Romney: Obamacare fiasco "rotting" Obama's second term

Full story: CBS News 662
Not so, says the Massachusetts program's architect, former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., who challenged Mr. Obama for the presidency in 2012. Full Story
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#291 Nov 21, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Communist are also against profiteering corporations. Being that ACA is open to massive corporate participation to provide an assortment of health care insurance to the consumer ACA has to be something other than Government take over, or socialist/communist.
Seems reasonable that the only people who could be scared off by the calling ACA Communist or Government Take over are those who were equally stupified by the meaning of "Grandfathered".
The ACA is a gigantic ponzi scheme, with the top 1% as the investors.
Massive corporate participation????? Really?? The lack of interstate insurance competition proves that is NOT true. None of the policies ARE grandfathered. If they changed one line in the terminology the policy is voided, which they all did. That is why they need renewed every year. DUH!
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#292 Nov 21, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
What are the sources of your research material that provided you insight to these things contained in your post below........ amazingly this is the very and only republican proposal they've had in 50 years.
How has ACA striped people of their providers? Who the insurance companies contracts with is of their discretion and not a function of ACA in any provision of the law.
Where did you read other wise? Same with the actual law, where did you read this law was not a Republican proposal?
I would like to read the same information you were privy too.
<quoted text>
Are you kidding ERic, your questions are like that of a fourth grader who just got enrolled in a new school. How much information about this has been out there> C'mon!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#293 Nov 21, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Communist are also against profiteering corporations. Being that ACA is open to massive corporate participation to provide an assortment of health care insurance to the consumer ACA has to be something other than Government take over, or socialist/communist.
Seems reasonable that the only people who could be scared off by the calling ACA Communist or Government Take over are those who were equally stupified by the meaning of "Grandfathered".
That is right, communist are against profiteering just like the ACA is against profiteering and the democrat's goal is total control and remember it was the Democrats that created this Health Insurance mess under leadership of FDR too.

8/10/2013 @ 12:00PM

Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/201...
spOko

Oakland, CA

#294 Nov 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>ACA is Socialist/Communist takeover of the Healthcare system as we know it and it is all about total centralized control by the US Federal Government.
Sure Forrest whatever you say, you couldn't get any more f-ing stupid if you tried ...
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#295 Nov 21, 2013
DOCTORS, HOSPITALS BRACE FOR OBAMACARE DISRUPTION - From WaPo,“As Americans have begun shopping for health plans on the insurance exchanges, they are discovering that insurers are restricting their choice of doctors and hospitals in order to keep costs low, and that many of the plans exclude top-rated hospitals.”

OBAMACARE ABORTION COVERAGE - Despite assurances from the administration that taxpayer dollars will not fund abortion, Fox News has obtained a report that says the claim is not only false, but that the scope is enormous. Chief Congressional Correspondent Mike Emanuel reveals today how the Obama administration is pursuing avenues to make public abortion subsidies available to thousands of women. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976. It prevents the DHHS from spending tax dollars on abortion. Nice how Odumbo and his minions just disregard the laws.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#296 Nov 21, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
If this were true that the ACA has provided this "group discount", then why did they not allow interstate commerce to provide competition? Some states only have two insurers, some only have one hospital participating in accepting Odumbocare. How is this an improvement over what was already in place?
Simply because it's not Government take over, but the decision of the Insurance company to decide where they want to participate. Hospitals in States that chose not to expand medicaid are financially feeling the negative impact of those governors not expanding medicaid and receiving that extra money.

It's a lie that Hospitals are fully self supporting in America. Without Government funding a lot of Hospitals are forced to reduce staff some will be forced to close their doors without additional government aid from treating patients who do not have insurance.

By next Nov, there will be lots of Hospitals, in the States that chose not to expand medicaid; collapse. States not having multiple insurers is a result of the citizens in those States and communities not having insurance to support Hospitals.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#297 Nov 21, 2013
There is a provision in ACA that guarantees Insurers a profit, so the information you have can't be correct, or it's made up.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That is right, communist are against profiteering just like the ACA is against profiteering and the democrat's goal is total control and remember it was the Democrats that created this Health Insurance mess under leadership of FDR too.
8/10/2013 @ 12:00PM
Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/201...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#298 Nov 21, 2013
If this was true Government take over, hell George Bush purchased AIG, the largest Insurance company in the world.

Thanks to the Republicans and Bush, America owns an Insurance company and could have funneled the business through AIG
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#299 Nov 21, 2013
Insurance companies have always done this to insure profits. The solution would be to chose your network based on the providers in that said network as you would with any network presented in a true choice option.

I'm beginning to doubt whether some of you have any experience in choosing coverage and physicians or networks to suit your medical needs.
CBOW wrote:
DOCTORS, HOSPITALS BRACE FOR OBAMACARE DISRUPTION - From WaPo,“As Americans have begun shopping for health plans on the insurance exchanges, they are discovering that insurers are restricting their choice of doctors and hospitals in order to keep costs low, and that many of the plans exclude top-rated hospitals.”
OBAMACARE ABORTION COVERAGE - Despite assurances from the administration that taxpayer dollars will not fund abortion, Fox News has obtained a report that says the claim is not only false, but that the scope is enormous. Chief Congressional Correspondent Mike Emanuel reveals today how the Obama administration is pursuing avenues to make public abortion subsidies available to thousands of women. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976. It prevents the DHHS from spending tax dollars on abortion. Nice how Odumbo and his minions just disregard the laws.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#300 Nov 21, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding ERic, your questions are like that of a fourth grader who just got enrolled in a new school. How much information about this has been out there> C'mon!
I kept the questions remedial so not to confuse you, but you still have not listed the sources you reviewed to get the information in your above post.

I'd like to review those specific sources you reviewed, if possible.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#301 Nov 21, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACA is a gigantic ponzi scheme, with the top 1% as the investors.
Massive corporate participation????? Really?? The lack of interstate insurance competition proves that is NOT true. None of the policies ARE grandfathered. If they changed one line in the terminology the policy is voided, which they all did. That is why they need renewed every year. DUH!
That is right, FDR and the Democrats were against Interstate Competition especially with the newly created Employer Sponsered Health Insurance companies that was created under FDR which was the purpose of the McCarran–Ferguson Act passed and enacted the FDR and the Democrats to limit & restrict interstate competition among the states which created Monopolies within the States as we see today since we know the SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Fovernment could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution in the SCOTUS case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#302 Nov 21, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACA is a gigantic ponzi scheme, with the top 1% as the investors.
Massive corporate participation????? Really?? The lack of interstate insurance competition proves that is NOT true. None of the policies ARE grandfathered. If they changed one line in the terminology the policy is voided, which they all did. That is why they need renewed every year. DUH!
As they should not be grandfathered if any portion of the coverage or premium changes, that's defeats the concept of Grandfathered......

How does lack of interstate insurance competition imped Corporate participation? It's a free market, Insurers can and should decide where they want to make their products available to suit their purpose and their purpose as with any corporate is to make a profit.

You seem to want over regulation on one hand, and not regulation on the other??????????

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#303 Nov 21, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure Forrest whatever you say, you couldn't get any more f-ing stupid if you tried ...
you know Forrest you depend on Centralized Government Controlled Social Programs which is obivous with your post reply.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#304 Nov 21, 2013
The McCarran-Ferguson Act gave States the oversight to regulate insurance instead of the Federal Government unless the Federal Law specifically provided otherwise.

Thus you have 50 different Insurance Commissioners, each with different standards for their states.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that state law shall govern the regulation of insurance and that no act of Congress shall invalidate any state law unless the federal law specifically relates to insurance. The act thus mandates that a federal law that does not specifically regulate the business of insurance will not PREEMPT a state law enacted for that purpose. A state law has the purpose of regulating the insurance industry if it has the "end, intention or aim of adjusting, managing, or controlling the business of insurance"
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That is right, FDR and the Democrats were against Interstate Competition especially with the newly created Employer Sponsered Health Insurance companies that was created under FDR which was the purpose of the McCarran–Ferguson Act passed and enacted the FDR and the Democrats to limit & restrict interstate competition among the states which created Monopolies within the States as we see today since we know the SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Fovernment could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution in the SCOTUS case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association.
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#305 Nov 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That is right, FDR and the Democrats were against Interstate Competition especially with the newly created Employer Sponsered Health Insurance companies that was created under FDR which was the purpose of the McCarran–Ferguson Act passed and enacted the FDR and the Democrats to limit & restrict interstate competition among the states which created Monopolies within the States as we see today since we know the SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Fovernment could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution in the SCOTUS case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association.
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Prior to the US vs SouthEastern Underwriters Association, the selling of Insurance was not considered commerce. However once SouthEastern began to sell across state lines the court opinion changed on the matter or Insurance as commerce.

McCarran–Ferguson Act was in response to the supreme court decision recognizing insurance sales as commerce.

How you figure this was because the democrats were against interstate commerce is beyond the pale....... that never figured into the decision or a reason for the act it self.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#306 Nov 21, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
The McCarran-Ferguson Act gave States the oversight to regulate insurance instead of the Federal Government unless the Federal Law specifically provided otherwise.
Thus you have 50 different Insurance Commissioners, each with different standards for their states.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that state law shall govern the regulation of insurance and that no act of Congress shall invalidate any state law unless the federal law specifically relates to insurance. The act thus mandates that a federal law that does not specifically regulate the business of insurance will not PREEMPT a state law enacted for that purpose. A state law has the purpose of regulating the insurance industry if it has the "end, intention or aim of adjusting, managing, or controlling the business of insurance"
<quoted text>
You just confirmed with your post that the Democrats created the mess and it is the Democrats now that don't want to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act which is what people are complaining about because they cant buy cheaper health insurance across state lines like people in California who are really complaining who could get Health Insurance alot Cheaper if it wasn't for the Democrat's McCarran-Ferguson Act restricting them from buying across statelines.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#307 Nov 21, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to the US vs SouthEastern Underwriters Association, the selling of Insurance was not considered commerce. However once SouthEastern began to sell across state lines the court opinion changed on the matter or Insurance as commerce.
McCarran–Ferguson Act was in response to the supreme court decision recognizing insurance sales as commerce.
How you figure this was because the democrats were against interstate commerce is beyond the pale....... that never figured into the decision or a reason for the act it self.
Anything that you purchase or buy across state lines falls under the authority of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and Democrats were against the US vs SouthEastern Underwriters Association decision by the SCOTUS or the Democrats would have never passed McCarran–Ferguson Act to stiffle competition across state lines.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#308 Nov 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You just confirmed with your post that the Democrats created the mess and it is the Democrats now that don't want to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act which is what people are complaining about because they cant buy cheaper health insurance across state lines like people in California who are really complaining who could get Health Insurance alot Cheaper if it wasn't for the Democrat's McCarran-Ferguson Act restricting them from buying across statelines.
If the Dems refuse to do away with the anti trust exemptions that's a perfect indication this is anything but a federal take over of the health care insurance industry.......
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#309 Nov 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Anything that you purchase or buy across state lines falls under the authority of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and Democrats were against the US vs SouthEastern Underwriters Association decision by the SCOTUS or the Democrats would have never passed McCarran–Ferguson Act to stiffle competition across state lines.
the 1945 Democratic Party is not the same 2013 Democratic Party, two completely different agendas. Before the Underwriters Decision by the Supreme Court, the selling of Insurance was not seen as Commerce......

Southeastern selling across State line changed the idea of insurance to being commerce........ I stated that clearly in the above post....

I don't think you understand your argument. In 1945 the State Insurance Commissions were already a function of the States to regulate the business of insurance. It was the states that halted the selling of Insurance across State lines not the federal government, McCarran–Ferguson reinforced the State Commissioners.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#310 Nov 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You just confirmed with your post that the Democrats created the mess and it is the Democrats now that don't want to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act which is what people are complaining about because they cant buy cheaper health insurance across state lines like people in California who are really complaining who could get Health Insurance alot Cheaper if it wasn't for the Democrat's McCarran-Ferguson Act restricting them from buying across statelines.
I agree that States should regulate Insurance, and restrict the sale to state residents, if not insurance companies would flock to the States with the least regulation to push off worthless policies to consumers, that was the standard with no regulation on policies before ACA which pushed millions of consumers into bankruptcy.

The interstate sale would only work if the state commissioners were abolished and there was a unified regulation that insurers would have to abide by.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Healthcare Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Creighton University School of Law Position Ope... Sun anonymousnetrutht... 1
Davis Says She Would Use Executive Action and V... Sun sandy1 2
Retreat is 14th largest mental health provider ... Sat Say No To Geoengi... 10
Burwell Speech Aims to Hit Reset Button at HHS Sat Elizabeth Srinivasan 2
Hurdles for ObamaCare in 2nd sign-up season Sat Obama Bad 24
Rove group blasts 'Obama-Grimes Amnesty Plan' .... Sep 18 spud 2
Livermore looks to tighten anti-smoking regulat... Sep 17 g 3
•••

Healthcare Law People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••