It's Official: Liberals Lie To Get What They Want

[Sam]

So, here ya go, Sam....

Source: WSJ

In general, if a family is already insuring one child, it won't cost much more, if anything, to add another young adult, as most employers still charge the same family rate for any number of kids, or raise the premium incrementally beyond three. It would be more expensive for a single parent to add a young adult to the health plan than it would be for a two-parent family already insuring a spouse, says Bryce Williams, head of Towers Watson's exchange solutions, which will sell federally subsidized health insurance in 2014 in addition to other plans.

© Copyright Original Source

That's what I'm saying. And it justifies my "usual", even though I started to back away from that because I didn't know if it was "usual" enough, but I thought it was.

You're talking about employer-based plans, here, and ostensibly distinct risk pools. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. That dependents remaining on their parents' employer-based plan adversely affects the non-group risk pool? That certainly doesn't appear to be the case, as the non-group risk pool is totally acceptable to insurers right now. That young and healthy individuals aren't doing enough to prop up the older and sicker individuals? Then you not only agree with the individual mandate but you would go even further to compel young and healthy people to get insured! And since those young and healthy individuals have to be earning less than $33,000 to stay on their parents' plans, you're going to have to increase subsidies — otherwise, they'll just go back to getting the dirt-cheap catastrophic care plans that don't provide enough margin to support the older and sicker individuals.

I don't know where you think this is going, Cow Poke, but if you're no longer talking specifically about the premiums and risk pool in the non-group exchange, the only criticisms I can see you legitimately making on this point lead to some pretty progressive conclusions.

[Cow Poke]

You're talking about employer-based plans, here, and ostensibly distinct risk pools. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point.

They play a major part, Sam, but obviously don't support your case, so you'll just hand wave them away. I'm really tired of your jackassery and sinful uncharity.

You pretty well vindicated something I had said earlier....

I'm thinking you're just trying to argue a point that you lost five or six posts ago.

You're not interested in discussion, all you want to do is "win".

Have fun!

[Cow Poke]

MEANWHILE, to others who MIGHT care, here's why the topic of these "family plans" is so near and dear to me.....

Unlike most posters in this thread, I've actually been a hiring manager, a director of an HR department, and, as such, a designated plan administrator of a Blue Cross Blue Shield program at our company.

One day in May 2008, I received a phone call from one of our employees in Louisiana. Their 3 1/2 month old son had died, apparently from SIDS.

In my role as Chaplain, I made plans to drive the 7 hours to their home, and in my role as HR Director, I asked my admin to pull their file to get the insurance information.

Quite to our dismay, they had never notified our department of the birth of their son, and since he is older than the 90 day window for enrollment (starts at birth), he was not covered on the policy. (There was a 90 day grace)

I drove to their home, then went with them to the funeral home to assist in making funeral plans. The Funeral Director wasn't going to do anything without insurance, unless they put up $5000. They didn't have $50.

I pulled out my personal credit card and tossed it on the Funeral Director's desk, and said, "let's get this poor baby buried". She looked surprised, and said "the whole $5000?" I said, "whatever it takes". She left the room to process the card, and we continued making funeral plans. (I knew my company would stand good for the expense, so I wasn't worried about it)

When I got back to Texas, I appealed to BCBS that SINCE this was a "family plan", and there was no ADDITIONAL premium for ADDITIONAL children (they already had one other covered), it seemed silly that the claim would be denied on a technicality. It took several phone calls, but they agreed -- and paid the claim, refunding my company the $5000 (which had already been reimbursed to me )

I hesitated to say this was "usual", because I honestly didn't know if it was or not, but it APPEARS from other things I'm seeing on the web that these "family" plans do, indeed, USUALLY cover ADDITIONAL family members for NO ADDITIONAL PREMIUM, or, at most, a very reduced premium.

But, I do know a thing or two about insurance.

[Sam]

They play a major part, Sam, but obviously don't support your case, so you'll just hand wave them away. I'm really tired of your jackassery and sinful uncharity.

You pretty well vindicated something I had said earlier....


You're not interested in discussion, all you want to do is "win".

Have fun!

[Sam]

MEANWHILE, to others who MIGHT care, here's why the topic of these "family plans" is so near and dear to me.....

Unlike most posters in this thread, I've actually been a hiring manager, a director of an HR department, and, as such, a designated plan administrator of a Blue Cross Blue Shield program at our company.

One day in May 2008, I received a phone call from one of our employees in Louisiana. Their 3 1/2 month old son had died, apparently from SIDS.

In my role as Chaplain, I made plans to drive the 7 hours to their home, and in my role as HR Director, I asked my admin to pull their file to get the insurance information.

Quite to our dismay, they had never notified our department of the birth of their son, and since he is older than the 90 day window for enrollment (starts at birth), he was not covered on the policy. (There was a 90 day grace)

I drove to their home, then went with them to the funeral home to assist in making funeral plans. The Funeral Director wasn't going to do anything without insurance, unless they put up $5000. They didn't have $50.

I pulled out my personal credit card and tossed it on the Funeral Director's desk, and said, "let's get this poor baby buried". She looked surprised, and said "the whole $5000?" I said, "whatever it takes". She left the room to process the card, and we continued making funeral plans. (I knew my company would stand good for the expense, so I wasn't worried about it)

When I got back to Texas, I appealed to BCBS that SINCE this was a "family plan", and there was no ADDITIONAL premium for ADDITIONAL children (they already had one other covered), it seemed silly that the claim would be denied on a technicality. It took several phone calls, but they agreed -- and paid the claim, refunding my company the $5000 (which had already been reimbursed to me )

I hesitated to say this was "usual", because I honestly didn't know if it was or not, but it APPEARS from other things I'm seeing on the web that these "family" plans do, indeed, USUALLY cover ADDITIONAL family members for NO ADDITIONAL PREMIUM, or, at most, a very reduced premium.

But, I do know a thing or two about insurance.

That is indeed a tragic occurrence. Fortunately, the ACA essential benefits now require that all plans cover both maternity and newborn costs — ACA-compliant plans, whether on the non-group or employer-based markets, must now automatically cover newborns.

[Cow Poke]

Nope!

[Sam]

Nope!

Then please don't project your own disinterest in discussion onto me in the future.

[Cow Poke]

Then please don't project your own disinterest in discussion onto me in the future.

Such sinful uncharity!

[Paprika]

As far as I know, we never denied we had them. Nor did we have a reputation of gross human rights violations of the magnitude Saddam's regime inflicted.

That's not answering the question.

[Cow Poke]

That's not answering the question.

I forgot the question.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, THAT question!



Prior to the current administration, I'd say no.

[Paprika]

Prior to the current administration, I'd say no.

Why?

[Mountain Man]

Source: Why Obamacare Architect's Admission of Dishonesty Should Matter to Every American

A list of administration lies might be a good topic for a book. But to just hit a few of the health care related highlights, we were told that the public option was not a Trojan horse, that it was about choice and competition. This was a bald faced lie. We were told we could keep our plans and doctors period, end of sentence. That was a lie. We were told Obamacare would reduce premiums by $2,500. That was a lie. That Obamacare was not a tax. Lie. That the VA was a model of socialized medicine. True, but not in the way they meant. All of these lies built upon one another, creating a vision of health reform that was all upside and no downside. And the Democrats barely, despite the obvious displeasure of citizens, forced it through, though only just barely.

[...]

And now, with the statement by Jonathan Gruber we may have reached the ne plus ultra of statements confirming this administration's essential dishonesty. Here you have one of the consummate Obamacare insiders--cited 71 times in DNC emails in 2009 alone-- saying on video that the bill was designed to fool stupid voters, in fact to fool them by fooling the non-partisan CBO which is supposed to be an honest broker.

Incredibly, even at this point, there are some, like MSNBC's Ronan Farrow and Washington Post writer Jose DelReal willing to suggest we're just missing the nuance. Somehow this plain admission of dishonesty isn't about what Gruber said or about what it tells us about the administration he worked closely with for years (even on the HHS payroll), it's about missing context.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...Every-American

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

As mentioned earlier, healthy people paying in and sick people getting money is how health insurance operates. How it operated before the ACA, how it operates now, and how it will operate forever. Anyone who thinks that's a shocking or secret formula in health reform may well have stupidity to blame.

Spin away, little man, spin away.

How do you like the fact that the architect of Obamacare explicitly said that his goal was to fool stupid voters like you?

"...call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass."

I'm just telling you what he actually said, Sam. But feel free to keep defending him.

[Cow Poke]

Why?

Cause it's what I think.