BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 12:41 PM

Mr. Firth, I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding Songwronger. He posted a link of Mr. Obama assuring the public, that they could keep their existing programmes, which has proven to be untrue. Mr. Obama's remarks were not, reported through the commentary of a reporter or entertainer, but the video clip was taken of him saying those words directly in front of the camera. Now you blast Songwronger for alleging something he said that is untrue.

The only person who has said or defended something untrue is you. The only person to comment anything with disregard for your fellow citizen is you.

Is this from a political standpoint, or is it just you?

I asked you for an 'honest assessment', and you have failed to do so, other than skirt the issue.

It would seem to me and others that if you had a problem with dishonesty that you would take exception to Mr.Obama's misleading comments and not Songwronger for merely posting them.

Do you wish to correct that? If so, please do, because it is impossible to find any truthful credibility in your comments. I find you are fairly articulate but have said nothing to build a premise upon.

Please, if you will, present your rebuttal using facts without resorting to further slanderous remarks of those you disagree with and pretending that your presumptions of a person's character constitutes some sort of proof that your assertions are accurate.

I've reported to you accurately the mood that I have found in a number of your citizenry of whom I have spoken to since my stay in your country and with few exceptions, I find that most of them parallel what has been presented to you, by Songwronger.

Keep in mind that I do not have a political preference one way or another, but rather am looking for the rationale as to the political debate consuming your country. Keep in mind that Washington's policies and statements do affect both your allies and the rest of the Western world and I am curious to discover why those who defend known false statements do so, so willingly.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 01:31 PM

""I asked you for an 'honest assessment', and you have failed to do so, other than skirt the issue.""

I don't know what Don Firth's answer will be, but I have a point to make on this subject.

Songwronger has a history of re-hashing every slanderous reference to Obama by every n**ger hating redneck bigot in the USA. Normally his offerings can easily be proved to be egregious garbage by ten seconds research.

This time, however, he is right, at least insofar as Obama did mistakenly say that anybody could, if he preferred, keep his present scheme, and as far as the individual is concerned, that is true.

However, if the insurance company concerned refuses to bring its terms of business up to the minimum standard required, it is the insurance company which is preventing continuity, not Obama.

This is the important distinction which apparently completely escapes the notice of the very bigotted Songwronger.

If Obama allowed sub standard healthcare to be sold to citizens, Songwronger would be in the front line of protest at his lack of concern for their wellbeing, because his target isn't policies, it's Obama, the black man in the White House.

Would you expect a civilised government to allow the sale of sub standard Food?........Drugs?.......Clothing? Cars? Housing?.......NO?

Then why sub standard healthcare, or no healthcare? Both perfectly O.K. with the Republican Party!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:05 PM

if the insurance company concerned refuses to bring its terms of business up to the minimum standard required, it is the insurance company which is preventing continuity, not Obama.

Amen.

UIn addition, Of course, one also needs to remember that it was the RepubliClowns that insisted that the insurance industry be accommodated ( READ: pandered to) in any health-care legislation.

So one should take this matter up with the insurance companies and the RepubliClowns, not the Prez.

Apparently, the Prez expected the Insurance Industry to "do the right thing" instead of pursue the almighty buck - and he should have known better.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:21 PM

Ah, fortunately I've decided to have lunch where they have WI-FI, so For a moment longer I can respond.

Don T does make a valid point and at the same time doesn't pretend that Obama's statements didn't happen.

First of all, I am not aware of Songwronger's history one way or another. When I came to this forum upon this visit, I just perused the topic headings to see what people were re-acting to in the latest current news. I don't feel that I'm in a proper position to comment on your allegation that Songwronger is a bigoted such and such. However, from what I've seen as merely a visitor, there does seem to be a penchant to accuse a person with a different view with reckless abandon of common decency.

I, myself, referred to Mr.Firth a 'despot', but not for his political views one way or another, but for the content of his comment, that his Medicare plan worked for him, and he didn't seem too concerned about other people who had no medical coverage. In that regard, my comment would be accurate without characterising him with a blanket accusation of his overall outlook. Mr. Firth has not given a reasonable reply, as to cause me to change my first observation, though I have given him repeated opportunities to do such.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the monopolistic nature of insurance companies and am personally persuaded that a realistic reform bill in regards to that would have been a better solution in dealing with that issue.

I do not and cannot support a leader of a country with out and out lying to its populace, just in order to foster his pet project or programmes. Just tell the people the truth and let them decide. Isn't that what a Democracy is all about anyway?

On most every other point you make I don't seem to have issue with other than one. In your closing statement you say, "Then why sub standard healthcare, or no healthcare? Both perfectly O.K. with the Republican Party!"
My question to you would be, Do you think that there are no poor Republicans? And furthermore, Don't you think there are wealthy Democrats? It seems to me that people from both the major parties would be equally affected, as most people would seem to be outside the ruling class, even if Mr. Obama does belong to the Democrat Party.

Something about this whole matter seems very suspicious and destructive to me. Otherwise it could have been presented truthfully.
If the people like it, let them vote on it honestly and let them know exactly what is in it, what is not in it, what it covers, what it doesn't cover and do so accurately.

If the insurance companies offer something different, let them do so honestly even if it takes a reform bill to accomplish it.

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:21 PM

Don T.:   ". . . if the insurance company concerned refuses to bring its terms of business up to the minimum standard required, it is the insurance company which is preventing continuity, not Obama.

This is the important distinction which apparently completely escapes the notice of the very bigotted Songwronger."

Nobody, Don T. and Greg F. in the two above posts have made my point abundantly clear, and I suggest you read both of their posts very closely.

Further above, I said this. And I added that if, for example, the law requires that you have full insurance on your automobile, and all YOU have is collision, the law would be remiss if it did not require that you get liability insurance or change to a company that will provide it.

Same principle. And it should be self-evident!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:34 PM

Mr. Firth, Once again I must say that your analogy is quite disingenuous. Those who choose to have an auto mobile is different than those who are already born to chose to be living! If you chose to have an auto mobile than you should be able to cover any damage you may cause to others should you be in an accident and cause another to suffer damage resulting from an accident. This is called 'liability'. Are you trying to allude that merely being born is a liability to others??

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 03:06 PM

My lunch is over so I'm off and about. I'll check back later to see if Mr. Firth will ever decide to be honest and forthright.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not protesting the need for some socialised medicine. What I am questioning is why the need to present it one way, which turns out to be untruthful and why some people seem to be so content with your own citizenry being lied to and thinking that this is either an excusable or a justifiable practise.

In a Democracy why is a lie more preferable to the truth, then let the people decide based on accurate information and then pretend that it didn't happen? That is definitely a curiosity.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 03:33 PM

Pomposity is SO pretty. Just love it.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 03:34 PM

Nobody, your objection to my analogy is disingenuous and downright nit-picky. The illustration is clear

"Are you trying to allude that merely being born is a liability to others??"

It should not be. But it CAN be. Think about it! Your parents are liable for you care until you reach maturity. Then YOU are liable. However, in those cases (say, a debilitating physical or mental handicap), a CIVILIZED society will endeavor to see to that person's care. If, however, you are mentally and physically capable, it is YOUR social responsibility to take whatever precautions are necessary to keep from being a burden on society.

INCLUDING (barring a tax-supported health care system) seeing that you have adequate health care insurance (but even there, you would be paying taxes, part of which go for the health care system).

And many health insurance companies do not offer adequate coverage. It is your responsibility to see that you go with an insurance company that does. You are free to choose your health insurance, as the ACA says. UNLESS that company's insurance offers inadequate coverage.

Crystal clear to me. And to any intelligent, thinking person.

Don Firth

P. S. Now we'll see what objection Nobody comes up with next!

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 03:44 PM

I, too, will be gone, probably for the rest of the day (spending some time with REAL people).

I AM being honest and forthright. It's Nobody who refuses to see the obvious.

Yeah, Ebbie. Ain't it a real snort!?? It's become abundantly clear that Nobody is heavily into the Obama hate-fest.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 03:59 PM

""I, myself, referred to Mr.Firth a 'despot', but not for his political views one way or another, but for the content of his comment, that his Medicare plan worked for him, and he didn't seem too concerned about other people who had no medical coverage.""

Point by point then. Don Firth's comment didn't indicate a lack of concern about others. We have a saying on Mudcat that we use when giving an opinion on something by which we are not directly affected. "I don't have a dog in this fight!". That is what Don Firth meant, that he isn't directly affected, but has strong opinions on the subject.

""I tend to agree with your assessment of the monopolistic nature of insurance companies and am personally persuaded that a realistic reform bill in regards to that would have been a better solution in dealing with that issue.""

""In your closing statement you say, "Then why sub standard healthcare, or no healthcare? Both perfectly O.K. with the Republican Party!"""

These are best answered together!

Thanks to the ridiculous idea in US politics that a majority is sixty, rather than fifty percent, the Republican Senators and Congressmen in Washington have, by using stonewall tactics to block any and all initiatives by Obama, succeeded in producing the healthcare system piloted originally by Republican Mitt Romney when he was a state governor, almost unaltered, and it bears little resemblance to his original single payer plan.

Calling it Obamacare is a misnomer!

It was passed with great reluctance on the Republican side, and since it has almost halved the 47 million US citizens who were abandoned without healthcare by the Republicans under G.W.Bush, I stand by the above statement. When I speak of the Republican Party I am not referring to their voters, but to the Repulican Senators and Congressmen, who really don't give a toss about the health of poor people (or "losers", which is how they refer to them).

""I do not and cannot support a leader of a country with out and out lying to its populace, just in order to foster his pet project or programmes. Just tell the people the truth and let them decide.""

Could you support one who believed that the insurance companies would exhibit sufficient self interest to comply, and was mistaken?

That is the true situation here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 04:34 PM

Incidentally Nobody, the American people have no opportunity to decide anything directly, other than electing representatives. From that point on, those representatives do whatever they think will produce the desired effect.

The Washington Republicans being a fine example of the tail wagging the dog, are in thrall to the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, which is actually a pressure group, not a party, but has immense political clout.

Whatever was Obama's desired effect is largely immaterial, as the system is used to block his every move.

And don't get the idea that the Republicans care about poor republican voters, any more than poor democratic ones.

They just DON'T!

In a land where the worth of a man is defined by the number of zero's on his salary cheques, the poor are left to sink or swim. The constant refrain is "I won't pay one penny tax to support losers".

We will never know what improvement Obama's presidency might have produced, had the TEA Party and Washington Republicans cared one jot about the American people, outside of a polling booth, and that is IMHO a national, and in all probability an international tragedy.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 05:07 PM

I admit that after my last comments that I just had to see if and how they got twisted and I was correct.

First, I am not on a 'hate-fest' with your President. My initial objection was to his lying to the nation, Period!

As to the insurance companies, I favour laws universally to restrict their abuses of people for mere profit.

As to Mr. Firth, in my original question to him I asked for 'his honest assessment' and now after a series of twisting, he has not been able to adequately give me one, but has shifted every which way but giving a straight answer.

I have said that I am not opposed to socialised medicine but I do disagree with the government lying to its people and have asked you as to how you approve or justify it. Your responses show that some of you think it's just fine.

I have pointed out to you that in a Democracy people should be told the truth and then let them decide or have a say in it. You disagree or should I ask 'Do you disagree?'

The only logical assumption is that your opinions are predicated on a lie, and to ask for an 'honest assessment' is in itself an impossibility. To some here, honesty seems to be an 'inconvenience'.

That is the same mentality that gave credence to Hitler's blaming the Jews for burning the Rheichstag in Berlin. But this time it's anyone who disagrees with going along with a lie.

What next?
Who's next?
Which fellow citizens should be allowed to be rounded up for their 'final solution' just to accommodate this and other lies being allowed and being supported to be believed?

If this is the case, then America has deteriorated to hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.
You may protest vehemently but the evidence is right in front of you. You may disagree what you've become but how can you deny it?
What next, sympathising with those poor Nazis??

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Songwronger
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 06:09 PM

Interesting exchange.

Nobody in Particular - In defense of Firth, he's not thinking clearly. The propaganda organs in America have become expert at forcing opinions on people, and then making people believe those opinions are their own. We've been polarized into thinking we're supporting the "conservatives" or the "liberals," but at the end of the day a fascist agenda has been advanced. Witness the people here saying Obama "had no choice" but to sign the health care bill which he stumped for so enthusiastically. It's a fascist giveaway to the insurance companies, yet Obama's supporters continue to distance him from the thing and call him a liberal.

But one does what one can. The U.S. has 100 senators (2 from each state). They serve 6-year terms, and 1/3 stand for re-election every 2 years. This time around (in the 2014 election) several of the senators are Democrats from red states. They belong to Obama's party, but they were elected as a protest in states that are traditionally Republican. Those Democratic senators now need to justify to the Republican majorities in their states exactly WHY they should continue in office. After the fiasco of Obamacare, they will have to distance themselves from Obama. I plan to send the following letter to those senators, plus many, many other elected representatives:

Dear Senator X:

As I'm sure you know by now, the Obama administration's continued narrowing of the "grandfather clause" in the Affordable Care Act will make it impossible for upwards of 100 million Americans to keep their health insurance plans. Yet over the past three years President Obama promised that "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance." He lied. Hundreds of times. These lies will lead to loss of insurance coverage and loss of life.

Please initiative and/or support a move to impeach President Obama on the lying issue. If you do not support impeachment, please support the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. After all, this is murder he's committing.

Thank you.

xxxx

Impeachment is initiated in the House of Representatives, then passed to the Senate. The Senate is currently under Democratic control, but with Obama lying about the insurance thing and the senators needing to make a statement...who knows how a vote would go? But impeachment would just be cutting one head off of a hydra. It would be more desirable to see a special prosecutor appointed. Once the prosecutor begins to investigate, nothing is out of his purview. He (or she) could investigate Obama's criminal (and terroristic) use of hysteria recently regarding Syria, his gun-running to supply the drug cartels of Mexico, his birth status, his use of the I.R.S. to target political opponents, his drone murders, his targeting of U.S. citizens for death without trial, and so on. The investigation would reveal the extent of Democratic AND Republican involvement in the things mentioned above.

Here's the most interesting reading I've come across lately on Obamacare. The article breaks down how a scam is run and walks you through how Obamacare was sold to the American people:

Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 08:03 PM

Songwronger, my thinking is very clear. It's YOU that is befuddled by reading too many Right Wing Blogs and newsletters.

==========

Nobody, first of all, I DID answer your question. My answer—COMPLETE—is in the post that immediately follows the posting of your question. That is the situation, and if my answer didn't satisfy you, then that's your problem, not mine. Claiming repeatedly that I didn't answer your question when I clearly did is readily discernible by anyone with a modicum of sense who cares to review the issue, and for you to repeatedly make the claim demonstrates that you are just out to harass me.

Now why might that be!??

Now—educate yourself:

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Lessons for today's 'shutdown' debacle

You won't hear many Republicans say it, but Mitt Romney's health-care insurance program in Massachusetts, seen as a model for the Affordable Care Act, has been largely successful and popular.

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / September 29, 2013

Back during the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama had fun tweaking his Republican opponent about "Romneycare," the health-care insurance program Mitt Romney had cited as one of the key successes of his time as governor of Massachusetts.

Romneycare, Mr. Obama said over and over, had been the model for the Affordable Care Act – "Obamacare" – now at the center of a highly toxic congressional debate that could see a government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins at midnight Monday.

[Latest update: The Republican-led House has tied a spending bill that would avert a shutdown to delaying Obamacare for one year. That kicks it back to the Senate, where Democratic leaders say that's a no-go. The Senate isn't scheduled to meet again until Monday, just hours before many federal programs could halt or be slowed down as hundreds of thousands of civilian employees are furloughed.]

Mr. Romney signed the Massachusetts program into law in 2006. So seven years later, how has it done? More to the political point, what do people in the Bay State think of their health-care insurance system – which, like Obamacare, includes an individual mandate requiring everyone to obtain coverage or face a fine and a marketplace where the uninsured can purchase coverage?

At first, there was a lot of skepticism in Massachusetts – from those on the right against "socialized medicine," and from those on the left pushing for a single-payer system.

The Providence Journal next door in Rhode Island had this to say about Romneycare on its editorial page Sunday:

"The big difference between the programs is that the federal version puts more emphasis on controlling costs. That makes Obamacare arguably more conservative than the original Romneycare.

"For example, Obamacare proposes bundling payments for a medical condition. That means payment will be a set amount covering the soup-to-nuts treatment for an ailment, such as foot surgery. That removes incentives for ordering more tests or treatments than needed – while rewarding medical providers for doing a good job the first time around.

"It bears noting that Massachusetts is less generous in determining who gets subsidies. It helps pay for the coverage of those earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal government sets the limit for subsidies at up to 400 percent of the poverty level."

So Obamacare is "more conservative" than Romneycare (at least in its original form), according to this analysis.

Romneycare got tweaked over the years, including in ways that control costs. As a result, the Providence newspaper points out, the fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has called Romneycare "a well thought-out piece of legislation."

"There's a lot of wild accusations that the law is breaking the bank in Massachusetts, and that is simply not the case," foundation president Michael Widmer told Forbes during the 2012 presidential campaign. "I think the state's healthcare reform has been a huge success and is probably the best policy achievement in the last 25 years."

A recent poll by the Massachusetts Medical Society, a statewide physician group, finds that most people in Massachusetts today are generally satisfied with the health-care system there.

"Eighty-four percent of residents expressed satisfaction with the care they received over the last year, including 56 percent who indicated they are 'very satisfied' and 28 percent who are 'somewhat satisfied,'" the survey report states. Seventy-three percent of residents reported that gaining access to health care they need is "not difficult," and for serious medical problems, 86 percent said the amount of time they needed to wait was not a problem.

While no health-care insurance system – private or public – is perfect, the bottom line in Massachusetts, as the Hill newspaper in Washington reported last month, is that "The vast majority of Massachusetts residents are satisfied with their healthcare under the state's 2006 reform law."

That may have been what Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas – chief opponent of Obamacare – was worrying about recently.

Speaking to fellow conservative Sean Hannity on Fox News, he warned that Americans would become so happy with Obamacare – "addicted" is the word he used – that opponents like himself would never be able to kill it.

From the Christian Science Monitor

=========

From the Washington Post:

This is why Obamacare is canceling some people's insurance plans

By Sarah Kliff, Published: October 29 at 12:24 pm

Some -- or maybe even most -- of the plans offered on the individual insurance market right now don't meet certain requirements in the health-care law. They may not offer preventive care without co-payment, for example, or leave out coverage of maternity care, one of the health-care law's 10 essential benefits.

[read the rest of the article HERE.]

==========

Interesting fact worth taking note of:

According to a recent survey, a large percentage of the American population are very much in favor of the Affordable Care Act.

And a large percentage of those very same people do NOT favor "Obamacare."

And they are the same thing!!

"Wotthehell, archy, wotthehell!!"

Once again, I think that there are a lot of people running around loose out there who are in dire need of a good, brisk dope-slap.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Songwronger
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 08:26 PM

Yes, it's pretty crazy for men not to want maternity care on their policies, isn't it?

You're in step #6 of the Obamacare con, Mr. Firth. The final step, which is to get you to walk away without knowing you've been conned. Amarillo Slim said you can shear a sheep many a time but skin him only once. They'll want to shear you again when they start up "debates" on defunding Social Security and Medicare.

Step # 6. The In-And-In

The purpose of the final phase of the con is to make sure the victims do not realize they've been conned.

Obama signed the ACA on March 23, 2010. Immediately the marketing began. The three words we heard the most to describe it were universal, affordable and guaranteed. Of course, the ACA is none of those. But members told us personally that if they told the truth, they wouldn't be re-elected.

Progressive groups started the work of explaining the advantages of the new health law to the public. The few positive aspects of the law were promoted without explaining the big picture. Overall, the ACA is similar to other neoliberal economic policies; it defunds and destroys our public health insurances and further privatizes health care.

The end goal of the ACA con, to make sure people do not realize they have been conned, is ongoing. As we will see below, salespeople, often the same nonprofits who pushed the ACA, are getting big money to sell insurance with Madison Avenue marketing manipulation tactics.

At the same time, leading single-payer advocacy groups fear further marginalization in their communities and so are afraid to tell the truth about Obamacare. The public has been so hoodwinked by the partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats, based on misinformation from both sides, that single-payer advocates are afraid if they tell the truth, their allies, many of whom are Democrats, will push them away. So the truth has few emissaries, while the well-funded deceivers continue the ACA con.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 10:20 PM

I'm not that easily conned, Songwronger. I already have a good, nominally priced health insurance policy which the ACA deems okay. I have had occasion to use it from time to time, and it has proven quite adequate, thank you.

Lots of people are already set up. Your scaremongering is nothing more than meaningless noise and a waste of bandwidth.

Have you ever thought of taking up a hobby to occupy your surplus time?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Songwronger
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 11:28 PM

Like I said, you got yours, so screw the rest, right? Hope you have maternity coverage with that plan, or it's unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 12:00 AM

No, Songwronger, you are trying to judge me by your own moral code. I would like to see everybody as well set up as I am, and I see no reason why, under the Affordable Care Act, this should not be possible. The fact that I AM well set takes nothing from anybody else.

And through wise research, our coverage is well within our modest means.

Although such is covered by our plan, my wife is beyond her childbearing years. But those who anticipate the need should have coverage.

Hah! Missed me again!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 06:19 AM

""Once again, I think that there are a lot of people running around loose out there who are in dire need of a good, brisk dope-slap.""

AMEN to that!

And you might like to extend that to the tinfoil hat brigade on this forum!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 07:58 AM

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

I had great cancer doctors and health insurance.My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.

Edie Littlefield Sundby Nov. 3, 2013 Wall Street Journal

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

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.

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 11:09 AM

Finally a useful discussion.
With all of the Songwronger bashing going about, I find that his post is both comprehensive and presents a clear rebuttal to the debate.

Whether one agrees with what he is putting forth, at least the issue is made a bit more clear and I also find that there is a rational understanding on what is clearly misunderstandings if not outright lying and fraud.

As previously noted by myself and others, there does seem to be matters that have been predicated on lies and manipulations of the truth. I don't find it surprising that it appears that this dilemma rests on all sides of your political system.

What does surprise me is that this matter hasn't been investigated further at the onset, which indicates that the fraud is more widespread than being confined to one major party or department more than the other.

As to Mr. Firth, you insist that you have been straight forward with me, when in fact you have not, unless you have actually convinced yourself that your misinformation spreading is indeed the truth.
It is plainly clear that there has been and continuing to be massive lying going on about this issue. Why in the earth anyone cannot admit this is beyond me. It is so obvious that to portray it in any other light means that someone is either hiding something or very indoctrinated to the point of being very mentally disturbed behind it.

This of course has a damaging effect to your country's status to your allies and the rest of the world at large.

As to myself and those within our company we love America and all that it has stood for. (Note in passing that I've used the past tense). We love your audiences and found a genuine likeability to so many of the people. I find that the local people that we have dealt with have been wonderful as well as willing to be most helpful. I shutter to think of a widespread scam to harm any of them.

I do not wish to stir up any controversy about what observations I've made and have thought that others, such as yourselves, in the entertainment industry would have been more objective and able to see clearly as to what is actual truth as opposed to a mere performance by bad actors.

Why this is clear to me and not yourselves is puzzling, but then I'm not the one having to make up flimsy excuses for such widespread cheap and tawdry behaviour.

I truly hope for your sakes that your system will clean up their act and you all have access to the best medicinal services to which you should be entitled. If there is criminal activity that restricts you from it, I hope that they are dealt with accordingly.

Being able to get medical help should be free of political differences as well as not limited by an industry that puts money before the well-being of their patients.

This is what the focus should be worldwide.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 01:30 PM

Nobody:   "As to Mr. Firth, you insist that you have been straight forward with me, when in fact you have not, unless you have actually convinced yourself that your misinformation spreading is indeed the truth."

Specific instances, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 02:24 PM

Often when on the set, whether it be a shooting location or sound stage there will be disagreements with the artists. When that happens we try to gather constructive suggestions that does not compromise the artists integrity while at the same time gets the job done.

While it is apparent that most everyone seems to not be satisfied with how this health care programme is being being implemented or the fairness of it, perhaps finding an alternative solution would be a better use of time than the infighting and needless bickering going on and about.

Though I normally use these breaks in production to get away from executive decisions regarding production sometimes the wheels keep spinning. When I told an associate on my staff about the controversy, she merely suggested in her simple way, "Do what we do all the time, find the best all the way around."

So in light of that suggestion I throw it out to you. What would you like see or what suggestions would you consider as a way to resolve this crisis? Keep in mind that health care should be available to everyone at a reasonable cost while those who do not need every service do not have to subsidise those who do. If you prefer to have private companies cover you, what do you suggest?

As to Mr Firth, I've answered that question before. I find it necessary to go over it again as a means to transfer focus on to you. This is about health care, not self serving your ego.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 03:18 PM

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

Agile little tap dance there, Nobody.

Interesting that this is a dodge that Guest from Sanity pulls all the time. "I've already answered that and I'm not going to tell you again," apparently hoping that I'll spend the rest of my life digging back though old posts looking for something that isn't there.

If you can't restate the answer, I shall conclude that there was no answer.

========

I find it highly interesting that those who bitch the most about having difficulties with "Obamacare" (the Affordable Care Act) are the very same people who have been frothing at the mouth in their hatred for President Obama right from the start.

Whereas those who like President Obama, or are at least fairly indifferent, don't seem to be having all these problems.

Curious. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 05:28 PM

Whereas those who like President Obama, or are at least fairly indifferent, don't seem to be having all these problems.

Curious. . . .

Ain't it just.....

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 07:52 PM

Mr. Firth, I do not wish to engage in your destructive, glib buffoonery. You are wishing to engage me in talking about you. I'm not the slightest bit interested. I put forth a proposal to discuss the health care issue and further options to the one being discussed.
However I will give you this; I shall look on this topic and look for a Guest from Sanity, and see what you are talking about.

Other than this I am not willing entertain your invitation to dissect each other with endless and needless bashing. I would think you've had your fill doing such with Songwronger.

Have a pleasant evening and get some much needed rest. Perhaps you can sleep off your hangover from yourself and be refreshed enough in the morning to discuss the topic at hand.

Perhaps the comments from Guest from Sanity may shed some light as to why you say that person feels the need to deal with you as you allege as well.

Until then, I'm open to listening to any suggestions to the health care issue. I've had a few related ideas myself.

Good night Mr. Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 08:16 PM

You are the buffoon here, Nobody, and frankly I find you to be part kibitzer, part repetitive, uninformative bore.

GoodBYE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 08:28 PM

Not to mention: Pretentious and pseudo-culchad. lol

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 09:31 PM

(Most intelligent thing he's posted yet!)

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 09:44 PM

I was responding to:

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 03:18 PM

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 10:15 PM

Mr Firth, Once again you you display a degree of being disingenuous. Guest from Sanity's last comment only indicated that a return would be in about a week. The reason was not indicated. I could not tell if the remark was done out of sarcasm or as was indicated, that simply there was to be a return in about a week's time.

I read some of your exchanges with a number of posters and you made some reasonable assertions and expounded emphatically, but you exaggerated on half truths. One example was concerning the Federal Reserve System. Both Guest from Sanity and Songwronger pointed out that your current system came into existence in 1913. You're contention was that it was from the early formation of your government. Guest from Sanity correctly said that the time you indicated the banking system was formed the money was backed by a gold standard. That is true.

Songwronger indicated numerous subjects about the current health care debate and you provided a 'Politifact' link which, in my opinion was a good idea. However, while going through the topics related to the health care debate I found this:
"6. Under Obamacare, people who "have a doctor they've been seeing for the last 15 or 20 years, they won't be able to keep going to that doctor." Mostly False.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 31, 2013 in a Fox News interview

Some have suggested that Obamacare would interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Actually, there's no more interference than what existed before Obamacare. Right now, patients can lose access to their doctors when their insurance policies change. This typically happens when employers switch plans or when workers switch (or lose) jobs. Under Obamacare, some patients who buy health insurance through the marketplace could lose access to their current doctor, but it's difficult to predict how many. And it would be because they have a new insurance plan. We rated this claim Mostly False."

Since then, July 31, 2013, when this was written, this has now turned out to be 'mostly true'. This is because of the overly burdensome and expensive mandates put upon private insurers.

And then there is this:
"9. Because of Obamacare, health care premiums have "gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years." False.

President Barack Obama, Oct. 3, 2012, in a presidential debate

The historical data for health care premiums only goes back 14 years; there's no evidence to support the idea that premium increases are at a 50-year low. Overall health care costs have slowed down, but even there, Obama exaggerated the impact of his health care law. Experts say slowing costs are due to a variety of reasons, including the recent recession. Giving all the credit to the new law overstates the case. We rated the statement False."

This is just as it says, a false statement from your President.

This happens to coincide with my statements upon my arrival into this thread.

What's more, is that since this, more misleading statements from him have come to light and currently the news broadcasts are inundated with them.

So you may wish to consider these before you make such emphatic statements and accusations to your fellow posters.

Now I'm not saying that everything Songwronger or Guest from Sanity have said I totally agree with. I also cannot totally disagree with everything you have said, as well. But I would suggest to you to keep the dialogue positive and not to degenerate into your condescending remarks to those who you have differences with. Finding a middle ground is preferable way to exchange ideas, rather than attempting to beat down those with different points of view. From doing this innovation blossoms forth!

As previously said, I believe I've come up with some ideas having been on socialised medicine myself for a number of years.

Let's keep it positive. Let's be the innovators. Perhaps something may appeal to both sides of the debate that was not considered before, and who knows what may come out of it.

Hopefully less bashing and bickering and more peace and productivity!

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 11:56 PM

Nobody, there is a history here that goes back several years, and you simply don't know the dynamics involved.

The fact is that for the most part, you are pontificating on something you know nothing about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 09:43 AM

the overly burdensome and expensive mandates put upon private insurers.


Now that would be amusing - if it wasn't total horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 12:01 PM

Greg and Mr. Firth, I find it rather amusing that the quote Greg has referred to is a 'cut and paste' from the 'Politifact' site that Mr. Firth so dutifully provided to Songwronger. I'm still chuckling myself! Perhaps Mr. and you should have a meeting of the minds regarding that matter, but as Mr. Firth has aptly pointed out, with reasons he is unwilling to recognise, it may begin a new history that could go on for years!

Allow me: "Arguments would not go on for so long, if the wrong was only on one side."

Care to pontificate?

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 12:10 PM

Now I'm chuckling even more. Greg was correct in pointing out the quote, but even further in error for not recognising that the reasons people are being dropped is exactly as I asserted!

Well at least this argument won't last so long; at least one side has conceded to misunderstand. Now see if you can follow the lead!

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 01:06 PM

there is no such thing as Obamacare... the Affordable Care Act is the end result of TeaParty/Republican obstruction and Democrats hedging around a plan that was the legacy of Mitt Romney before he ran for president - and lost. There is plenty wrong with the Act... but there was even more wrong with the existing system that has been a gravy train for the insurance industry and lawyers for decades.

If you already have health insurance through your employer or are in the Medicare system... there is nothing for you to do, except maybe cross your fingers & hope Congress doesn't figure out a new way to screw you.

How about we start a new thread to brainstorm what may or may not be the best way to handle health care in one of the richest nations in the world that still has millions of its citizens out in the cold, so to speak, unable to afford health care insurance or medical expenses that arise.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 01:40 PM

Good for you! Someone who wants to keep on the subject and not tries to transfer the subject onto focusing on themselves!!

While we're at this conjuncture I found this on the Yahoo News page. Keep in mind that the Yahoo News page is neither Liberal nor Conservative, but open to every one. What I especially noted was the comments after the article and equally important was the number of 'likes' and 'dislikes' in regards to each comment. I expanded the comments quite a number of times to get a larger reading of both comments and to see if people supported or rejected the ideas being voiced.
I believe the comments and responses speak for themselves, along with some of them being rather enlightening!!

Ready??   Go for it!

Yahoo News, front page

In light of this, I suggest to some on here that we follow through on Sciencegeek's and my earlier suggestion and leave the petty bickerers to wish upon a star while admiring themselves in the mirror!

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 01:46 PM

Thank you, Sciencegeek, for returning this thread to the subject.

Nobody, one last word to you:   as far as the dynamics between a couple of Mudcat posters (Guests who don't sign in, but snipe from the underbrush) and regular members such as myself, you are sticking your nose into matters you obviously don't know anything about. Perhaps you should refrain from your pontificating and just lurk for awhile until you get a clue as to what is going on. Or keep your comments limited to the subject at hand instead of making personal comments about other posters.

Now—back to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 02:21 PM

Someone wants to keep focusing on themselves!!

I re-iterate:

While we're at this conjuncture I found this on the Yahoo News page. Keep in mind that the Yahoo News page is neither Liberal nor Conservative, but open to every one. What I especially noted was the comments after the article and equally important was the number of 'likes' and 'dislikes' in regards to each comment. I expanded the comments quite a number of times to get a larger reading of both comments and to see if people supported or rejected the ideas being voiced.
I believe the comments and responses speak for themselves, along with some of them being rather enlightening!!

Yahoo News, front page. Mr. Firth, Do all these people not know either?

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 02:38 PM

""I do not wish to stir up any controversy about what observations I've made and have thought that others, such as yourselves, in the entertainment industry would have been more objective and able to see clearly as to what is actual truth as opposed to a mere performance by bad actors.""

As pretty a piece of reverse spin as I have seen in months.

Occams razor!

The simplest explanation is most often the right one.

Nobody, least of all the President, expected so many insurance companies to run away from affordable care, specifically in order to drive a wedge between the President and the voters. Maybe Obama might justifiably be called naive, but a liar?

You are suggesting that he knew that this was going to happen and voluntarily connived at the destruction of what is his most important achievement during eight years of being roadblocked by a vicious opposition that doesn't give a flying fuck about its fellow human beings, Democrat, or Republican.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 02:54 PM

"Maybe Obama might justifiably be called naive, but a liar?" You tell me!

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 03:08 PM

""Let's keep it positive. Let's be the innovators. Perhaps something may appeal to both sides of the debate that was not considered before, and who knows what may come out of it.""

You simply don't get it, do you?

Eight years ago there were 47 million people in the USA who had no medical care at all, other than emergency room stabilisation, and they were pursued for the cost of that!

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT ANY AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE! To them it is taxation to help losers.

Learn something about the situation, before making a fool of yourself by suggesting that they are open to ANY discussion. The shortcomings of Affordable Care are directly due to the stonewalling tactics led by the TEAparty mob. Don't take my word for it! The Republicans have openly stated their intention that Obama shall have achieved nothing during his Presidency.

They have even driven the country to the very edge of default, in an attempt to turn the clock back eight years and annihilate all that he has managed to do in the short period of having a majority.

Affordable care WILL work, if given a chance. It worked in Massachusetts under the governance of the idiot Romney.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 03:19 PM

The straight scoop on the source of Nobody's above post:

CLICK

If one is seeking the truth, this is not the place to find it. If, however, you wish to push Right Wing propaganda, then. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 03:25 PM

Yes I'LL tell YOU!

In eight years of the Bush administration, not one single individual of the 47 million without health care was helped in any way by any action of the majority Republican Federal Government.

During the eight years that followed, Barack Obama tried to institute a single payer, affordable option , which would be in reach of all Americans.

This was blocked, emasculated and debased by the Republicans using their 40 percent minority to stonewall the Democrat 60 percent majority, because the American politicians apparently didn't have sufficient education to know that a majority is 51 percent, not 61.

Does any of that suggest to you that they CARE?

If so, I have this very nice bridge you might like to purchase. It does take rather a lot of painting, but it's very strong!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobdy in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

So? Are you now alleging that Obama was telling the truth about Benghazi based on the fact that somebody you disagree with reported the news story?? Would you care to provide your source that said he was telling the truth?

The story is either true or not true. No amount of twisting is going to change that.

You seem to have no issue citing your 'progressive' site for your sources.

Once again you ring in as disingenuous, or are you the one Mr.Don(Wyziwyg)T just referred to as either just naive or a liar?

Incidentally or coincidently how did your review of the Yahoo News site go?

Having a problem getting it up to blame Yahoo News as well??

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 04:00 PM

I thought that this thread was supposed to be about "Obamacare."

What, exactly, does Benghazi have to do with it?

Or is this just another Right Wing poster's red herring?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So who's signed up for Obamacare?
From: GUEST,Nobody in Particular
Date: 05 Nov 13 - 04:12 PM

Very well then.

This is from a site you referred to:

Politifact

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Jarrett
"FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."

Valerie Jarrett on Monday, October 28th, 2013 in a tweet
Valerie Jarrett says 'nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.'
False
Share this story:

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett tweeted that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans." We checked to see if that's right.

The White House has been on the defensive recently over its claim, repeated numerous times over the years, that under President Barack Obama's health care law, if you like your health plan, you can keep it.

His claim hasn't worn well amid the letters to hundreds of thousands of Americans with individually purchased insurance plans notifying them that their plans are being canceled. Typically, these policies no longer meet the requirements in Obama's law, such as the need to cover emergency care, maternity care, mental health or prescription drugs.

In August 2012, we gave a Half True to Obama's claim that "if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance." A more careful phrasing -- former Obama adviser David Axelrod's claim that "the vast majority of people in this country are keeping their (health insurance) plan" -- recently earned a Mostly True rating.

But critics of the law have been on the attack about what they call Obama's broken promise. Defending the law, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sent out this message via Twitter on Oct. 28, 2013:

"FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."

Is it really a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans"?

The White House appears to think so. Asked about Jarrett's tweet at a White House press briefing the following day, Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up her view that it's the insurers' fault -- not the administration's -- if plans are being canceled.

It's insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn't step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

While it's technically true that the insurer makes the final decision, their choices are, to a great degree, limited by the law and the way it's been implemented by the administration.

Much of this process has to do with the arcane process of "grandfathering" plans that existed prior to the law's enactment in March 2010.

Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law's enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law's requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care.

But experts say the regulations defining what constitutes a significant change are pretty tight. As our colleagues at the Washington Post Fact Checker pointed out, one of the regulations says that grandfathered status must end if copayments increase by more than $5.00 plus the cost of medical inflation.

And once a plan is poised to lose its grandfathered status, it's on the road to oblivion. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, known as HIPAA, says that if an insurer wants to end a policy, it needs to give policy holders 90 days notice as well as information about alternative coverage plans that insurer is offering. That's essentially the message that many individual-market policyholders are receiving in the mail these days, and that is attracting so much attention.

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer's decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

But other experts said that while this is technically true, it gives a distorted view of what's going on.

The law places grandfathered plans in such a straitjacket -- unable to attract new individual policyholders and unable to adjust terms to market conditions -- that it's only a matter of time before companies are driven to pull the plug. To ignore the government's role in establishing the parameters for this highly regulated, and highly competitive, industry is substantially misleading.

Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush, called Jarrett's message "word games."

"Insurance companies cannot continue to sell individual policies that don't meet the requirements of the essential benefit package, either to individuals or to small businesses, as of Jan. 1," Wilensky said. "But since the insurance companies are not allowed to continue to sell these plans that the person previously had bought and may have liked, they are effectively being forced to change their plan."

Austin Frakt, a health care economist at Boston University who generally supports Obamacare, agreed that "Jarrett's statement misses an important point."

By all accounts, even the employers who are offering grandfathered plans to their employees are dwindling over time. The annual study of health insurance by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust found that the percentage of workers enrolled in grandfathered plans has decreased from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013.

Another study, by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, found that of the one-quarter of organizations that still have a grandfathered plan, less than half expect to keep their grandfathered status beyond the next two years. In other words, the grandfathered plan is slowly but steadily becoming a dinosaur.

Beyond the question of grandfathering, Frakt sees another element of the law that could strongly encourage -- though again perhaps falling short of requiring -- changes in health insurance plans. A 40 percent excise tax on high-benefit plans is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018. While that's several years away, the provision "will change plans, either by making them more costly or incentivizing redesigns to get below the premium cap," Frakt said.

The irony here, both Wilensky and Frakt said, is that there are ways to describe what's going on that are both more broadly accurate and more flattering to the policy changes being undertaken.

The administration's "better argument is that we are making sure people have 'real' insurance that will be guaranteed to cover them when they need it," Wilensky said.

Frakt concurred. "The right view of this is that the law does motivate or force change, and that's a virtue," he said.

Our ruling

Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."

Saying there's "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it's technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False."

Now what??

I propose suggesting other ideas.