Tweet
Some anecdotal evidence about obummer care. Talking to my X landlord today, he tells me that his brother-in-law went to sign up for ACA, while the monthly premium seemed to be pretty good, the deductible was a bit over 6K, for a single male, healthy. That sounds like 12K for a husband and wife.....and with kids WOW!!!! Also listened to a gent that said he recieved a letter from Blue Cros/Blue Shield that said his insurance would no longer be good enough under the ACA rules and as of Dec 31 it would go away...What happened to the statement the obummer made, "If your happy with your Insurance you can keep it"...Just one more lie, huh guys....
-
-
More evidence....
shby, an aerospace engineer and radio host in Wichita, Kan., told TheBlaze that he recently received a letter from his family’s health insurance provider informing him that their policy no longer complies with federal law under Obamacare. The replacement plan allegedly comes with a roughly 535 percent deductible increase — before the plan helps out with medical bills. The replacement plan also reduces the number of plan-covered doctor visits from five to as few as two, and doubles the co-pay for each visit, he said.
“The old plan had a $1,000 deductible before the plan kicked in. After that, the old plan paid 80 percent and we paid 20 percent until we got to another $1,000. The new plan has a $6,350 deductible before they kick in anything,†he explained.
Further, Ashby claims the plan’s vision coverage is dropped and the monthly premium is still higher than the old policy. The family may end up paying as much as $10,000 more over the next year in medical costs under the new Obamacare-compliant plan, he said.
Ashby told TheBlaze the $10,000 estimation is based on a combination of higher premiums and likely medical payment his family would have to make with the increased deductible.
.
“I just want to make it clear that if my family was in the deepest pit of Nova Scotia with the Rocky Mountains piled on top of us, we’d make it out. We’re not here to complain,†the father said. “I just want people to know what Obamacare is — and isn’t.â€
To back up his claims, Ashby provided TheBlaze copies of his old plan and the details of the new plans he can now choose from.
–Comment
-
You might want to read this story by FOX NEWS before you continue any farther into this conversation.Originally posted by kidrock View Post
Sounds like the old Liberal "Fuzzy Math" shell game just might be in play again !Comment
-
Ok Fox news has finally jumped on board the SPIN by the right wing media and did you read where the article says SEEMED TO HAVE PAID. Now that is funny right there.Comment
-
Finally they are the right wing media 24-7.Comment
-
seems funny nobody is signing upComment
-
Da da da da ta da!!! It's Big ED everybody!! LolScott Bloomchrist... The Lord, and Ruler of DIRT!!
"Hope everybody appreciated that ass kicking"
-Scott Bloomquist
Phil
Comment
-
LololololololComment
-
Only 51,000 nation wide have actually signed up for it???? HMMMMM?Originally posted by big.ed View PostComment
-
What's funny about it? Are you saying it DOESN'T seem the taxpayers will be forking out the extra money? Are you claiming the website didn't cost extra millions? If their claims are wrong, show me the evidence to the contrary. Then we can debate it.Originally posted by kidrock View Post
Right now, I have NO trouble believing anything about this administration.Comment
-
I never said it may not cost more. Usually things always cost more then projected. What I'm saying they are reporting it seems we are paying 634 million and there is no evidence that it is actually true. If it is actually found out it to be true I will be more than glad to come on here and say I was wrong and what total bs it is.Originally posted by skids View PostComment
-
Not only are you going to be wrong kid, but the larger number will be to small too....like the man with the fancy suits for sale, "I guarintee it"....Comment
-
I have to side with the republicans on the ACA web site. What where they thinking when they hired a Canadian company that got fired in Canada when they made a web site for only 30,000,000 people, that didn't work. If I was a betting man, I'd bet there was a big campaign contribution behind that one. Does it bother anyone else here, that our government hires out of country for government contracts, including defense contracts and the golden gate bridge refurbish?Comment
-
I don't debate issues by saying "Well, if you can't PROVE me wrong with empirical evidence, then I MUST be right." That is illogical, it's called "proving the negative." It's one of the sure signs of a poorly constructed argument, because anyone who understands pure logical thinking knows that you can't claim one thing is absolutely true simply because it can't be proven false. In other words, just because your claim can't be proven false doesn't necessarily make it true. That logic does not work.Originally posted by skids View Post
Here's a breakdown of your claim, your argument and your premises for your argument.
Claim- The website is costing millions and millions more than originally reported. (This is your claim, even though you did pose it as a rhetorical question by stating "Are you saying the website isn't costing extra millions?", which is simply stating your claim "the website is costing extra millions" by challenging someone else to "prove it isn't." Then you go on to state "show me the evidence to the contrary, then we can debate it." Which is just stating "Until you can prove their claims wrong, I am going to assume they are right." Which is fundamentally flawed reasoning. Just because their claims cannot be proven wrong does not make them "factual." It just illustrates that presuming the negative is true because no one can prove it false is flawed reasoning.
Argument- The cost is going to be way higher because this Administration doesn't tell the truth about anything.
Premise- Obama and his Administration are liars.
Premise-If you can't show me evidence that disproves my claim that it's costing $634 million, then I must be right.
Well, it all falls apart because you aren't arguing from a verifiable, fact checkable, legitimately sourced basis. You "presume" people are liars because that conveniently fits into your way of thinking. You presume the budget reported is incorrect, because you already presume the source lies. But, you don't KNOW for a FACT the source is lying to you (but of course, I am certain that you "just know" they are, because you possess omniscient omnipotence and know all thoughts of all people) therefore you cannot know for a FACT that the $93 million figure is false.
The truth lies somewhere between $93 million and $634 million. I don't believe either number is wholly accurate, but if I had to choose, I would go closer to the $93 million, because the source for the $634 million is not only unknown, but in all likelihood playing on some people's naivete and predilection for hating Obama to make an impact.
$634 million is called misinformation and propaganda in reality.Last edited by t.nie; 10-16-2013, 07:45 AM.Comment
Comment