If you like your plan Bill

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560
If you like your plan Bill
Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

No. The reason those plans are being scrapped is because they aren't good enough to qualify under ACA in the first place. Why keep them around for another year? That's just ridiculous.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

The cancelling of the plans is going to through a lot of people off. The healthcare website is not going to allow people to buy new plans through the exchanges until at least the end of November. That is if there are no more problems and no glitches at all. Millions of people will be out insurance as of December 31st. What happens to those people if they can not get processed by January 1st? I have no confidence that they will be able to get all those people signed up completely and ready to go by that date. So in the mean time they have no insurance at all? The gap between when these people's currant plans expire and March when they plan to be completely ready for everyone to have the new plans is not acceptable. Whatever plan they put in place, they need to garentee that the people who's insurance is being dropped will not have a break in coverage due to Obamacare.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I would prefer to see the resources put into making the system work so that everyone can & will be enrolled and ready to go on January 1st, than to see resources wasted making an attempt for these no-good plans to stick around another year, and the other side is going to waste resources arguing against it.

If it comes down to the wire, then Obama can (and I believe *would*) use executive privilege to sign something saying, "Anyone with a plan that expires on December 31st and who made a reasonable effort to enroll in a new plan, but whose new plan is not yet effective because our system was full of glitches, their old plans are hereby ordered to stay in effect until February 1st." Problem solved.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

The cancelling of the plans is going to through a lot of people off. The healthcare website is not going to allow people to buy new plans through the exchanges until at least the end of November. That is if there are no more problems and no glitches at all. Millions of people will be out insurance as of December 31st. What happens to those people if they can not get processed by January 1st? I have no confidence that they will be able to get all those people signed up completely and ready to go by that date. So in the mean time they have no insurance at all? The gap between when these people's currant plans expire and March when they plan to be completely ready for everyone to have the new plans is not acceptable. Whatever plan they put in place, they need to garentee that the people who's insurance is being dropped will not have a break in coverage due to Obamacare.

Is this debate about this question, or your first question. Because i don't see the two as related.

The first question is asking if we want to pass a bill that will allow people to keep plans that do not meet the basic requirements set in place for health insurance by the ACA

The second question is about what to do while they fix this mess of a website.

If you are proposing allowing the first, to fix the second....that sounds like an attempt to undermine the way the ACA works and saying its strictly to address the website problem. Why would we need to let people keep bad plans forever just to fix a temporary issue.

Or maybe its not meant to be forever? I could not find any info in the articles i searched about these bills...if its meant to be temporary, or permanent? Is this a "keep until the website works?" or is it "ignore the basic health insurance requirements built into the ACA forever"

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"KimPossible" wrote:

Is this debate about this question, or your first question. Because i don't see the two as related.

The first question is asking if we want to pass a bill that will allow people to keep plans that do not meet the basic requirements set in place for health insurance by the ACA

The second question is about what to do while they fix this mess of a website.

If you are proposing allowing the first, to fix the second....that sounds like an attempt to undermine the way the ACA works and saying its strictly to address the website problem. Why would we need to let people keep bad plans forever just to fix a temporary issue.

Or maybe its not meant to be forever? I could not find any info in the articles i searched about these bills...if its meant to be temporary, or permanent? Is this a "keep until the website works?" or is it "ignore the basic health insurance requirements built into the ACA forever"

Everything I have read about this bill is that it is only until 2014.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

From the business end, let's use a hypothetical situation. If everyone logged on on 11/30 and were able to sign up for a plan that gives each company 30 days to do the enrollment process in order to have a 1/1 start date. Our turnaround time is 10-14 days.

Now, even if we were behind with the actual input admin of updating the coverage....the member still *has* coverage as of 1/1. We will still put it in as promised even if we updated it on 1/15. Does that make sense?

It's not like we'll say..hey sorry you signed up on 11/30 but we're so busy we didn't get to you until 1/15 so you're s*it out of luck on that 15 days of coverage. Doesn't work that way.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

No. The reason those plans are being scrapped is because they aren't good enough to qualify under ACA in the first place. Why keep them around for another year? That's just ridiculous.

Not all of the plans being cut are bad plans. Not all of the people who are being cut have better options available to them.

Loyal Obama Supporters, Canceled by Obamacare - ProPublica

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Everything I have read about this bill is that it is only until 2014.

The article that you posted i see at the end says "would remian in effect throughout 2014"

No i would not agree with such a bill. We don't need people keeping theses inadequate plans for a whole year because of the enrollment issue.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Jessica80" wrote:

From the business end, let's use a hypothetical situation. If everyone logged on on 11/30 and were able to sign up for a plan that gives each company 30 days to do the enrollment process in order to have a 1/1 start date. Our turnaround time is 10-14 days.

Now, even if we were behind with the actual input admin of updating the coverage....the member still *has* coverage as of 1/1. We will still put it in as promised even if we updated it on 1/15. Does that make sense?

It's not like we'll say..hey sorry you signed up on 11/30 but we're so busy we didn't get to you until 1/15 so you're s*it out of luck on that 15 days of coverage. Doesn't work that way.

Exactly! Each of my kids was covered by my insurance from the moment of their birth, even though it took two months to get each of them added to my plan. Good thing, too, because I could never afford Tiven's $75K or so intensive care nursery stay if it wasn't covered by insurance.

This proposed bill is just postponing the inevitable, which is never a good thing, especially when doing so wastes taxpayer money.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

Everything I have read on the subject has pointed to the fact that Obamacare is not ready. In many areas, not just the website. It makes sense to me to postpone things until all of the kinks are worked out. Not forcing it though before anyone has a chance to repeal it. If it is not ready, then it is not ready.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Not all of the plans being cut are bad plans. Not all of the people who are being cut have better options available to them.

Loyal Obama Supporters, Canceled by Obamacare - ProPublica

Sorry, but I would dispute the claim that theirs was a "solid, reasonable plan." It carries a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits (including preventive care) after the deductible is met, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30% coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible is met. The out-of-pocket maximum is $5,600 per person. They could easily be out close to $26,000 if they both get sick or injured. Compare that to the "platinum" plan available through Kaiser under Covered California, I entered their ages & I Googled them to find their own zip code. Yes, they'll pay a much higher premium, $538 per person per month so not quite double, but they will have free preventive care, $25 co-pays for pretty much everything else, no deductible, and a $2500 out-of-pocket maximum per person. How anyone is arguing that this is NOT a better plan than what they had is beyond me. :rolleyes:

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

Sorry, but I would dispute the claim that theirs was a "solid, reasonable plan." It carries a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits (including preventive care) after the deductible is met, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30% coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible is met. The out-of-pocket maximum is $5,600 per person. They could easily be out close to $26,000 if they both get sick or injured. Compare that to the "platinum" plan available through Kaiser under Covered California, I entered their ages & I Googled them to find their own zip code. Yes, they'll pay a much higher premium, $538 per person per month so not quite double, but they will have free preventive care, $25 co-pays for pretty much everything else, no deductible, and a $2500 out-of-pocket maximum per person. How anyone is arguing that this is NOT a better plan than what they had is beyond me. :rolleyes:

The plan they had is better than the plan that will be offered to me for next year. The plan they had is better than a lot of the plans I have seen with Obamacare. Those kind of deductibles seem to be the standard with Obamacare. Plus, what difference does it make how good the coverage is if you can't pay the premium each month? $538x2 is $1,076 per month or $12,912 per year. That is not affordable care. What you are doing is making the cost so high, that people have no choice but to drop their insurance. People that had insurance before. How is that accomplishing any of your goals?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

The plan they had is NOT better than any plan offered under ACA. High deductible plans are not allowable under ACA, nor are plans that don't cover preventive care. If you're being offered a high deductible plan without preventive care, then you're being duped. And your premiums won't be eligible for any government credits, either.

And last time I did the math, $12,912 per year is a lot less than the $26K they might have had to pay under their old plan. People tend to not include the out-of-pocket maximum when calculating whether they can "afford" insurance, which is how so many people end up with high-deductible plans and then high medical bills that they can't afford.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

When Obamacare Exchanges Launch, Premiums Will Be Low, Deductibles High - Forbes

"Average deductibles can range from a low of $1,500 to a high of $5,000, according to the Avalere analysis."

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

The plan I showed above, that Mr. Hammack & his wife could purchase from Kaiser in California, doesn't have any deductible. And Mr. Hammack is self-employed so he deduct half of the premium amount as a business expense, thus lowering his taxable base. And perhaps if he's a member of an association, he might be eligible to purchase group health insurance which would probably be lower than buying an individual plan on the exchange. The situation is not nearly as dire as the right wingers are making it out to be.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

Sorry, but I would dispute the claim that theirs was a "solid, reasonable plan." It carries a $4,000 deductible

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

"Average deductibles can range from a low of $1,500 to a high of $5,000, according to the Avalere analysis."

If I understand you correctly, you were saying that a $4,000 deductible is not a solid, reasonable plan. However the above quoted article from Forbes said that with Obamacare the average deductibles with Obamacare range from between $1,500 to $5,000. Yes, there are probably plans in California that can be purchased with a lower deductible or no with the plan you found no deductible, but with very high premiums. But the AVERAGE person buying Obamacare will have between a $1,500 and $5,000 deductible.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

Another story of people being lost in the cracks. Obamacare is broken, and needs to be fixed. I think a delay until the problems can be fixed is reasonable.

A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you were saying that a $4,000 deductible is not a solid, reasonable plan. However the above quoted article from Forbes said that with Obamacare the average deductibles with Obamacare range from between $1,500 to $5,000. Yes, there are probably plans in California that can be purchased with a lower deductible or no with the plan you found no deductible, but with very high premiums. But the AVERAGE person buying Obamacare will have between a $1,500 and $5,000 deductible.

That plan *all together* with the high deductible *and* $5600 OOP *and* no preventive care *and* 30% copay *after* the full deductible is met, all together, *is* not reasonable. And if you read the full report that Forbes quoted, they only looked at information from six states, and I wonder if they may have excluded plans that don't have a deductible. I've pointed out that at least some states are offering plans with much-lower, or even no, deductibles, which would skew the data if they were included. Alas, I closed that window & I'm not going to go looking for it again. And in California, especially in San Francisco, $538 per adult is a pretty reasonable premium for such a good plan as I described I found on the exchange. That couple could go with any different plan -- Kaiser is offering eight of them on the exchange and there are other companies too, offering a variety of plans -- for a lower premium. I just picked the best plan which, obviously, has the highest premium.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

4000 deductible per person is insane.

5000 for a family is a high deductible plan. But it combines medical care and rx's typically. They will be eligible to pursue an HSA which are pretty awesome.

So say it's an awful year for a family (it's really common). There are 4 of us in mine. For just our physicals we would end up paying 160.00. Not counting sick visits or my daughter's developmental pedi...or the cost of ABA. Now, say all of us have to stay inpatient....it truly does happen...life sucks....that's pushing 80000+ if we're lucky. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have that hanging around to pay medical bills. That's how people were losing their houses.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Spacers" wrote:

Sorry, but I would dispute the claim that theirs was a "solid, reasonable plan." It carries a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits (including preventive care) after the deductible is met, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30% coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible is met. The out-of-pocket maximum is $5,600 per person. They could easily be out close to $26,000 if they both get sick or injured. Compare that to the "platinum" plan available through Kaiser under Covered California, I entered their ages & I Googled them to find their own zip code. Yes, they'll pay a much higher premium, $538 per person per month so not quite double, but they will have free preventive care, $25 co-pays for pretty much everything else, no deductible, and a $2500 out-of-pocket maximum per person. How anyone is arguing that this is NOT a better plan than what they had is beyond me. :rolleyes:

That plan sounds like what my in-laws had, they have been canceled. The knew exactly how much they would have to pay if one year all hell broke loose, and they have that money in savings if they needed it. The liked having the lower premiums, less out of pocket a month. My FIL is really amazing with investments and that money they saved made them a lot of money over the years. They should have that option.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Another story of people being lost in the cracks. Obamacare is broken, and needs to be fixed. I think a delay until the problems can be fixed is reasonable.

A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com

I read that story and it is heartbreaking. No one should have to give up their oncologist and face death because they lose their coverage due to Obamacare. It sure sounds like she had good coverage that she was happy with.

You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).

So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.

What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

I guess this health policy expert is just another person that is too stupid to know that her plan was no good, right?

As a health policy expert, Hadley Heath has warned about the problems with Obamacare for years. Now, like so many other Americans, she’s facing the real-life consequences of the law.

Speaking to Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren, Heath said her current health care plan is no longer an option. The $113 per month she pays for that plan includes hospitalization, preventive care, immunization, X-rays, and “all the basic things that someone might want in a health insurance plan.” Her deductible was $2,700 per year.

But because of Obamacare, Heath said the most affordable plan available to her now through the Washington, D.C., exchange would double her insurance premium, and her new deductible would be about $3,500 per year.

“I can’t believe that would be better for me or something that I would choose to do on my own,” Heath said. “That’s why I imagine they have a mandate making this mandatory.”

Heath, who is a senior policy analyst with the Independent Women’s Forum, warned Obamacare will hit young people hard.

“Obamacare is about redistributing costs and, in this case, it’s from younger, healthier people onto people who utilize the health care system more,” she said.

Heath added: “I think my experience is representative of the experience of what will be millions of people who buy their own health insurance, especially young Americans. I’ve seen studies that estimate that women’s premiums might double and young men’s might triple.”

Health Policy Expert's Insurance Gets Cancelled by Obamacare

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

EPO plans follow the PPO network which is pretty large in California. They just don't have out of network benefits (which can really make a patient's costs soar as it typically has a higher deductible, coinsurance and since out of network docs don't accept insurance rates they can balance bill.

For example, you have a surgery that they charge 18,000 for. Anthem may pay someone in network 10,000. You have to pay your deductible (Let's say it's 2000.00) and then you have to pay 40% after that (typical coinsurance amount). On top of that you have to pay 8,000 MORE to cover the rest of the bill. Going out of network is not a great idea financially.

Also, as far as I'm aware, most BCBS plans have a set plan in place that if you are already undergoing care with a provider they will approve that provider until care is done. My daughter has it for her ABA. Her ABA provider is not in the network for my plan and they are approved because she started care with them before insurance started.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

Costs for many people are doubling and even tripling. Yes, it is going down for some people, but way up for others. Many doctors and hospitals are not participating so if people sign up they will loose their doctors. I think those things are terrible but it does not change the fact that they are trying to roll out a plan that is not ready. Hurting innocent people in the process.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Had our open enrollment meeting today.

Just to throw into the mix of experiences...

Our company offers one plan and will be keeping it. It is a platinum plan. I will have an increase of about 35 - 46 dollars per month. It used to include vision, but now doesn't. That will be offered separate now, at about 5 a month for individuals 13 for families.

The changes above are for families.

Individuals will begin cost sharing now (previously they were not)...but only 10% of the premium where typical is 25-35%

ETA: For further reference, the increase i experienced was about 13% or so.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"KimPossible" wrote:

Had our open enrollment meeting today.

Just to throw into the mix of experiences...

Our company offers one plan and will be keeping it. It is a platinum plan. I will have an increase of about 35 - 46 dollars per month. It used to include vision, but now doesn't. That will be offered separate now, at about 5 a month for individuals 13 for families.

The changes above are for families.

Individuals will begin cost sharing now (previously they were not)...but only 10% of the premium where typical is 25-35%

ETA: For further reference, the increase i experienced was about 13% or so.

That is only what increased on your side. I wonder how much more your employer is paying? I'm sure there are a lot of employers that aren't going to eat that increased cost.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That is only what increased on your side. I wonder how much more your employer is paying? I'm sure there are a lot of employers that aren't going to eat that increased cost.

They told us, but it was in a slide of the presentation that I did not capture. They also told us how much the plan icnreased overall...and also said there was a 4% increase in cost attributed directly to the ACA, the rest of the increase was not.

I was told the presentation file would be available to us later today.

ETA: And yes i realize that my company is good to us when it comes to health care coverage. Only thing that would be nice would be if the offered an alternative to the platinum plan we have.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That is only what increased on your side. I wonder how much more your employer is paying? I'm sure there are a lot of employers that aren't going to eat that increased cost.

Looked at the presentation again. The overall cost of the plan went up by 13.1% with ~4% ACA fees & mandates. The cost sharing remains the same for families. I pay 40%.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

"KimPossible" wrote:

Looked at the presentation again. The overall cost of the plan went up by 13.1% with ~4% ACA fees & mandates. The cost sharing remains the same for families. I pay 40%.

At least until the Cadillac plan tax hits. Those with good coverage will be penalized too.

'Cadillac' Health Plans Taxed By Obamacare - Business Insider
Obamacare Tax Aimed At 'Cadillac Plans' Will Hurt Ordinary Workers: Report

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

There has been some discussion of the cadillac tax for a few reasons.

1. Unions. Many unions have not accepted raises in lieu of keeping the same level of coverage and employer payouts.
2. Mandates. Plans here can cost more than other places because we have a different set of mandates on state level than others and more than what the ACA is accounting for.

I don't know if there will be exemptions..maybe not...but it is out there.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301
KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

I didn't read the whole article yet but i want to know something. In the first paragraph it says "it wouldn't cover pharmaceuticals and medical devices."

I want to know in more detail what they mean because prescription drug coverage is part of the essential benefits.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

WASHINGTON: Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had | White House | McClatchy DC

I know people who have had to change their employer based insurance as well.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Politics: Cancer patient tells Megyn Kelly he'll 'let nature take its course' rather than pay for ObamaCare | Best of Cain

In a state, that already had mandated health insurance and high costs to begin with, I have NEVER seen a plan with a deductible at 13, 500 per person.

Also, like Kim said why wouldn't it cover medications? That's a core item for minimum creditable coverage. Was he using experimental drugs?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Seemed to explain it in the video pretty well to me

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I didn't hear any explanation of why the plan doesn't cover meds.

It just seems fishy. 1500/mo for a individual for 13000 deduct? Between my employer and I my family plan (with no deductible if I go to certain hospitals) doesn't cost that. Sounds like SC is doing things wrong.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

The video didn't state 13000 deductible that I heard. he said that makes 13000 a year. Should have found a different link to post the information about it.. it was the first I found.. but he will not be the first to have the issue.. 13000 a year is a LOT of money..

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226
KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Also here's some food for thought on the other cancer patient that has been brought up and her 'caring insurer'. I particularly like the point made in the first article. Her insurer was having trouble in the california market pre-aca. Which is why its pulling out of that state among others, but not every state. Imagine what her prospects would have been if they had pulled out due to their failing business and there was no ACA?

A closer look at the WSJ's newest Obamacare horror story - latimes.com

The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance | ThinkProgress

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4115

I guess they are finally going to admit there is a problem. Too bad it is too late for lots of people whose insurance companies have already canceled their plans and may not be able to go back and offer them what they had.

Americans may keep their insurance plan for a year even if they don't comply with Obamacare - Nov. 14, 2013

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

Well in reality i think this will cause serious problems for Obamacare going forward...so congrats Republicans you got a little of what you want. Anything that helps make the whole thing fail, right?

Guess we'll have to wait and see how many insurers take this route.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well in reality i think this will cause serious problems for Obamacare going forward...so congrats Republicans you got a little of what you want. Anything that helps make the whole thing fail, right?

Guess we'll have to wait and see how many insurers take this route.

No, most Republicans did not want Obamacare to pass in the first place. It is a broken system and this fix is not going to make it better.

I very much wanted Obamacare to work. I would LOVE for a family to be able to pay something like $400 a month for my family or $100 for and individual to be able to go to the doctor/hospital whenever needed. However it is NOT working and that is not what is happening.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

To clarify, I am not against health reform or even I think I could get used to Government run healthcare. THIS system however, is not the answer.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

To clarify, I am not against health reform or even I think I could get used to Government run healthcare. THIS system however, is not the answer.

Oh well if you like the idea of government run healthcare, you can blame your conservative friends for us going down this road instead! As they would NEVER support that!

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"KimPossible" wrote:

Oh well if you like the idea of government run healthcare, you can blame your conservative friends for us going down this road instead! As they would NEVER support that!

I do not think that it is the ideal plan, but I do think it would be better than Obamacare.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not think that it is the ideal plan, but I do think it would be better than Obamacare.

I actually know several people that think that was the plan all along. To make Obamacare so bad that people would have no choice but to pass a completely Government run plan. I do not feel that way. I do not think Pres. Obama wanted Obamacare to fail.