Why the liberals are so panicked about Obamacare: incompetence, arrogance and deception

yeah but he fixed it

 

An article written by Charles Krauthammer, one of the leading misguided far-right can't-take-him-seriously pundits. Put a keyboard or a microphone in front of him and bad things happen.

I'm sure there's some truth in here somewhere, but it's buried in so much here's-my-agenda claptrap that it doesn't really amount to much.

 

You notice when any of the crazies post a Krauthammer piece they never reference him?

LOL!!!

 

1. Is true. The incompetence is shameful.

2. I don't see why the cancellation story has legs. Of course allowing substandard policies won't be possible in a world with insurance mandates. This is Obamacare opponents capitalizing on people's fear of change. Its a public policy nonissue to me -- in fact, the concession of nominally allowing the continuation of these insurance policies is worse than the decision to axe them.

3. Socializing the costs of handling calamity is the philosophical underpinning of insurance, generally. People who have a problem with this don't understand insurance.

So, I'll give you that website thing. The project management there was terrible. Otherwise... why is there a new thread for this? Isn't this the same recycled complaints featured in the main Obamacare thread?

 

glad I refreshed before posting. JuanValdez said it better than I was going to.

I'll add that I don't see how these usual talking points and hyperbole here equate to "liberals panicking" and "the end of his neo-liberal blah blah" any more today than they did yesterday.... and so I will parrot the question...

Why is this a new thread?

 

I do agree, he should have been more clear/ less deceptive about what the possibilities for change were regarding ability to keep coverage. That was a mistake. I guess I'm not surprised at the resulting situation, but that doesn't excuse how they handled it. That said, I think the outrage as usual is trumped up for political effect... finding every example they can to make things appear worse than they might be.

If your #3 answer refers to your #2 answer, it just seems more of the same. I don't agree with your assessment of the intent or 'purpose' of how it was handled, but I do agree with the fact it was handled very poorly.

 

For a person that always cries when someone uses "name-calling," this is hypocritical and shows pure desperation.

 

Did anyone else get a $100 bill in the mail from Obama? I received a xeroxed letter from Obama with a crisp hundred attached that said:

"Thanks for standing by me and supporting me. We will get this healthcare straightened out even if I have to bankrupt every corporation in America."

 

#2 was the whole reason for yesterday's speech. And while that's all it was, just another speech, it was a very big deal.

Supposedly there was supposed to be a grandfather clause that would allow existing policies to remain. Truth or Lie...that's what he said. Of course he could be lying again because they need those people on their rolls. That is what insurance companies based their Obamacare rates on. So insurance companies knew those people were going to be cancelled. Was Obama really the last to know? Or did he just not care about the fallout? It's really one or the other and either way that's our leader.

And saying all the cancelled policies are substandard is a false blanket statement. Yes there were some, but Obamacare added features that, excluding physical miracles, you will have to pay for but you will never use. Maternaty coverage for a male? Really? Not having that made it substandard? Should I be forced to purchase flood insurance even if I live on Mt Everest. The force payment on items like that is used to help pay for the people living in the bayou - true flood prone areas. That's how Obamacare works. Making everyone pay for something they won't use to help pay the costs of those that do. But cancelling decent policies in an effort to raise money to help fund this is just wrong.

 

Aside from misleading, that characterization of the context isn't terribly relevant. Your original #2 was alleging the problem was the cancellation of the policies. Now, you're saying the problem was not the cancellations but that he lied about there not being cancellations. You can make them separate bullets or something. Cancellations are good. Lies from politicians are bad, but par for the course.

But, with all the criticism of this 'keep your insurance' whatever, I wonder how he could have handled it differently. Obviously, just saying 'if you like your insurance, you probably won't get to keep it because it won't comply with our new standards,' is probably bad marketing. Instead they'd have to wage some PR war on the individual health insurance market and criticize the insurance companies for predatory tactics like selling insurance that proves to be inadequate in times of need. But that would kinda piss off an industry that you're partnering with to create these exchanges, so it doesn't seem like a great option. I suppose the other option is to say nothing on it, and risk defeat. Anyone know of another politically viable option than what Obama actually went with?

 

I don't understand this criticism. I have group coverage through my employer that covers maternity. No one is crying about that one. This is how insurance works. If you want coverage for only those injuries and illnesses that actually afflict you, it's called... uninsured.

 

Reaching on the uninsured comment. If I have a policy that pays for the features that I need (excludes maternity) and you cancel it, raise my rates by $100 a month so that you can give me a new policy that includes maternity...you think that's ok? AND you think I owned a substandard policy before because it wasn't included therefore you're doing me a huge solid???

 

I don't think most people really understand how insurance works. For a large majority of people they will put in more to insurance than they will ever get out. Otherwise the whole system breaks down.

 

You seem to be assuming that maternity coverage is the only extra benefit that the $100 gives you, it isn't. There is the elimination of lifetime benefits caps, the inability to drop you for a "preexisting condition," and a great many other benefits. Stop acting like the only thing the extra money gives you is something you don't want or need.

 

I've been working in the insurance industry for 15+ years. We sell different offerings with different riders all. the. time. and have for over a 100 years. You're watching waaay too much MSNBC if you think you HAVE to have it all or the system breaks down. Sometimes it's packaged up for convenience, but you can get it separate and it's all still good.

Should everyone be force to get the whole cable package so that we can keep the rates lower and add more channels? I mean really, I could care less if the golf channel disappeared tomorrow.

Should everyone be forced to buy pet insurance, even non pet owners, so that it can lower the premiums and costs of those who do have pets - especially the sick ones?

Should I be forced to buy 10 fruits and vegetables or the store won't process my other purchases? I mean that is what I need right?

You can keep going and going on this but the bottom line is chaos will not breakout if you are allowed to pick and choose what you choose to purchase.