Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/08/18 17:33:37
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.
As it is a government funded and run program, it should be prioritized by voter. Sorry hipsters and unmarried 20 year olds but you losers don't vote. Us old farts will get the platinum plan but you...well we've had to make some cutbacks....
That's what Obamacare was trying to do with the penalties, etc. Except, for many people, the penalty is cheaper, and it's paid in April of next year. Those punks aren't entirely stupid, and they're voting against Obamacare with their wallets.
That plus the provision that lets you stay on your parents' insurance until your 26. Why pay for something yourself if you can get mom and dad to do it for you? Especially when it's likely cheaper and better coverage.
Cheaper for them, individually, yes...But not cheaper overall. I've seen stated a couple times that insurance is cheaper through their job than through the exchange. That is not really true, it's just you don't consider how much of it your employer pays. That's wages that you never see and can't decide a better way of spending it (Which might be an insurance plan off the marketplace).
2016/08/18 17:33:59
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
I am not a lawyer, but... The Justice Department can, in a manner of speaking. In this case, they are using Anti-Trust laws. Further, if it's blatant and/or the DA is ambitious enough, the perpetrators can be tried for extortion or something similar.
As an individual, you can sue anyone for anything. However, if you actually wanted to win, you'd have to demonstrate that they:
1. Actually blackmailed the government.
2. That blackmail directly affected you, your family, or your dog personally in someway.
But not your grandmother. If she's over 80, she has no rights.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2016/08/18 17:34:12
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
It's not blackmail. Aetna is saying that the only way for their company to make enough money to make staying in the exchange worthwhile is to expand so they want to merge with Human. The Dept of Justice doesn't want the merger to happen because they believe it will make Aetna too big and violate anti trust laws. Therefore Aetna is telling the DoJ that if they block the merger Aetna will have to leave he exchanges. That's not blackmail at all.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/08/18 17:37:41
Subject: Re:Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
But not your grandmother. If she's over 80, she has no rights.
She probably makes some mean biscuits though.
Its hard to see how anyone could prosecute or sue them for blackmail. What they are describing is a legal act. The inability to merge will have have consequences. As noted, Aetna is not the only one dropping out.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/08/18 17:38:04
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
When an 80-year old woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, a well-run panel will say that she ONLY receives hospice care, with NO treatment for the cancer itself. That way, the enormous cost of her treatment can be spent on providing universal preventive and emergency care. And, because it is single payer, that hospice care is relatively inexpensive, as the ONLY pain medication she will get will be generics sourced at the lowest possible price due to the massive monopoly buying power of the state.
As it is a government funded and run program, it should be prioritized by voter. Sorry hipsters and unmarried 20 year olds but you losers don't vote. Us old farts will get the platinum plan but you...well we've had to make some cutbacks....
That's what Obamacare was trying to do with the penalties, etc. Except, for many people, the penalty is cheaper, and it's paid in April of next year. Those punks aren't entirely stupid, and they're voting against Obamacare with their wallets.
That plus the provision that lets you stay on your parents' insurance until your 26. Why pay for something yourself if you can get mom and dad to do it for you? Especially when it's likely cheaper and better coverage.
Cheaper for them, individually, yes...But not cheaper overall. I've seen stated a couple times that insurance is cheaper through their job than through the exchange. That is not really true, it's just you don't consider how much of it your employer pays. That's wages that you never see and can't decide a better way of spending it (Which might be an insurance plan off the marketplace).
Yes, the overall cost of insurance for the employed parent and his/her employer to cover an entire family including a healthy 23 year old child is more expensive than the cost of that healthy 23 year old being insured as an individual. However, given the common financial situation of 23 year olds currently (many are unemployed) it is much cheaper for the 23 year old to stay on the parent's policy than to buy an individual policy. That scenario has the opposite effect of what was intended by the ACA, it increases the cost of insurance and removes the healthy young person as a buyer in the market.
Ketara wrote: I really don't get the fight to the death over public v private. We have both here, one doesn't invalidate the other. If those who can pay want private healthcare, they can get it. Just like America. The only difference is that the unemployed and no-insurance jobs get healthcare as well.
This is not a bad thing.
Agreed. Competition helps consumers, monopolies (private or public) hurt consumers. Having the government in the marketplace isn't inherently a bad thing and done well can be very helpful to consumers. Having the government control the market is bad because all monopolies are inherently bad. The debate here in America ends up being binary because it's another negative effect of only having 2 viable political parties stripping nuance and compromise away from important issues and making them either-or situations. Two parties mean that the argument is dumbed down to the question of whether or not the government should take over everything instead of trying to figure out the most productive way for the government to be present in the marketplace.
This is the thing. Right now, everyone is screaming the Government should take back the Southern rail franchise, and it keeps boiling down to 'Should the Government nationalise all the railways again?'
But it's daft. The logical solution is for the government to permanently operate two or three franchises to ensure that the State is familiar with the costs and business of operating a railway. This gives them a nucleus of trained personnel and expertise to draw upon. Then, if a franchise holder starts playing silly buggers, be it through poor service, ridiculous prices, or whatever scenario, the Government can step in smoothly and seize control of the franchise in the name of the public good. Having done that, they can then put one of their prior controlled franchises back up for private operation to let it get fresh rolling stock and capital injected.
The principle could be applied to water, electricity, arms, sewage, phone cables, bus services, and so on. These nationalised systems only start to go wrong when they get too ingrained, secure, and large. If you're constantly rotating which areas are government controlled, and have the state play as a competitor of last resort for when commercial companies play silly buggers, you get best of both worlds. It keeps public costs to a minimum and extracts the best result for the public.
If politicians could ever get their gak together and implement smart policies like that it would be great. As you said it creates a pool of experienced workers/experts for the government to rely on for advice/testimony and creates a profit free baseline for the costs of running a utility which helps govt determine when a privately run utility is price gouging or being incompetently run. Of course it's hard to motivate voters to turn out for elections by offering up smart pragmatic plans and it's unfortunately easy to motivate people by fear mongering with ideas like private insurance companies will let you die to save money and nationalized insurance companies will kill you with death panels.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/18 17:44:01
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/08/18 17:46:22
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
skyth wrote: Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.
Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.
The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.
Why?
More residents enrolled in Medicaid means more money the state has to spend on them and that money has to come from somewhere so it's either cut funding to other things to free up money or raise taxes.
I thought the point of the expansion was that the FedGov was paying for it?
Per the ACA from 2014-2016 the Federal govt will pay 100% of the cost of Medicaid for enrollees under the new expansion, then the rate decreases annually down to 90% in 2020. Then it gets vague with uncertainty about if the Feds will continue to pay the 90% indefinitely or if the law will push the rate down to the standard FMAP rate that the rest of Medicaid enrollees get in that state or if Congress will change the law to something else.
Actually... there's nothing in the ACA law that stipulates Federal payment beyond 2020. So, it WILL be the states to cover all of it... and they're not going to be ready for it.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/08/18 18:20:17
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
OK, I'm reporting for Rule 1, because you know how to spell my name, and you're deliberately choosing not to. Repeatedly.
Totes fixed your name.
You're welcome!
I am going to keep calling you Kronkster though. And find out if your grandmother ships those biscuits for me. Tell her a Texan son hasn't had proper biscuits and gravy since his mom passed. :(
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/18 18:21:27
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/08/18 19:27:19
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
skyth wrote: Considering the states that refused the medicaide expansion and kept voting red...yes, I feel pretty confidant at underestimating them.
Dude... the states who hasn't expanded are geniuses right now.
The who has expanded are going to have to raise taxes a feth ton or reduce services for everyone.
Why?
More residents enrolled in Medicaid means more money the state has to spend on them and that money has to come from somewhere so it's either cut funding to other things to free up money or raise taxes.
I thought the point of the expansion was that the FedGov was paying for it?
Per the ACA from 2014-2016 the Federal govt will pay 100% of the cost of Medicaid for enrollees under the new expansion, then the rate decreases annually down to 90% in 2020. Then it gets vague with uncertainty about if the Feds will continue to pay the 90% indefinitely or if the law will push the rate down to the standard FMAP rate that the rest of Medicaid enrollees get in that state or if Congress will change the law to something else.
Actually... there's nothing in the ACA law that stipulates Federal payment beyond 2020. So, it WILL be the states to cover all of it... and they're not going to be ready for it.
It's probably more likely that the Feds cover those Medicaid enrolless in accordance to FMAP ratios rather than nothing at all but it's definitely possible that the Feds could leave the states on the hook for the whole thing. Of course that's one way for Congress to bend that cost curve back downward, pass the responsibility for the payments over to the states and voila instant decrease in Federal Medicaid spending.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/08/18 21:27:17
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
In case you Americans wonder, any problem tneva is experiencing must, if it is indeed real, be a problem with Finland rather than the system concept.
In Sweden it works beautifully. Prisons do not have an incentive to be revolving doors, doctors do not have an incentive to treat you as poorly as possible without you noticing in order to max profits, and so on.
The whole competition = better for consumer is an unvalidated assumption and pretty much ignores things like military and police forces, essential utilities, etc. It also presumes that profit is the primary motivator of human activity and ignores other motivators. It also ignores that industries with high barriers to entry and a few large actors tend to behave more like oligarchies anyway and resist competition.
-James
2016/08/18 22:34:57
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
jmurph wrote: The whole competition = better for consumer is an unvalidated assumption
There's plenty of evidence to support that competition keeps prices low, which is generally good.
The problem is that we assume the only means for companies to operate in a market is to compete. Take a look at certain industries, and you see instead a desire to avoid competition (because why compete in a game of best price when you can maneuver around it?). Cable companies are one example. They make little market zones where only one provider is active, and thus doesn't have to compete. You have to go to larger urban areas to find multiple active providers, and the price points aren't much different. Drug companies don't directly compete with one another, which is one reason why drug prices are so high. Even companies that make the same drug will sell it in different doses/delivery methods such that specific dose/delivery method of a drug only has one (two tops) providers.
Competition = better for the consumer isn't an unvalidated assumption. That companies will compete with one another is. Not every market is going to be conductive to competition anyway (computer operating systems for example)*. Why compete when you can build a new niche and control it? Why enter a competition with a competitor that will simply force you into a pricing race when you can avoid it? There are plenty of markets with direct competition like insurance providers, and generic consume goods (peanut butter, detergent, that kind of stuff). There are a number of markets where there is no competition at all, because the companies involved avoid it. Then there are markets where despite competition, "prices" don't seem to go down because of the way the product is sold to the consumer (automobiles).
*I say this because having fewer providers is actually better in some cases. Computer Software is a messy business. More operating systems introduces a lot of waste in debugging, developing drivers, and trouble shooting for different platforms that are not necessarily any better than one another. That two companies dominate the market (Apple and Microsoft + the various Unix based freeware OS'), actually benefits us more than having five or six. It makes the Operating System development business very uncompetitive, but it leaves the broader tech industry much more open and available for consumers and businesses, which is an overall net gain.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/18 22:44:23
This survey asked NY state businesses on how the ACA has affected them, including questions about health coverage costs, how health plans would change under the ACA, and how the Cadillac Tax would apply to their current health care plans.
-About 60 percent of respondents to the surveys said they are making at least some changes to their health care plans in response to the ACA law.
-Number of manufacturers who said they were cutting jobs totaled 20.9 percent.
-About 13 percent of the manufacturers said they would increase the proportion of employees working part-time.
-About a third of these manufacturers said they would increase prices they charge on their customers due to the ACA.
-About 20 percent of manufacturers in NY said they were reducing the number of their employees due to the ACA.
-Number of service sector firms were asked the same questions and found that 16.8 percent of them would cut workers, 21.4 percent would raise prices due to Obamacare, and 15 percent said they would increase the proportion of employees working part-time.
...and more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 14:23:59
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/08/19 16:03:43
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
jmurph wrote: The whole competition = better for consumer is an unvalidated assumption
There's plenty of evidence to support that competition keeps prices low, which is generally good.
The problem is that we assume the only means for companies to operate in a market is to compete. Take a look at certain industries, and you see instead a desire to avoid competition (because why compete in a game of best price when you can maneuver around it?). Cable companies are one example. They make little market zones where only one provider is active, and thus doesn't have to compete. You have to go to larger urban areas to find multiple active providers, and the price points aren't much different. Drug companies don't directly compete with one another, which is one reason why drug prices are so high. Even companies that make the same drug will sell it in different doses/delivery methods such that specific dose/delivery method of a drug only has one (two tops) providers.
Competition = better for the consumer isn't an unvalidated assumption. That companies will compete with one another is. Not every market is going to be conductive to competition anyway (computer operating systems for example)*. Why compete when you can build a new niche and control it? Why enter a competition with a competitor that will simply force you into a pricing race when you can avoid it? There are plenty of markets with direct competition like insurance providers, and generic consume goods (peanut butter, detergent, that kind of stuff). There are a number of markets where there is no competition at all, because the companies involved avoid it. Then there are markets where despite competition, "prices" don't seem to go down because of the way the product is sold to the consumer (automobiles).
*I say this because having fewer providers is actually better in some cases. Computer Software is a messy business. More operating systems introduces a lot of waste in debugging, developing drivers, and trouble shooting for different platforms that are not necessarily any better than one another. That two companies dominate the market (Apple and Microsoft + the various Unix based freeware OS'), actually benefits us more than having five or six. It makes the Operating System development business very uncompetitive, but it leaves the broader tech industry much more open and available for consumers and businesses, which is an overall net gain.
You would agree that lower prices are not the sole metric of good for the consumer, yes? So you might say that competition in certain industries produces lower prices. But that can also be a race to the bottom in quality. Which may not be desirable result.
Sometimes competition produces desirable results, sometimes it doesn't. I think in order to have meaningful economic analysis, you have to be much more specific, and blanket mantras like competition=good for consumers or capitalism = exploitation are so broad as to be worthless.
In regards to health insurers, there are numerous states protections that deter meaningful competition and large players seem to control the field nationally. This has produced inefficient systems that are expensive and provide poor coverage on the whole.The question is what steps could improve the situation. A laissez-faire approach is not viable, and the ACA did little to reduce obstacles to competition or provide greater regulation of industry pricing. Essentially, it just mandated that everyone able must purchase the service or face penalties. Large players supported that seeing a huge captive audience. Now, they are trying to use their influence to lessen competition in the field further.
-James
2016/08/19 17:21:03
Subject: Re:Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
whembly wrote: This is an interesting report for kronk (he's in manufacturing industry... right?):
-About 60 percent of respondents to the surveys said they are making at least some changes to their health care plans in response to the ACA law.
-Number of manufacturers who said they were cutting jobs totaled 20.9 percent.
-About 13 percent of the manufacturers said they would increase the proportion of employees working part-time.
Yep. I can only speak from my personal experience.
Over the last few years, we've gone from 85% copay to 75% copay (Depending on the plan, I've always been on the cheaper plan as I'm healthy and have no kids), our monthly deductions increases have exceeded inflation for the last 6 years. I can't say if that's due to ACA or rising health care costs because all of the damn Baby Boomers are finally retiring and they treated their bodies like Keith Richards!
My company has not cut jobs due to ACA nor moved towards increasing temporary vs full time employees because of ACA. We were already pretty lean after the housing bubble burst, however. My company is a major building supply company.
However, I am aware of some of our suppliers and customers that have moved towards more temps versus full time in the last 4 years. Again, I can't attribute that to ACA versus other costs pressures they're experiencing, and it's anecdotal, at best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 17:21:49
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
0009/09/19 18:33:43
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
The move to more temps predate the ACA. The problem with asking businesses if regulations would cause them to cut back on employees they will always answer yes even if it means lying. After all they don't want any regulations.
2016/08/19 19:20:36
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
skyth wrote: The move to more temps predate the ACA. The problem with asking businesses if regulations would cause them to cut back on employees they will always answer yes even if it means lying. After all they don't want any regulations.
Speaking of lying...
If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.
If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep it.
Obamacare will reduce cost by $2,500 per family per year.
kronk wrote: But not your grandmother. If she's over 80, she has no rights.
K-Ronk, when I'm dictator for life, all grannies will be on the approved list. The world is a better place with grandmas in it.
Forum trolls will of course move to the top of the black list, which I expect will get me showered with rose petals by the masses.
I'm all for guaranteeing health care for grandmas as long as we have the condition that we don't let them drive anymore. Grandmas can live to be 100 as long as she stops holding up traffic with her ridiculously slow driving with the blinker on. Everybody wins.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/08/19 21:34:58
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
skyth wrote: The move to more temps predate the ACA. The problem with asking businesses if regulations would cause them to cut back on employees they will always answer yes even if it means lying. After all they don't want any regulations.
Similarly, businesses are always going to blame regulations for cutting jobs/benefits if they can instead of admitting "we did this because we can benefit our shareholders at the expense of our employees".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/21 12:23:01
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
kronk wrote: But not your grandmother. If she's over 80, she has no rights.
K-Ronk, when I'm dictator for life, all grannies will be on the approved list. The world is a better place with grandmas in it.
Forum trolls will of course move to the top of the black list, which I expect will get me showered with rose petals by the masses.
I'm all for guaranteeing health care for grandmas as long as we have the condition that we don't let them drive anymore. Grandmas can live to be 100 as long as she stops holding up traffic with her ridiculously slow driving with the blinker on. Everybody wins.
I can accept that. She just spends her pension at the casino, anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/21 12:47:04
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2016/08/21 12:45:00
Subject: Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
It's not blackmail. Aetna is saying that the only way for their company to make enough money to make staying in the exchange worthwhile is to expand so they want to merge with Human. The Dept of Justice doesn't want the merger to happen because they believe it will make Aetna too big and violate anti trust laws. Therefore Aetna is telling the DoJ that if they block the merger Aetna will have to leave he exchanges. That's not blackmail at all.
But it is twisted that way to make the headline more interesting as usual...
"You can keep it" and "you'll be able to keep it" are two different sentences. Quotes are supposed to be verbatim.
Not to mention the part where your own source points out that Obama apologised for the statement. Your attempt at deflection is laughably transparent. Changing the subject just to attack Obama is an example of the type of posts that have caused a large part of this forum to consider you little more than a partisan hack.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/08/22 17:31:04
Subject: Re:Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
• White House Web page: "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them. " (Spanish-language version.)
•White House Web page: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
• President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
• Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: "No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
• Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: "I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
• Presidential press conference, June 23, 2009. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor."
• Rose Garden remarks, July 15, 2009. "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too."
• Remarks at a rally for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, July 16, 2009: "if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan — you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
• Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: "Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."
• Rose Garden remarks, July 21, 2009: "If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it."
• Remarks in Shaker Heights, Ohio, July 23, 2009: "Reform will keep the government out of your health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your coverage if you're happy with it."
• Town hall in Raleigh, N.C., July 29, 2009: "I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans."
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 8, 2009: "Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
• Town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009: "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
• Town hall in Belgrade, Mont., Aug. 14, 2009: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. This is not some government takeover. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. This is important."
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 15, 2009: "No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."
• Town hall in Grand Junction, Colo., Aug. 15, 2009: "I just want to be completely clear about this. I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor."
• Remarks to Organizing for America, Aug. 20, 2009: "No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals that we've put forward. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it."
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 22, 2009: "Under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
• Remarks on health care reform, March 3, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor."
• Presidential weekly address, March 6, 2010: "What won’t change when this bill is signed is this: If you like the insurance plan you have now, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because nothing should get in the way of the relationship between a family and their doctor."
• Remarks in Glenside, Pa., March 8, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
• Remarks in St. Charles, Mo., March 10, 2010: " If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
• Remarks in St. Louis, Mo., March 10, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I’m the father of two young girls –- I don’t want anybody interfering between my family and their doctor."
• Remarks in Strongsville, Ohio, March 15, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I don't want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors."
• Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: "If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health."
Obama’s comments between the law’s signing and the release of the HHS regulations
• White House web page: "For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law."
• Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa, March 25, 2010: "You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you."
• Remarks in Portland, Maine, April 1, 2010: The critics will "see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
• White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter, May 18, 2010: "A key point to remember is that while the Act makes many changes to the individual market, it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so. Most of the Act’s protections apply only to new policies, allowing people to stick with their current plan if they prefer."
After the release of the HHS regulations
• Kathleen Sebelius blog post, June 14, 2010: "The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them."
• White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter. "Another important step we’ve taken is to fulfill President Obama’s promise that ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it.’ Last week, Secretary Sebelius and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced a new rule that protects the ability of individuals and businesses to keep their current plan. It outlines conditions under which current plans can be ‘grandfathered’ into the system, minimizing market disruption and putting us all on the path toward the competitive, patient-centered market of the future."
• Remarks on the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court ruling, June 28, 2012: "If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable."
• Campaign event in Pittsburgh, July 6, 2012: "If you have health insurance, the only thing that changes for you is you’re more secure because insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick."
• Campaign event in Virginia Beach, Va., July 13, 2012: "If you already have health care, the only thing this bill does is make sure that it’s even more secure and insurance companies can't jerk you around."
• First presidential debate in Denver, Oct. 3, 2012: "If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around."
• Remarks in Largo, Md., Sept. 26, 2013: "Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance — either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you — especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything."
Your attempt at deflection is laughably transparent. Changing the subject just to attack Obama is an example of the type of posts that have caused a large part of this forum to consider you little more than a partisan hack.
I changed the subject?
All I said that it was a gak deal, and Obama/Democrats deserves every scorn over this law.
It's the pearl-clutching, Obama Whiteknighters™ that can't let go, because they know it to be gakky law.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/22 17:35:33
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/08/22 17:51:04
Subject: Re:Aetna CEO To Justice Department: Block Our Deal And We'll Drop Out Of Obamacare
And now you're making a strawman of what I said. I pointed out that Obama said "you can keep", not "you'll be able to keep" and that you should be more thorough when you quote people. At no point have I defended the statement.
And yes, you changed the subject. The fact that you're attacking Obama for unrelated statements in a thread about Aetna ought to illustrate that abundantly.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
