Administration Fears Obamacare So Flawed, It Could Bankrupt Insurance Companies

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Hell no I wouldn't have. That is my point. I am killing it. I haven't had insurance since my parent's policy 20 something years ago. I am a diabetic and do not work in a field that provides healthcare. The insurance companies that actually would accept me charged unaffordable prices and then didn't even want to cover diabetes related issues since it was pre-existing. Most insurance companies just simply denied coverage. I have had to go with minimal treatment for 20 years as a diabetic. Twice a year doctor visits paid for in cash. I have no idea if this insurance is going to last, that is why I jumped right on it and now I am getting as much taken care of as I can before something happens and I lose it.
Good for you. Very smart planning.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
So "we" has now become "you"? ACA had not even been written in 2008. And, according to every poll I've heard of, 60% of the population was AGAINST ACA when it was passed. And it was a benifit to the children of servicemen before it was reworded, not an "Affordable Care Act". This was done so it could be passed as a budget reconciliation, not on its own merits. And of somewhat questionable legality.
You do realize that some where against ACA because of the lack of the single payer
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
So "we" has now become "you"? ACA had not even been written in 2008. And, according to every poll I've heard of, 60% of the population was AGAINST ACA when it was passed. And it was a benifit to the children of servicemen before it was reworded, not an "Affordable Care Act". This was done so it could be passed as a budget reconciliation, not on its own merits. And of somewhat questionable legality.
have you ever heard of "platform"?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
this is a PERFECT example..someone not having healthcare for 20 years and NOT getting the correct care/preventative care because with insurance companies it's all about the almighty dollar and profits NOW they are limited to ONLY 20% profit off each patient..boo fucking hoo..
Stop lying. Insurance companies only get 15%. And all their operating costs including wages, rent or building expenses, supplies. commissions and EVERYTHING else come out of that. So your "20%" is more like "nearly nothing" or possibly even a loss.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
He "loaned" the money in fact. Spouting another lie to distract from your other lies ain't going to work.

More lies - when will you folks begin at least to adhere to the truth?

[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company

This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.
Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."

Read more at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp#6iAmqJpK2MrtCFzt.99

[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company

This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.
Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."

Read more at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp#6iAmqJpK2MrtCFzt.99


[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company

This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.
Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."

Read more at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp#sTwFDuExXH5XkDel.99

This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.
The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.
Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp#sTwFDuExXH5XkDel.99
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Stop lying. Insurance companies only get 15%. And all their operating costs including wages, rent or building expenses, supplies. commissions and EVERYTHING else come out of that. So your "20%" is more like "nearly nothing" or possibly even a loss.
you didn't answer my question..you work for the IRS don't you..amiright?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
is your practioner on the provider list when you signed up?..did you check? EDIT: this would be considered out-of-network if they are not on a list..they can still file for you as a courtesy..they would get paid something and you would pick up the balance due.
Provider lists were only published recently, and are extremely limited, inaccurate, and incomplete. Some areas have no providers of many services at all. Sadly, healthcare providers, health insurance exchanges, and the insurance companies are woefully unready for this, despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent. It would help if we actually followed the law instead of letting Obama repeatedly and illegally rewriting the law for political purposes.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
yes, news agencies have been known to make mistakes..then they do something that the right does not do..they make correction or retractions..they also terminate employees for voicing opinion. see ed show, martin bashir show.
I seen many retractions from Fox. Lie no. 1. Ed Schultz is still working for MSNBC. Lie no. 2. Martin Bashir was not terminated, he quit. Lie no. 3. Bashir was voicing the script that was written for him by MSNBC. Lie no. 4.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I seen many retractions from Fox. Lie no. 1. Ed Schultz is still working for MSNBC. Lie no. 2. Martin Bashir was not terminated, he quit. Lie no. 3. Bashir was voicing the script that was written for him by MSNBC. Lie no. 4.
1. ed schultz just recently returned to msnbc.
2. at mr. bashirs level you are given choices as an executive and he chose to leave with honor.
3. mr. bashir had writers to which he adds imput and it was his show.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
is your practioner on the provider list when you signed up?..did you check?

EDIT: this would be considered out-of-network if they are not on a list..they can still file for you as a courtesy..they would get paid something and you would pick up the balance due.
I have not received a provider list. I selected to have everything mailed to me, because I figured there would be hundreds of pages. I prefer to have a hard copy.

At any rate, these are places like walgreens, which flat out said "we have no contracts with insurance companies aca policies"

IOW, "we don't take no stinking Obamacare."

One was a doctors office, did not file it. The other was a doctors office, which attempted to file, but was told that my insurance does not cover his services.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
so much so, THEY ROLL IT IN THE CREDITS..you should stick around for it:lol:
Oh. so you DO watch Fox! Even the parts no one else ever watches. I'm not going to pretend I watch the credits, but I find it hard to believe they say "This is all lies and misinformation". Yes, that's right, I'm calling you a liar. I need a citation.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
why won't you answer my question about which branch of the government you work, red?

simply, post your DDA..that's all it would take:P
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Oh. so you DO watch Fox! Even the parts no one else ever watches. I'm not going to pretend I watch the credits, but I find it hard to believe they say "This is all lies and misinformation". Yes, that's right, I'm calling you a liar. I need a citation.
i'd be scared too if i worked for the IRS..i certainly wouldn't want RIU members to know either..you can tell me though..i'll keep your secret:wink:
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
20% revenue from one policy is well more than they deserve which is why 80% of effective premium MUST go towards your healthcare..
You can't understand the difference between 15% and 20%? Nor the difference between gross and net?
 
Top