The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: O-care: Delay the individual mandate?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,919

    Default O-care: Delay the individual mandate?

    Going back to the shut-down, Cruz and Lee were told to stand down and just let O-care implode. Right? Cruz said something to the effect that it would be outrageous to let the American people suffer just to prove how bad O-care was. The "establishment" view was to let the whole thing implode.

    Cruz, Lee and their supporters lost that battle: the Ds would not defund it, or delay it. The Ds also got an unlimited debt ceiling for 5 months. The Ds got everything they wanted.

    They also got the roll-out of O-care. Not rolling so smoothly though.

    Now D's want the individual mandate delayed. Ostensibly because of the flailing website, which is valid enough; but also because of people finally discovering that they canNOT keep the plans or doctors they liked, and in a majority of cases, spending more for their health coverage.

    A month ago, the establishment Rs said O-care should be allowed to implode ... while Cruz et al were saying that was a wrong thing to do to the American citizenry.

    One month later, the Ds and Rs are both wanting a delay. The Ds up for re-election in red states, of course, are the most anxious to see it happen. No longer are establishment Rs saying that O-care should e allowed to implode. I'd say the establishment was wrong a month ... Cruz et al were correct that it was irresponsible to punish their constituents with the pain that O-care would bring them.

    As I see it, the Rs must vote for a delay ... to help their constituents. They should not be like the Ds were in the shutdown. trying to create the most pain for political purpose. This will probably help the Ds in the mid-terms (depending on how long the delay is). Rs voting FOR delay would be consistent with their position at the outset. Not so for the Ds. Most especially not so for Obama, Reid and every D who voted against delay a month ago. Some of them had an inkling, even then, (Baucus?) that this rollout was going to be disaster. Sebelius surely knew there were going to be big problems.

    Meanwhile, I had read that good ole Harry was not going to let such a bill come to the floor of the Senate unless he was sure it would NOT pass. Obama and Reid don't want to delay since then more wheels start coming off the whole vehicle as the whole actuarial basis is changed.

    Part of the problem could be that since the insurance companies have already deep sixed those old policies, trying to resurrect them would cause even more confusion and disarray ... which might, indeed, result in the individual mandate being delayed, in total, close to a year, if it is possible to un-do what has already been done & then start over again a few more months down the road.


    The dirty, little secret is that when the employer mandate goes into effect, the pain will be even greater. That might be why Obama delayed the employer mandate. Right now the WH can say "it's ONLY 11 million people affected." When the employer mandate hits (lots of those plans will also NOT meet O-care requirements), it will be a heckuva lot more people impacted (estimates of CBO around 96 million). It was easier for the administration to deal with 11 million now, and then deal with the other 85 million AFTER the mid-term elections.

    What do you think? Will the individual mandate be delayed? Should it be delayed? Will this whole mess be forgotten by Nov. 2014? Or will the pain continue unabated? Do voters still have faith that this law can be made to work if something positive isn't happening by Nov. 2014? Will anyone still trust anything that the administration says between now and then?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member GaryJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    684

    Default

    I don't trust this administration. It has been nothing but deception and lies all the way back to the promise of transparency. I hate to say this but I think the implosion and cluster surrounding it along with the inability of insurance companies to react in an agile manner could mean we move ever closer to a gov't run health care system. I pray that I am wrong.
    Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

    What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?

  3. #3
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,794

    Default

    Delay of the individual mandate doe not fix the real problem. Rates are skyrocketing on the healthy that had good policies. It has nothing to do with benefits. My side by side from BCBSNC proved this out on their cost estimates of having a baby normal delivery. If you added the $6000 per year increase into the equation you loose. The cost is thousands more than not having coverage vs the increase in premium and out of pocket.
    The healthy are getting screwed because they had a medically underwritten policy and now have to live by a " community" rating. This is nothing more than a redistribution from the healthy to the sick (or higher risk).
    Time to be honest.
    Two of the biggest players in the market have hedged their bets.
    In some states they have fallen in with the adminstration. In other states they are running and waiting.
    Example: BCBS bought in in NC. No dealing with customers, no changing dates to rewrite plans before Dec 31st.
    Again NC United healthcare refused to play. Therefore they are doing huge business with those getting SCREWED by BCBSNC. The healthy who had good private policies are jumping to them to save thousands for about 11 months while the dust settles. I can't wait to call BCBSNC on DEC 1st to cancel!!!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  4. #4
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    Obama, Dingy Harry, and all other Dem's are determined to force this down our throats... and that is exactly what they are doing and will continue to do! They believe that over 50% of the voters are on the 'Government teat' and that my friends, is not only ‘check’, but check-mate! That is what they believe and I fear this may in fact be true.
    After over 50 years of dumbing down our educational system, propagandizing through the media, dividing us into special interest groups, lying and denying when they get caught...with the ultimate goal of having an obedient majority has been accomplished!
    World history has seen this many times before and would suggest that until large portions of our American people feel severe pain, we will not take steps to take back our country, if ever! I am sure that this will happen after I am long gone....but I do not believe that the next 50 years will be anything like the last 50 years. We will be a decline in everything clear thinking Americans hold close in our hearts. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...
    Last edited by swampcollielover; 11-12-2013 at 10:14 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,919

    Default

    But let's get down to the nuts and bolts.

    Do you think the individual mandate should be delayed? Do you think it will be delayed?

    What would be the repercussions of such a delay? Will such a delay "rescue" the Ds from a disaster in Nov. 2014?

    When the employer mandate happens in 2015, what bearing could that have on the POTUS election in 2016? If many employer programs don't meet O-care requirements, will there be 93 million (or most of them) voting R in 2016?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,919

    Default

    http://nationalreview.com/article/36...eliana-johnson
    I just read this article ... and it covers a lot of the questions asked in the OP. I don't see any clear answers, but the same questions as in the OP (though better stated in the article).
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #7
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    But let's get down to the nuts and bolts.

    Do you think the individual mandate should be delayed? Do you think it will be delayed?

    What would be the repercussions of such a delay? Will such a delay "rescue" the Ds from a disaster in Nov. 2014?

    When the employer mandate happens in 2015, what bearing could that have on the POTUS election in 2016? If many employer programs don't meet O-care requirements, will there be 93 million (or most of them) voting R in 2016?
    That does not solve the real issue. The issue is that those who had great coverage and are healthy are being forced to pay a lot more for less. Who will willingly do that? We buy coverage and want it. BUt why would we accept paying double to feed his beast??????
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,919

    Default

    I agree with you luvy, the law was bad law from the get-go; too instrusive and poorly crafted (as the POTUS, himself, admitted; although fairly sure he will find a way to deny he said that). At least for now we are stuck with it.

    The repercussions of delaying the IM or not will determine how much pain reaches voters and when. If that influences elections, that could ultimately relate to the fate of this law.

    My own preference would be to repeal this law and use smaller pieces of legislation to address the specific flaws in our health care delivery system. I believe that the most popular part of the law is the pre-existing conditions, i.e. people who want/need insurance but can't afford what it costs or get it at all. If we're dealing with 1 or 2 million people in this category, that has got to be easier to address than 300 million. In fact, in many cases individual states have addressed it.

    Next legislation would be for tort reform and minimizing frivolous suits. We could use such reform for other areas of frivolous suits as well!
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I agree with you luvy, the law was bad law from the get-go; too instrusive and poorly crafted (as the POTUS, himself, admitted; although fairly sure he will find a way to deny he said that). At least for now we are stuck with it.

    The repercussions of delaying the IM or not will determine how much pain reaches voters and when. If that influences elections, that could ultimately relate to the fate of this law.

    My own preference would be to repeal this law and use smaller pieces of legislation to address the specific flaws in our health care delivery system. I believe that the most popular part of the law is the pre-existing conditions, i.e. people who want/need insurance but can't afford what it costs or get it at all. If we're dealing with 1 or 2 million people in this category, that has got to be easier to address than 300 million. In fact, in many cases individual states have addressed it.

    Next legislation would be for tort reform and minimizing frivolous suits. We could use such reform for other areas of frivolous suits as well!
    The problem is that while they want us to feel for those with pre-existing conditions. the lunitic solution is to force the healthy to give up their rates.
    There is no way in hell that I would give up my rate. I swim 5 miles per week. NO way no how sit on the couch 400 lbs bon bon eater gets my rate and my money without a loud fight against it!!! May he rot in hell!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,919

    Default

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...keep-what-got/
    Evidently, from this article, it would, indeed, be difficult to un-do the cancellations and backtrack.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •