So if in 6 months the enrollment numbers are what they should be, the website snafu is fixed, and the insurance marketplace forces insurance companies to be better exposed to competitors, will you guys all admit you were wrong?

What they should be based on last years numbers, todays numbers or the numbers they will be using in 6 months?

Your questions should be about heath care though.

(01-26-2014 12:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:09 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 08:26 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Except of course if you are wrong, which you are. It was standard language long before the ACA. This is typical. Every negative thing that comes up involving heath care since the ACA was passed is blamed on the ACA, regardless of how little it has to do with the ACA.

Or you are guessing, as I said I was, and you are wrong.
We all know there was standard language prior, but it doesn't preclude the possibility it was in the ACA.
Admit, chances are you are correct, but they didn't seem to indicate that.

That is how you skew opinion, raise the possibility when you could have easily checked it out and found that it isn't the case, and then your possibility gets taken by the next person hearing it as a fact. It is an effective political strategy, but it is disingenuous. If it isn't corrected it spreads like wildfire.

He has a point.

Says the guy who keeps repeating the "97%" and "funded by oil companies" lies.

I've posted my sources for my claims, provide yours which discredits them.

(01-26-2014 02:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 01:49 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 01:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 12:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  And you are grasping at straws if you are trying to say that because they bought the policy through the federal exchange that the ACA caused the policy to be denied. The policy was denied because there is a long time (read long before the ACA) provision in the policies that defines spouses as being of the opposite sex. BCBS never bothered to chance the language in these policies. The same cancelation occurs regardless of whether a family buys the policy online at the federal exchange or walks in to the local Nationwide Insurance office and buys it.

I think you are missing the point completely. The affordable health care act was pushed through as the the Holy Grail of liberal fairness. Now gay people are getting canceled and the ACA gives them no protection. The bold portion of your post is the LOL of Biblical proportions.

These libs will never get it will they. Anything to defend their dear leader and their policies.

I am not a liberal and I am not defending the President. I'm defending the ACA from the spread of misconceptions and falsehoods.

You are a liberal and a democrat.
Enough of this I'm just defending the ACA from misconceptions.

From Dawgitall page 31 of the "Chris Christie - Political Trouble" Thread:
"What? Where in the heck did you get the idea that I was an independent? I am a partisan DEMOCRAT!…"

Me thinks your pants are on fire.

Of course he's a liberal. He's lying, as you've proven quite nicely. All you have to do is read his posts to know he's one of the bleeding hearts here.

(01-26-2014 05:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  What is your point? I am I partisan DEMOCRAT. That doesn't mean I'm a liberal.

And that would make you a liberal by default. It's really telling that you appear too dense to recognize that fact.

(01-26-2014 10:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So if in 6 months the enrollment numbers are what they should be, the website snafu is fixed, and the insurance marketplace forces insurance companies to be better exposed to competitors, will you guys all admit you were wrong?

It dawns on me that this is to me, having just discovered your rather unique use of the reply button

No. It's not about the website. In fact, I would go so far as to say the website has HELPED the supporters of the law by slowing the hysterical, unthought out monstrosity down. The insurance exchange is NOT intended, or, at least, will not, in reality, accomplish anything by way of competition. The subsidies are actually anti-competitive, the networks are nearly non-existent, the odd requirements enforced by the law are arbitrary and inexplicable. The whole thing is artificial. If it wasn't a result of federal enforcement, it would collapse -- which will happen sooner or later, anyway.

the insurance companies are/were playing along because they think/thought that the administration was chasing millions of healthy new customers to them, but that is clearly not going to happen. And they think they are indemnified from financial ruin by the loss corridors that are writen into the law, but that is about to become completely unrealistic.

The law is fatally flawed. At this late date, the best we can hope for us that it doesn't cause the entire insurance industry to collapse, and take a good portion of the entire healthcare industry with it.

(01-26-2014 10:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So if in 6 months the enrollment numbers are what they should be, the website snafu is fixed, and the insurance marketplace forces insurance companies to be better exposed to competitors, will you guys all admit you were wrong?

Yep, as soon as the post office is profitable the above will come true.

(01-27-2014 08:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 10:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So if in 6 months the enrollment numbers are what they should be, the website snafu is fixed, and the insurance marketplace forces insurance companies to be better exposed to competitors, will you guys all admit you were wrong?

Yep, as soon as the post office is profitable the above will come true.

How could anyone claim we were wrong about how bad Obamacare has been, is, and will be for our country.

(01-26-2014 10:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So if in 6 months the enrollment numbers are what they should be, the website snafu is fixed, and the insurance marketplace forces insurance companies to be better exposed to competitors, will you guys all admit you were wrong?

Shall I remind you that THE reason for Obamacare was to provide insurance for 30 million uninsured. Tell me when that is going to happen.

I mean everything about Obamacare has been so perfect, how could this itsy bitsy thing be wrong.. Oh wait nothing has went right with his master healthcare? Seems likely.

And the GOP did recommend a healthcare plan, and the Dems shot it down because it wasn't Obamacare..

(01-25-2014 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:49 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Blue Cross & Blue Shield Cancels Gay and Lesbians Insurance in North Carolina according to WBTV News. Claimed has to do with the standard language that says a family policy has to be a spouse of the opposite sex. Said something about the language would be amended "next year".
Did not say, but seemed to indicate that the standard language was part of the Affordable Care Act, -aka- Obamacare.

That would result in an LOL of biblical proportions.

Except of course if you are wrong, which you are. It was standard language long before the ACA. This is typical. Every negative thing that comes up involving heath care since the ACA was passed is blamed on the ACA, regardless of how little it has to do with the ACA.

So it's only cool if you blame Bush, right?

(01-25-2014 06:49 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Blue Cross & Blue Shield Cancels Gay and Lesbians Insurance in North Carolina according to WBTV News. Claimed has to do with the standard language that says a family policy has to be a spouse of the opposite sex. Said something about the language would be amended "next year".
Did not say, but seemed to indicate that the standard language was part of the Affordable Care Act, -aka- Obamacare.

That would result in an LOL of biblical proportions.

(01-29-2014 05:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:49 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Blue Cross & Blue Shield Cancels Gay and Lesbians Insurance in North Carolina according to WBTV News. Claimed has to do with the standard language that says a family policy has to be a spouse of the opposite sex. Said something about the language would be amended "next year".
Did not say, but seemed to indicate that the standard language was part of the Affordable Care Act, -aka- Obamacare.

That would result in an LOL of biblical proportions.

Except of course if you are wrong, which you are. It was standard language long before the ACA. This is typical. Every negative thing that comes up involving heath care since the ACA was passed is blamed on the ACA, regardless of how little it has to do with the ACA.

So it's only cool if you blame Bush, right?

This has nothing to do with a President. It is simply about long standing language in BCBS insurance policies sold on the individual market. Sometimes it isn't about the ACA. Shocking.

(01-26-2014 12:33 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 12:13 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:09 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 08:26 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Except of course if you are wrong, which you are. It was standard language long before the ACA. This is typical. Every negative thing that comes up involving heath care since the ACA was passed is blamed on the ACA, regardless of how little it has to do with the ACA.

Or you are guessing, as I said I was, and you are wrong.
We all know there was standard language prior, but it doesn't preclude the possibility it was in the ACA.
Admit, chances are you are correct, but they didn't seem to indicate that.

That is how you skew opinion, raise the possibility when you could have easily checked it out and found that it isn't the case, and then your possibility gets taken by the next person hearing it as a fact. It is an effective political strategy, but it is disingenuous. If it isn't corrected it spreads like wildfire.

Blue Cross cancels policies that NC same-sex couples bought under Affordable Care Act

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/24/3...-that.html

The gay waiter said “applying as unmarried individuals would require
the couple to file federal taxes separately rather than jointly”

Unusual occupation?

Cue Obama to simply change the rules.

(01-30-2014 06:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Obama to simply change the rules.

No as I keep posting, and you and others keep failing to comprehend, Obama and the ACA don't have anything to do with this. It is a BCBS decision. A decision that they just reversed.

Quote:Same-sex couples and anyone in a domestic partnership may, beginning Monday, purchase family coverage either directly from Blue Cross or on the HealthCare.gov exchange, the company said. Coverage would become effective March 1. Also, domestic partners and same-sex couples who enrolled separately on ACA plans also can convert them into family plans, retroactive to their original effective date.

http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-oks-famil.../13341148/

(01-29-2014 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 05:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 06:49 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  That would result in an LOL of biblical proportions.

Except of course if you are wrong, which you are. It was standard language long before the ACA. This is typical. Every negative thing that comes up involving heath care since the ACA was passed is blamed on the ACA, regardless of how little it has to do with the ACA.

So it's only cool if you blame Bush, right?

This has nothing to do with a President. It is simply about long standing language in BCBS insurance policies sold on the individual market. Sometimes it isn't about the ACA. Shocking.

*sigh*


You completely missed the point.

(01-30-2014 09:24 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 06:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Obama to simply change the rules.

No as I keep posting, and you and others keep failing to comprehend, Obama and the ACA don't have anything to do with this. It is a BCBS decision. A decision that they just reversed.

Quote:Same-sex couples and anyone in a domestic partnership may, beginning Monday, purchase family coverage either directly from Blue Cross or on the HealthCare.gov exchange, the company said. Coverage would become effective March 1. Also, domestic partners and same-sex couples who enrolled separately on ACA plans also can convert them into family plans, retroactive to their original effective date.

http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-oks-famil.../13341148/

Awesome! So me and my GF can get a plan together!

(01-30-2014 12:26 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 09:24 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 06:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cue Obama to simply change the rules.

No as I keep posting, and you and others keep failing to comprehend, Obama and the ACA don't have anything to do with this. It is a BCBS decision. A decision that they just reversed.

Quote:Same-sex couples and anyone in a domestic partnership may, beginning Monday, purchase family coverage either directly from Blue Cross or on the HealthCare.gov exchange, the company said. Coverage would become effective March 1. Also, domestic partners and same-sex couples who enrolled separately on ACA plans also can convert them into family plans, retroactive to their original effective date.

http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-oks-famil.../13341148/

Awesome! So me and my GF can get a plan together!

Yes, if you are cohabitating.