Report: Only 10,000 Will Lose Out Under Obamacare

[gotbeer]

Report: Only 10,000 Will Lose Out Under Obamacare

 

 

Not very many, says a report by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – about 10,000 people.

 

 

 

[HaloMagic]

I can believe this. More accurately it's stating that only 10,000 people won't be able to either renew their 2013 insurance or receive a tax credit towards a new insurance plan. That 2013 extension is only for this year. All bets are off for 2015.

[nate]

From my company alone, about 200k people were not able to renew their plan and were not able to get a tax credit.  They were forced to enroll in an expensive off exchange ACA plan.

[Taylor]

From my company alone, about 200k people were not able to renew their plan and were not able to get a tax credit.  They were forced to enroll in an expensive off exchange ACA plan.

 

10K, 200K... what's the difference?

[HaloMagic]

Why couldn't they renew their old plan?

[nate]

Why couldn't they renew their old plan?

 

I have detailed it before but basically Obamacare made it too expensive for us to continue offering coverage in their states or because his announcement was made so late we were not able to get rates approved in time so we declined to keep offering coverage because we would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars every month by keeping them insured.

 

This is my favorite line: 

• Also, the report says, “Individuals who received cancellation notices are eligible to apply for a hardship exemption and purchase catastrophic health plans typically offered only to individuals under 30.”

 

Lol... those catastrophic plans are exactly what they call themselves.  Only for disasters.  They do not cover any routine care, surgery, emergency surgery etc unless it is due to a natural disaster or some other catastrophe.

 

That report is the most hilarious bit of Dem propaganda I have read in a long time.

Edited January 4, 2014 by nate

[Crampknees]

10K, 200K... what's the difference?

It is much different than how the people going around spouting off scores of millions have already lost theirs.   I don't think anyone will really know for sure for some time but my stocks prefer people to be more conservative than continue to make up exaggerations. I know it doesn't sell the doom and gloom but 10k to 200k which could be well understated still sounds closer to the real truth than just tossing out the millions word.  

Edited January 4, 2014 by Kurt Swanson

[Taylor]

It is much different than how the people going around spouting off scores of millions have already lost theirs.   I don't think anyone will really know for sure for some time but my stocks prefer people to be more conservative than continue to make up exaggerations. I know it doesn't sell the doom and gloom but 10k to 200k which could be well understated still sounds closer to the real truth than just tossing out the millions word.  

 

200K in Nate's company alone.

 

But yes, it's not nearly as dramatic as the millions people are crying. 

[nate]

I would guess the number is around 2-4 million total.

 

Also, the article fails to mention that over 75% of previously insured Americans will be paying more for health insurance.  By the way, they are almost exclusively middle class.  Just what this country needed, more hardship for the middle class.

[mtangelsfan]

Who cares if some middle class folks lose their health care, at least more poor folks can get theirs for free.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

10K, 200K... what's the difference?

 

Sounds like the discussion at the table when the federal budget is put together.

 

So far my luck has held out. The health plan I have at work meets all the requirements for the national plan, so I'm just keeping what I have.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[floplag]

...and this is acceptable at any number after the noone will lose speech?  its going to go down in history as a bigger blunder than read my lips... what a joke

[Blarg]

The entire liberal community is circling the wagons on this since it is an election year killer topic. The horrible roll out, the millions that were displaced from their insurance and forced to choose disaster care instead of an actual policy, the President apologizing every other week for three months about the failed websites.

 

I don't see how any Democrat keeps his seat without turning tail on this subject and pulls the it's not our fault we were hoodwinked defense. Which in itself is a poor stance since it says they can't be trusted not to be fooled again.

 

“We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” It looks like pink slips for the Democrats that never read the bill and understood what the fallout would be. Except in California where Senile Feinstein and Botox Boxer are vampire overlords to idiots that think being progressive is voting for the same two failures for 3 decades.

[Stradling]

I would guess the number is around 2-4 million total.

Also, the article fails to mention that over 75% of previously insured Americans will be paying more for health insurance. By the way, they are almost exclusively middle class. Just what this country needed, more hardship for the middle class.

Nate, just curious, it seems as though insurance goes up every single year. So when you mention that 75% of insured Americans will be paying more, do you mean more than the usual increase? If so, approximately how much more, I am curious and don't want to do all the homework to find out. Thanks man.

[nate]

Yes, the increase is much more.  There is a wide variety of taxes added to company health plans.  Additionally there are several mandates added to all plans that increase the cost.

[Amazing Larry]

I don't see how any Democrat keeps his seat without turning tail on this subject and pulls the it's not our fault we were hoodwinked defense. Which in itself is a poor stance since it says they can't be trusted not to be fooled again.

 

Well be prepared to be baffled when they all get re-elected and nothing changes. The average American voter is comfortably numb.

[nate]

Well be prepared to be baffled when they all get re-elected and nothing changes. The average American voter is comfortably numb.

 

Most American voters only know one thing...  political party and what they think that party represents.

[DowningRules]

This article is an excellent example in how to apply critical thinking when reading the news and associated articles.

 

Take, for example, the article's opening sentance:  "How many people are losing the health insurance they had because of Obamacare and won’t be able to renew it or replace it with something better?"

 

What is the definition of 'better' here?  The author of the article is, without explanation, assuming her definition of the word 'better' applies to and with the ACA at the same level as the reader's.  The writer's idea of 'better' may not be my idea of 'better.'  It's an illogical conclusion.

 

Another example: 

"They cite as evidence a report by The Associated Press that estimated that 4.7 million Americans have received or will receive notices canceling their 2013 health insurance plans.

 

But that’s faulty reasoning, the report says, and it instead came to these conclusions:"

 

It's not 'faulty reasoning.'  It's not even 'reasoning.'  It's an estimate.  The writer implies that there is some sort of leeway in the cancellation letters.  As if they are up for interpretation.  Incorrect.  A cancellation letter (like the one I received) said, "your current plan is being cancelled."  No room for 'reasoning' there.  My plan was cancelled.  If I tried to sign up for that plan right now, I couldn't.  There was no reasoning or negotiation.  The letter was not one bit faulty in its conclusion.  The plan has been eliminated. 

 

Here's another good one:

 

"In my case, my insurance provider was ready to roll me into a different plan on Jan. 1. Instead, I purchased a new policy via HealthCare.gov at a cost savings of 45 percent. I make too much money to be eligible for a subsidy, so other people could get an ever better price."

 

Again, let's use critical thinking.  Or, as they teach in law school, analyze each word as every word has a precise meaning.  The author writes that she 'purchased' a new policy, saving 45%.  That's terrific.  Does this mean she currently has health insurance?  In other words, can she go to her doctor and have a check-up?  Or is her new policy lost in a jumble of computer glitches and other screw-ups/mis-directs?  Again, a massive difference in wording vs. meaning.  'Purchased a new policy' vs. having active health insurance.

 

These are just a few.  I could pick it apart some more if I wanted to.  The entire article is based on false premises. 

 

A very nice, rah! rah! piece of sunny day rainbow, but cloudy upon critical interpretation.

[Blarg]

You can buy cars cheaper but usually get cheaper cars. There is nothing in her statement that says she bought a policy that has the same provisions or deductibles, just that the initial cost was cheaper. No apples to apples definition as to what her old policy or new policy provided for what costs.

[Crampknees]

Most American voters only know one thing...  political party and what they think that party represents.

Pretty much it and the more we go down that road the more anything any party does will be a complete disaster.  Other people than the ones we blame for everything make money off us.  That is my conspiracy theory but it is getting more evident.  No money for the people pulling the strings, no Obamacare would ever make it. 

 

You guys always look at is as giving stuff away.  Ever think of there are a few who are going to take it all? And no not Obama. I know you guys will think I am loon but go ahead and keep thinking we are just facing Dems against Reps. Nothing ever happens anymore unless there are a select few to profit from it.....I have to go black Escalades in front of my house. 

[Tank]

Yes, the increase is much more.  There is a wide variety of taxes added to company health plans.  Additionally there are several mandates added to all plans that increase the cost.

Thanks, Barry!

[arch stanton]

It's more complex than just voting red or blue. it starts with assuming those are the only options. The two parties have done a great job of eliminating competition.

 

In my first election in 1982 I voted for Time Wirth, a Democrat incumbent congressman. Since then I have not cast a single ballot for a R or a D candidate. I always choose the third party that I think will get the most votes in hope that they might qualify for matching funds and get some national recognition. I even held my nose and voted for Pat Buchanan in hopes of keeping the Reform Party alive.

 

As long as these two groups have the either/or mentality alive then we're doomed to the will of whatever power Citizen United has deemed to be their overlords.

[Angel Oracle]

Thanks, Barry!

I prefer Thanks, Obamadon'tcare.

[TennAngelsFan]

I count myself as lucky so far. We took a hit when they raised rates to cover peoples up to 26 kids but not much since. But the blessing is that when my wife fell this year our insurance covered about 80% of the bill. That was for emgergency room at 2:30 in the morning, Dr's,surgery 2 days later and therapy. As I said I count myself blessed that we still have insurance we can afford.

[Tank]

I prefer Thanks, Obamadon'tcare.

 

i'm not using his real name because i don't want to trigger any alarms on the national computer networks.

 

besides, if his fake name was good enough for him, it's good enough for me.