Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Rubio or RoJo?

RoJo--to his credit--will intro "If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It" legislation (details not available.)  Apparently, this bill will reverse the demolition of healthcare plans which the Obozoites have been lying about for years.

If it's written correctly, it will undermine and eventually topple ObozoCare.


Then along comes Rubio, who continues his left-ish (R) tilt (remember amnesty?) with this:

...“Delay Until Fully Functional Act,” a bill delaying the individual mandate under ObamaCare until six months after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that the exchange website is fully functional....

Wrong move, Marco.  You're merely another enabler.

So it's RoJo, hands down.


Tim Morrissey said...

Is this legislation not meaningless? I'm not being obtuse here; I'm wondering if RoJo's "law" will force insurance companies to stop discontinuing policies/coverages they no longer find profitable. Will it force the insurance companies to stop applying ACA metrics? And if so, isn't that meddlesome to the point that Republicans would find it repugnant - all that meddling with private business, and all?

This this is one hell of a mess. I went through this with my mom's Medigap insurance a couple years ago, when BC/BS just dumped several tens of thousands of WI policyholders because - by their own admission - this line of policies was simply not profitable.

I liked the McDonalds Angus Burger (here come the snide fat remarks) but - it's simply not available any more, and I don't like the Quarter-Pounder Deluxe. Should I be able to force McDonalds to continue to provide the Angus Burger, or will I have to continue doing all my quick-stop-on-the-road meals at Culver's?

I'm not sure how RoJo, or anyone else for that matter, can successfully prevent private health insurance companies from doing whatever they wish to do.

As Obama is finding out.

Dad29 said...


You assume that RoJo's plan will force insurers to sell 'unprofitable' plans, which assumption is totally unfounded.

Insurers were selling profitable plans until ObozoCare forced those insurers to CHANGE the plans. When the changes were forced, some of the plans became un-profitable.

I'm pretty sure that you are not anti-profit, of course.

On what basis do you assert your theory?

Tim Morrissey said...

On the basis of my experience with my mom's Medigap policy, as stated. BC/BS simply DUMPED the policies of more than 40K 'sconnies because they were "no longer profitable". RoJo, by fiat, and with force of law, going to force the insurance companies to continue in force insurance contracts (policies) which are "no longer profitable"?

Of course I'm not anti-profit. I just don't see how this scheme from RoJo is anything other than grandstanding. It has no substance and can't possibly be applied or enforced.

Anonymous said...

1) Insurance plans die all the time; it's called the "death spiral" when the claims exceed the revenues due to the aging of the insured group. Competitors arise, (as happened with your mom) and we all live w/increased prices.

2) Maybe it IS grandstanding. We haven't seen the language. It is noteworthy that some (D) Senators are intereseted.

Anonymous said...

That's a lie, Tim. BCBS took one look at your fat, donut-scarfing ass, figured the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and dumped mommy post haste.

Anonymous said...

About 15 million people purchase health insurance policies on the individual market. That's about 5 percent of the population. When they do so, they typically purchase a 12-month contract with an insurance company. And when that contract runs out, both the individual and the insurance plan have an escape hatch. The individual can decide to no longer purchase the plan -- and the insurance company can decide to no longer offer the plan.

Most individuals don't stay in the individual market very long: One study, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that 17 percent of individual market subscribers purchased the same plan for two straight years or longer.

There are some restrictions on how insurance companies can terminate products. HIPAA, a health law passed in the 1990s, does require that insurance companies offer subscribers the opportunity to renew their policy, so long as they continue to pay monthly premiums. If they want to discontinue a subscriber's policy, the insurance plan must provide 90 days notice and "the option to purchase any other individual health insurance coverage currently being offered by the issuer for individuals in that market."

And these are the notices that insurance plans are sending out right now, to hundreds of thousands of subscribers: notices saying that they do not plan to offer the policy anymore, and information about what policies will be available.

- The Washington Post

Anonymous said...

"...about which other policies will be available...."

ALL of which are FAR more expensive due to ObozoCare regs.


Anonymous said...

"ALL of which are FAR more expensive due to ObozoCare regs."

A bold statement. Prove it.

Dad29 said...

"Prove it?"


Have you read any newspapers, watched any national newscasts, or been out of your mom's basement in the last 10 days?

ObozoCare regs demand coverage for all sorts of things (mental illness, abortion, maternity care, e.g.) No matter that you're male, single, and mentally stable: you're going to pay for those requirements.

But hey! Sign up for ObozoCare and compare prices, deductibles, and stop-losses. Post your results here.

We'll wait.

Dad29 said...

Oh, yah--let's not forget that all ObozoCare policies are guaranteed-issue regardless of pre-existings.

So one could schedule major surgery for a month out, sign up for ObozoCare, and the policy would pay.

If the web-page ever works, of course.

Tim Morrissey said...

Oh, Anony, I’d thought you’d disappeared. At the risk of incurring the displeasure of Dad29 by defacing his combox with another personal remark, let me continue to school you on the art of making someone feel bad about themself, or piquing their ire. You’ve obviously learned a bit from our last lesson; at least your insult was germane to the topic thread – insurance. Now, let’s dig a little deeper: if you really want to insult someone who’s fat – particularly someone like me who’s been fat since his 40’s – you’re going to have to do a lot better than call me fat. I’ve known that for decades, and making such a remark reflects more on you than it does on me. As William F. Buckley might have said “The fact that Tim is fat is manifestly axiomatic; to accuse him of the obvious doesn’t advance the argument, nor does your saying it bother him”. All it says is you hate fat people. It doesn’t even register on the rage-o-meter of the fat person you’re attacking.

As I tried to teach you before, to insult someone like me – who has a far superior intellect and a galactically advanced functional vocabulary compared to yours, you’ve got to get PERSONAL. How about “if your mother is as fat as you, no wonder the insurance company dropped her”. Taking a shot at a parent or child is bound to at least register on the anger-meter. Or even “if your mother went to the insurance company and they got one whiff of her body odor, which is undoubtedly more foul than the stench you emit, it’s no wonder they cancelled her”.

This sort of insult not only maintains the theme of the thread, but is so personal in nature that it’s bound to elicit some sort of emotional response.

Don’t give up. But you’re going to have to do better than using words like “fat”, “disgusting”, and “donuts”. Seek to find a vulnerability like a defenseless parent or child connected to the target of your hatred, and then, so you don’t appear simian to the other readers of the blog, be sure to connect it directly to the topic.

We’ll talk again soon, I’m sure.

Anonymous said...

Tim, if you had any of this superior intellect you claim, I did imply your mother was a fat fuck like you. But wait, I searched through the Mensa membership lists for Wisconsin, and don't see your name there.

Try to save some of the Halloween candy for the kids tonight, eh? I hate for some kid to come up empty because your gluten-charged ass ate it all.

Tim Morrissey said...

Mensa? Mensa? Now THAT'S an insult! Those dweebs are around 150 IQ. I am a proud (and certified) Triple-Niner, Anony!

Anonymous said...

Odd. Your name's not on any membership rolls there either.

Put up or shut up, liar.

Still on Ocean? Maybe the kids will stop by and pick up the verification while they're out tonight.