raytheon, which provided “excellent benefits.” Ever since she left the company and started working as an independent contractor, “I haven’t been hospitalized since then, thank God.” Hospitalization is among the core requirements for health-care plans under Obamacare.

CBS News did note that Barrette would likely qualify for subsidies that would reduce the cost of her coverage. That said, news organizations that skim the country for cases-in-point on this health-care transition have an obligation to compare similar fruits. Even though Barrette would prefer to keep her current plan, more detail on what that plan provides vis-a-vis the offerings of the new plan is a non-optional component of coverage. A middling hospital stay could well have bankrupted Barrette under her current insurance. But don’t rely on “Fox & Friends” to belabor that dimension of the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... detractor/

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... rance?lite

[ten96lt]

Words are living things, after all.

And, when you quote the Second Amendment, like Justice Scalia, you conveniently omit the opening clause, because it doesn't fit in with your concept of what the amendment should mean.

I guess you've never heard the definition of a prefatory clause then. Doesn't matter what it says as the operative clause is what counts and the Heller decision affirmed that.

Even if you wanted it to count, many states have a pretty loose view of what a militia is. For example, Illinois:

The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.