Why The Premiums Are Changeing With Obamacare

Your standard for what is proof is an opinion piece by an Obama sycophant ?


Again, where is the proof that the policies being cancelled are substandard junk ?

Mine isn't; neither is this cancer survivor's............


http://therightscoop.com/cnn-cancer-...lost-her-plan/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

so you admit Fox reporters are sycophants?


who said anything about substandard junk? ... you !

the law requires insurance companies meet requirements (10 ) that they never had to meet before, they cancel your policy to save them $$, and sidestep the law ... deal with it.

Juan Williams isn't a reporter for Fox News..............he is a columnist who writes opinion pieces.

Do you know the difference ?

Your standard that because a new law exists (making prior policies obsolete) is lame; and it is NOT proof that the prior policies were substandard junk as you claim.

Again, where is your proof that the cancelled policies were junk?

Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst

Again, where is your proof that the cancelled policies were junk?

Again, where is your proof that the cancelled policies were junk? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It is up to insurers how they comply with the law, which mandates that policyholders be covered for 10 "essential health benefits," except for plans that are grandfathered in. But there’s little doubt the new law is influencing their changes in coverage. The lawwas designed to eventually do away with insurance that doesn't meet minimum coverage standards..

FACT JACK

You have no proof that the millions of insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare were junk....

You just parrot the Obama talking points.

You are a buffoon.

you're chasing your tail barking rhetoric, not facts.


woof woof

cya

you're chasing your tail barking rhetoric, not facts. Originally Posted by CJ7

That would be appropriate to send to Obaminable and his news-briefing parrot.

better insurance costs more money ... the simpleton rightwingers cant figure that one out Originally Posted by CJ7

I think the "rightwingers" figured it out when they voted against ObaminableCare ...


... the "Master" snake oil salesman, (Obaminable), just lied about it. And still IS!

it's a damn good thing this yo-yo doesn't get a 3rd term ... he'd be trying to pass the

"Affordable Motor Vehicle Act" .... to standardized better vehicles at a lower price!!!!

Oh, wait .. he can't do that ... the unions would shit a brick.

I think the "rightwingers" figured it out when they voted against ObaminableCare ...


... the "Master" snake oil salesman, (Obaminable), just lied about it. And still IS!

it's a damn good thing this yo-yo doesn't get a 3rd term ... he'd be trying to pass the

"Affordable Motor Vehicle Act" .... to standardized better vehicles at a lower price!!!!

Oh, wait .. he can't do that ... the unions would shit a brick. Originally Posted by LexusLover

it is a good thing Obie can't run again ... chances are he would win again

speaking of motor vehicle act, there are requirements vehicles driven on public roads meet safety standards for the benefit of the people who travel on public roads ... now the insurance companies have requirements that mandate basic needs are met if they sell you a policy ... for the benefit of the insured people.


ponder that

The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new laws ensures that every American can now have a "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees.

In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who can't afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.

If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can't afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.

Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride in your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, (like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.



BTW, the government doesn't -- as yet -- require anyone to buy a car (or a boat), so that is a seriously big difference between an auto insurance mandate and Odumbocare.

People who do not drive are not required to buy auto insurance. But senior citizens, elderly men and women, are required to buy insurance that offers prenatal and maternity coverage, and young men and women are required to buy insurance that predominantly covers old fogeys.

it is a good thing Obie can't run again ... chances are he would win again

speaking of motor vehicle act, there are requirements vehicles driven on public roads meet safety standards for the benefit of the people who travel on public roads ... now the insurance companies have requirements that mandate basic needs are met if they sell you a policy ... for the benefit of the insured people.


ponder that Originally Posted by CJ7

]

Really?

The "purpose" in ACA is not to benefit ... insured people ...

........... it was to benefit the uninsured! Remember?

Had numb-brain campaigned on REQUIRING INSUREDS to buy a government mandated health insurance police, it more than likely would not have done so well in 2012, even if the law would have cleared to his desk in 2010, which I doubt that also.

Let's see how the investigation unravels things to get to the truth.

To make the program actuarially sound enough to get everyone good coverage requires getting rid of the junk policies that covered more insurance company overhead than medical expenses. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

You mean those policies from flee-in-the-night companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Or maybe Aetna. Both these companies have been cancelling policies. Obamacare requires that ten different things be covered or the plan as you say it is "junk". So if you're a 54 year old single man and you don't have Ob-gyn coverage then you have to get a new plan.

Who is Bert Jones and why is his tongue purple




Sign me up for the Affordable Gun Act. I'll make a killing on the secondary market as liberals want to get rid of their guns.

BTW, the government doesn't -- as yet -- require anyone to buy a car (or a boat), so that is a seriously big difference between an auto insurance mandate and Odumbocare.

People who do not drive are not required to buy auto insurance. But senior citizens, elderly men and women, are required to buy insurance that offers prenatal and maternity coverage, and young men and women are required to buy insurance that predominantly covers old fogeys. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are making this way to complicated .... try this format ..


______________________________ ________________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

______________________________ __________________________

]

Really?

The "purpose" in ACA is not to benefit ... insured people ...

........... it was to benefit the uninsured! Remember?

Had numb-brain campaigned on REQUIRING INSUREDS to buy a government mandated health insurance police, it more than likely would not have done so well in 2012, even if the law would have cleared to his desk in 2010, which I doubt that also.

Let's see how the investigation unravels things to get to the truth. Originally Posted by LexusLover

yeah, really

an insurance policy that covers 10 basic needs BENEFITS its holder, opposed to an insurance policy that doesn't..

like I said... ponder that