Some thoughts on the latest eager victims of con-man Barack Obama.
2 thoughts on “More Self-Identifying Rubes”
“They are part of an unusual, informal health insurance system that has developed in New York, in which independent practitioners were able to get lower insurance rates through group plans, typically set up by their professional associations or chambers of commerce. That allowed them to avoid the sky-high rates in New York’s individual insurance market. …”
It needn’t be unusual; is better done by a local government as it was here; and it needn’t be limited to local governments creating these groups.
“But under the Affordable Care Act, they will be treated as individuals, responsible for their own insurance policies. For many of them, that is likely to mean they will no longer have access to a wide network of doctors and a range of plans tailored to their needs. And many of them are finding that if they want to keep their premiums from rising, they will have to accept higher deductible and co-pay costs or inferior coverage….”
Unexpectedly!!!!!!!! (only by the lib-statist-kool-aid-slurpers)
If an entity the size of NY city could put together a group which could have measurable impact on rates for that group, then the “granularity” of groups is pretty small and there could be millions of groups formed anywhere in the US at will.
That demonstrates to any sentient being that group creation at the Federal level was NEVER necessary to bring rates down. Of course Conservatives always understood this ad warned the liberals about it.
Not only is the shadenfreude oozing out of every pore, but the irony is thick:
Here you have a liberal nanny Blue city who executed a Conservative/Federalist idea which (therefore) worked but!!!!!!!!……….
………….. which was destroyed by even more liberal/statist/socialist ops.
Well Done!!!!!!!!
Oops………..
“The Affordable Care Act mandated that insurers cover dental care for children. Indeed, it was one of the 10 essential health benefits meant to set the bar for adequate health insurance.
But pediatric dental care is handled differently from coverage of other essential benefits on federal and state exchanges. These plans are often sold separately from medical insurance, and dental coverage for children is optional. People shopping on the exchanges are not required to buy it and do not receive financial support for buying it.
Now experts are warning that the flawed implementation of this benefit on the exchanges could leave millions of children without access to dental care. ”
……….
Stand-alone dental plans are also exempted from the law’s limits on out-of-pocket expenses. While out-of-pocket maximums for health plans are capped at $12,700 per family, stand-alone dental plans may have separate maximums of $700 per child to $1,400 for two or more children. On Dec. 2, the Health and Human Services Department proposed new lower annual limits — $300 for one child and $400 for two or more — for all marketplaces in 2015. The public comment period lasts until Dec. 26.
Separate treatment of dental insurance on the exchanges has had another unforeseen consequence: In most states, there’s no mandate that parents buy dental insurance for their children at all. ”
“They are part of an unusual, informal health insurance system that has developed in New York, in which independent practitioners were able to get lower insurance rates through group plans, typically set up by their professional associations or chambers of commerce. That allowed them to avoid the sky-high rates in New York’s individual insurance market. …”
It needn’t be unusual; is better done by a local government as it was here; and it needn’t be limited to local governments creating these groups.
“But under the Affordable Care Act, they will be treated as individuals, responsible for their own insurance policies. For many of them, that is likely to mean they will no longer have access to a wide network of doctors and a range of plans tailored to their needs. And many of them are finding that if they want to keep their premiums from rising, they will have to accept higher deductible and co-pay costs or inferior coverage….”
Unexpectedly!!!!!!!! (only by the lib-statist-kool-aid-slurpers)
If an entity the size of NY city could put together a group which could have measurable impact on rates for that group, then the “granularity” of groups is pretty small and there could be millions of groups formed anywhere in the US at will.
That demonstrates to any sentient being that group creation at the Federal level was NEVER necessary to bring rates down. Of course Conservatives always understood this ad warned the liberals about it.
Not only is the shadenfreude oozing out of every pore, but the irony is thick:
Here you have a liberal nanny Blue city who executed a Conservative/Federalist idea which (therefore) worked but!!!!!!!!……….
………….. which was destroyed by even more liberal/statist/socialist ops.
Well Done!!!!!!!!
Oops………..
“The Affordable Care Act mandated that insurers cover dental care for children. Indeed, it was one of the 10 essential health benefits meant to set the bar for adequate health insurance.
But pediatric dental care is handled differently from coverage of other essential benefits on federal and state exchanges. These plans are often sold separately from medical insurance, and dental coverage for children is optional. People shopping on the exchanges are not required to buy it and do not receive financial support for buying it.
Now experts are warning that the flawed implementation of this benefit on the exchanges could leave millions of children without access to dental care. ”
……….
Stand-alone dental plans are also exempted from the law’s limits on out-of-pocket expenses. While out-of-pocket maximums for health plans are capped at $12,700 per family, stand-alone dental plans may have separate maximums of $700 per child to $1,400 for two or more children. On Dec. 2, the Health and Human Services Department proposed new lower annual limits — $300 for one child and $400 for two or more — for all marketplaces in 2015. The public comment period lasts until Dec. 26.
Separate treatment of dental insurance on the exchanges has had another unforeseen consequence: In most states, there’s no mandate that parents buy dental insurance for their children at all. ”
UNFORSEEN!!!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/a-gap-in-the-affordable-care-act.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=science