I need to make a couple of assumptions, in order to understand your post.
1. The the 2nd paragraph of your post is rally something that Obama said in South Africa. You didn't actually say you quoted him, and i didn't hear his speech, so I'm not sure..
2. You think that Obama was referring to Republicans in some way in this text in some way. I don't see Republicans mentioned in the text you typed, so I've got to ask. In what way is this an attack on Republicans, how did he even refer to Republicans here? What particular Republican actions do you think he is talking about?
You are sort of right, but none of the reasons have anything to do with the ACA exchanges;
1. Your wife's employer has never seen an exchange purchased insurance policy yet, because they don't become effective until Jan. 1. And when they do, they won't be able to tell whether it was purchased through an exchange, or directly from the insurance company.
2. Some doctors may not accept the cheaper insurance plans, but in most cases they will, because they can usually charge the patient for the difference. And those cheap per plans, that you say your wife's employer won't accept, are the same cheap plans that you (and springer) have been complaining that the ACA won't allow now.
3. Certainly doctors only work with some insurance companies and plans. That's been the case, well, forever, and will continue to be so with the ACA.
So, thanks for your response, but it has nothing to do with insurance plans purchased through the new exchanges.
And one has to be smart enough to know that that is absolutely impossible. Any health insurance gotten through one of the national or state exchanges looks exactly like a health insurance policy gotten directly from Kiaser, Aetna, Blue Cross, or any of dozens of other health insurance companies. In fact, some people have looked at the options on an exchange, and then gone directly to the insurance company sites to buy their insurance. The insurance is the same in either case.
But perhaps that's not what you mean. Maybe you are trying to say something about the fact that many doctors refuse to care for patients who get their health care paid for through Medicare or Medicaid. That has been a big problem for 10 or 20 years, but it has little relation to the new health care exchanges. For many, if not most, of the people who will use the exchanges, Medicaid is not at all involved. Nor is Medicare.
What "these" are you talking about? Obama never, ever wrote a thesis as a requirement for his academic degrees. Obama did write papers for some of the classes he took at Columbia for his BA. None was a thesis, but simply a paper for an undergraduate class. Columbia does not save anyone's homework papers, for any reason that I know of. Although I am not a lawyer, I don't think that any law school requires a student to write a thesis either, and Obama did not write a thesis for his Harvard law degree.
So, instead, let's talk about your thesis here. Let us know here we can find it.
Of course! I'm surprised that the number is as low as 7/10, too. I think it should be nearer 9.9/10, or higher.
And I;m not sure where the word "boycotting" came from, either. Doctors are "boycotting" the Obamacare exchanges for the exactly the same reason that you and I are "boycotting" the exchanges. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and both of us all have other ways to get our health insurance, and we don't NEED to use the exchanges.
I don't and have not believed my party's propaganda for quite a while. I've been a registered Republican for more than 30 years, and I haven't believed their propaganda for quite a while now.
And, in fact, it looks like most Republicans have now given up on their propaganda to repeal Obamacare, including many, if not most current GOP candidates. Now, let's get back to reality on things like the budget, global warming, education, and making this country work again.
Springer "Exchanges are mandatory state or federally run entities"
Mandatory?? Are you planning to use them? I certainly don't need to use them. I'd be very surprised if even half my friends here use them.
Springer: "For God's sake Vt - READ the bloody law."
I did. The law says that all ACA health insurance comes from private health insurance companies. Otherwise, you are just repeating what I wrote.
Cap, it doesn't look like you understand what the exchange is or how it works.
The exchange is simply a set of yellow pages where someone can look up an insurance policy that fits their needs, and also see whether they qualify for Medicaid support. The health insurance, itself, is from one of dozens of insurance companies, such as Blue Cross, Kaiser, or Aetna. The insurance pools are company insurance pools, and they include people signed up through the exchanges, directly from the insurance company, or perhaps even employer provided insurance. The policies are the same. They all meet ACA requirements. The insurance company pools will include both young and old, sick, and healthy. Customers will sign up in many different ways, with the exchanges being just one of them.
Langosta, I agree completely. The US is the only country in he world where companies must provide health insurance and health care for their employees. It puts them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage when competing with companies anywhere else in the world. (And it's another reason why US companies shift work overseas). Providing health insurance for employees is bad enough, but when they have o do it for retirees and employee family members, too, that's a big drain of money that they otherwise use to grow the company.
Now that the exchanges are available and they can usually provide better choices for people than the companies can, why should IBM, UPS, or any other non-insurance company run an insurance program?
What happened at IBM and UPS? The last time I looked (today) everyone who works for IBM or UPS can still get their health insurance through their employer.
Don't you wonder why he didn't offer to do it for $50 million himself? That would have both saved the government a huge amount and made him huge profit, too! That is if he was really right.
What article?? I was just responding to what you wrote. Are you saying that those were not really your words?
Fewer that 1/3 of all Americans are going to want or need to get health insurance on the new exchanges, in any case. They already have insurance through their employer, or, in the case of young people, they already have insurance under their parent's insurance plan. So, that sounds like about the right number of young people who would need to use the exchanges.
The very first security lecture is the one that says that the biggest security threat is people who open their months when they should not do so. No one, whether they are browser writers, DB administrators, or government officials are going to say anything about any security threat, at least not until it's fixed. To do anything else, creates the biggest security threat possible. It would be considered a fireable, or even treasonous action in most cases, as it threatens customers, and in the case of government sites, American citizens and our nation, itself. If you find a problem tell those who can fix it, and then keep your mouth shut.
Why the he!! do you want government officials to talk openly about any existing security threats in our government infrastructure before they are fixed?
Well no budget has been approved since last March, when the FY 2013 budget was passed - 6 months late. This year, again , no budget has been approved so far, now 2 months late. We are again operating under a Congressional continuing resolution to extend last year's budget.
Yes, UPS is dropping health insurance for working spouses who can get insurance through their own employers. The ACA doesn't seem to have much to do with it, as they could have done that before the ACA was even a gleam in Obama's eyes.
Many other employers already do this, and some also add an extra surcharge for spouses who could get insurance through their own employer, but instead chose to get coverage with their spouse. This could come back to bite UPS, if too many of their employees, who now get coverage through their spouse's employer, now get dropped, and must come to UPS for their coverage, as many companies are, and have done the same thing.
Certainly Obama was wrong when he said that you can keep your insurance, as it is. Insurance plans change all the time. They've changed in the past, and they continue to change after the ACA was passed. The only difference now is that everyone must have insurance that meets a certain minimum of coverage, and everyone is making changes in order to make sure that happens, in one way or another.
No, SS, I am luckily not in those shoes. I have insurance through a corporate policy, as 2/3 of Americans do. But, I do know at last a half dozen people who re wearing those shoes, and they are all happy that they will be able to finally get insurance that will cover their needs. Recent news reports have included interviews with others, mostly in blue states, who share those opinions.
Please let us know how those shoes fit you, as you seem to know so much about how adequate they are for you.
Interviews with folks in red state are usually quite different, though. They are currently stuck without any insurance because their states have, so far, rejected the offered Medicaid support for them people. Right now they are left in essentially the same position they were in before: no insurance, and whose only recourse is to use the ER if they are sick, forcing tax payers and those with insurance to pay their way.
Perhaps you don't understand how our government works? Except for certainly spending by the DoD and NSA that require certain security clearances, all government spending "comes to light" when it is discussed in Congress. Obama can't can't spend anything unless and until that spending has been discussed and approved by Congress.
And spending on "rail projects that benefit private companies"? Unlike what? Spending on defense projects that don't benefit private companies?
This may very well turn out to be another red state versus blue state problem. Most people in the blue states, which have accepted the Medicaid support seem to be very happy to get rid of those cheap, mostly useless insurance plans. They are smart enough to know that those cheap plans would do nothing for them or their families if they got sick or hurt. And they are very happy to be able to get much better insurance and coverage, either through new group plans under the ACA, or with Medicaid support, if they can't pay the full bill themselves.
However, in the red states, which have mostly not accepted the Medicaid support, those same people can not use their old, nearly useless plans any more and many of them can not afford the new, better plans either, without the Medicaid support. The big question is whether they will blame Washington for not being able to provide them with the Medicaid help, or will they blame their state leaders who have robbed them of the Medicaid they need, by not accepting the federal aid.
Poor and middle class people in the red and blue states will see this issue very differently. In the states that have accepted Medicaid support, they will be able to get the insurance that they want and need, while in the states without Medicaid support (the red states), they will not be able to get any insurance to cover themselves and their families.
(And SS, that cheap insurance was what they could afford from what was then available, not what they thought they needed, or wanted in most cases. )