Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, those plans were brought up to the very basic minimum standards required. That they doubled in price means they were probably junk plans that provided little to no actual benefits. When required to provide the simple minimum benefits the true reason that they were so cheap to begin with was exposed.
LIE.. Left wing talking point proven to be false for the most part..
Do you really think everyone is this stupid to believe the talking points you keep posting?
No, those plans were brought up to the very basic minimum standards required. That they doubled in price means they were probably junk plans that provided little to no actual benefits. When required to provide the simple minimum benefits the true reason that they were so cheap to begin with was exposed.
They were brought up to the minimum required standards of the new law. I don't want a policy that covers doctor visits or birth control or mental health screening or maternity or birth control pills. I want a plan that covers us if something serious and unexpected comes up. That's it.
I don't think anyone disputes that there are unhappy people, but it's pretty humorous someone set up a facebook page to do just that and it backfired.
But then again, I would think you're intelligent enough to see find the humor in the backfire or maybe you are just another partisan CDer who hates Obama no matter what.
Calling someone unintelligent is both rude and uncalled for. I am not into partisan name calling or choosing sides. I think that kind of thinking is a waste of time. I don't like the ACA for what it is, not because of who made it the law. I would be just as opposed if it was GW Bush who signed it or Bill Clinton or Rand Paul. It doesn't matter. It's about the issues.
They were brought up to the minimum required standards of the new law. I don't want a policy that covers doctor visits or birth control or mental health screening or maternity or birth control pills. I want a plan that covers us if something serious and unexpected comes up. That's it.
Which is what I had but lost it..
I had a pretty good catastrophic policy, worked within my budget and protected my family in the event I got sick enough that I couldnt afford the bills. I lost it.
And rather than me paying into the system, thus helping to reduce costs for others, I'm now a "leach" per HeyJude because I'm now getting a government policy, because I cant afford what ACA made available, while she's not a "leach", because she's getting a government policy.
I had a pretty good catastrophic policy, worked within my budget and protected my family in the event I got sick enough that I couldnt afford the bills. I lost it.
And rather than me paying into the system, thus helping to reduce costs for others, I'm now a "leach" per HeyJude because I'm now getting a government policy, because I cant afford what ACA made available, while she's not a "leach", because she's getting a government policy.
hypocrites..
Yeah, we lost ours as well and now have joined the ranks of the uninsured for the first time ever. So cool.
I don't think anyone disputes that there are unhappy people, but it's pretty humorous someone set up a facebook page to do just that and it backfired.
But then again, I would think you're intelligent enough to see find the humor in the backfire or maybe you are just another partisan CDer who hates Obama no matter what.
It would be humorous if no one was harmed by ACA but the CBO says 11 million lost policies, which I dont find humorous at all.
if they are expected to stay low, why are the subsidies expected to substantially increase over the next decade, from 60-85% depending on what CBO report you look at?
Who said anything about "low" besides you? Healthcare costs should rise more slowly. Do you think subsides would increase because more of the uninsured will be getting insurance? Seems the CBO is bullish on more states adopting ACA and the Supreme Court upholding it.
Calling someone unintelligent is both rude and uncalled for. I am not into partisan name calling or choosing sides. I think that kind of thinking is a waste of time. I don't like the ACA for what it is, not because of who made it the law. I would be just as opposed if it was GW Bush who signed it or Bill Clinton or Rand Paul. It doesn't matter. It's about the issues.
Then why have you constantly focused on the negative? Open-mindedness and a willingness to change one's mind is a hallmark of intelligence.
Then why have you constantly focused on the negative? Open-mindedness and a willingness to change one's mind is a hallmark of intelligence.
I've been impacted negatively by the ACA and I've been paying attention to what it was supposed to do vs what it is doing. If you are so open minded, why are you discounting anything negative?
It would be humorous if no one was harmed by ACA but the CBO says 11 million lost policies, which I dont find humorous at all.
We have over 300 million people in this country, there will always be millions of people who are adversely affected by such a sweeping legislation.
And I find it humorous a congresswoman's attempt to smear ACA backfired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
