The President announced his big fix today. Once again, circumventing Congress and the Constitution to do as he pleases. You can now keep your plan, well, for the next year. The message?
I don't want you to suffer, well, at least not until AFTER mid-term elections.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-oba … 08141.html
UPDATE: Not so fast boys & girls! Turns out that each State must now rule these policies can be re-instated now that they have been cancelled and converted to comply with Obamacare.
First to say no? Nice liberal Washngton State.
"OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Just hours after President Obama announced changes to his health care law to give insurance companies the option to keep offering consumers plans that would otherwise be canceled, Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler says those changes will not be allowed in our state.
Kreidler says Thursday he has "serious concerns" about how Obama's proposal would be implemented and its potential impact on the overall stability of the state's health insurance market."
Maybe it is not an "Oops!" at all. Doesn't this open the door to blame the cancellations - and refusal to reinstate - on the insurance companies? Making them the bad guys instead of the democrats?
They already started in this direction with their "evil insurance companies and their junk plans" propaganda drive.
I don't understand - did the law include a clause that Obama could change it at will, without the approval of Congress?
Or was that just "King O" at work again?
Just King O at work again actually,. I don't really understand why the GOP is letting all his "administrative" fixes go unchallenged on this thing.
Maybe to wait 3-4 months and then declare it all null and void because he changed the law and can't do that. Making a great number of new policies illegal, null and void and doing it too late to try again before next year.
He has already changed the law delaying businesses a year and other things - they justify it because “The President does have discretion not to take enforcement action when he believes it would frustrate the purpose of federal law,” based on some supreme court ruling25 years ago they claim parallels his actions. Obama claims ‘enforcement discretion’ to make Obamacare changes and I guess there is a debate over whether he is changing the law or the regulations Sibelius has the power from the law to make.
It's a fair question to ask whether or not Obama has the legal right to change a law passed by Congress. The White House is using a certain precedent to justify their change calling it something like a delay in implementation or something to do with transition. It's fair to ask whether that's something that should be happening.
What's ridiculous though, is all this outrage about these plans being cancelled. The plans that are being cancelled do not meet the standards set out by the act. In other words, the plans that are being cancelled suck. They're bad insurance plans. They rip people off and provide inadequate coverage. Arguing that they should not be cancelled is ridiculous.
I have respect for wilderness's opinions because I think he's coming from a perspective of economic sanity. If you believe this is simple unaffordable, then so be it. That could very well be true. But originating the argument by being intentionally and willfully misleading is dishonest.
Or are the plans being canceled the most people could afford? That they are a rip off in that they provide excessive profits to the insurer or in that they provided fewer benefits than other plans?
When I look at the ACA being offered to me, I find that I am eligible for a subsidy, and that after getting that subsidy and buying (what I consider to be lousy insurance) I could not afford any major health care. Deductibles and co-pays would bankrupt me. Minor care I could afford, but I could afford it a LOT better if I weren't paying thousands per year for a useless insurance plan!
So, for me, the ACA offers nothing affordable at all - just a legal requirement that I supply more profits to the insurer. Is that so different than what is being discussed here?
well, here is your chance to nail another "Mr. Ridiculous" because your comment reads straight off the Obamacare Supporters Talking Points Cheat Sheet.
Of course I could be wrong. And you may have researched the "lousy rip-off junk plans" to understand why they are what you claim them to be - in order to form a credible opinion as strongly held as yours.
So what did you find? What exactly makes the cancelled plans junk that should never have been sold?
Now bear in mind - the largest percentage of cancellations are for folks past child-bearing age - and desire - so pre-natal and maternity care were not included -- by choice --
These cancelled plans also had a typical, (as in semi-market standard), 80/20 payment split, and a $2500 - $5000 out-of-pocket family deductible.
If you would stipulate that the new "pre-existing condition" standard is so new as to not be a valid standard of quality - then what exactly is so sub-standard about the majority of cancelled plans?
ps. if you get stuck, check the fine print on page 17 of the talking points package.
pss. I would be glad to apologize for such a disrespectful response when your reply illustrates you have thought about your position, instead of parroting a party line.
Willfully misleading and dishonest like:
"if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period." said over 25 times?
Willfully misleading and dishonest like "you're premiums will go down."
I guess for you it doesn't spark outrage because you are not the one now facing life with two choices. Pay 35% more for insurance or go without, when you believed you were already covered and good to go with what you had because your President promised that over 25 times. So just tough luck for those millions huh?
That part of losing your plan only applies to about 5 million plans. Think of it. That contrasts with 80 million who will now have no limit of their plans expense. That will make it so people with outrageous healthcare bills are the number one group of people filing for bankruptcy--
50% of whom have health insurance.
You know, those plans with a $7000 deductible are a farce. Half of all Americans do not even have $1000 in pocket or saved for an emergency. I know, I know, that's their tough luck..
But I DO have (nearly) that much earmarked for health care.
Which will, of course, go for the insurance itself, making any deductible unaffordable. So much for "affordable" health care!
You're right, Billy, it applies to around 5 million. That's 5 million that might not have the bucks to buy insurance now, even with subsidies. The deductible and co-pay on the Bronze plan (the subsidized one) are so high that the poor still have no viable access to healthcare.
But Obama didn't tell Americans they could keep those plans - he said the insurers were free to extend them if they (and the States) agreed to do so. Already, states are opting out, and insurers are backing away.
HHS said it needed 500,000 signups in the exchanges by Jan 1, to ensure the success of the plan. But, those were "new" signups, signups from formerly uninsured people. What we have to realize is that now they need 5.5 million signups to keep treading water. (minus those few who get to keep their plans)
Otherwise, they are ADDING to the uninsured pool - not reducing it.
That 5 million losing their plan number is incorrect. There were 1` million alone in California. Obama has said it is just a mere 5% - of what population is uncertain but 5% of the whole American population is 15 million. The actual percentage of those who are insured through the now non-existent individual plans is closer to 8% or 24 million and this is all just the tip of the iceberg. Once the employer mandate re-emerges after its Presidential extension more will lose their insurance.
Premiums are rise, in some cases by 60% or more. Millions of people are losing their coverage. Doctors are dropping out of Obamacare and Medicare at a record pace. Doctors are opting out of medical practice all together. The inflation rate for medical care is no lower than it has ever been. There is anger, confusion and upheaval in a system that is rife with misinformation and inefficiency. And why? Because there was a manageable pool of the difficult to insure and another of those who were uninsured, mostly because they chose to be totaling up to 18 - 38 million, depending on whose numbers were being used.
We have turned the entire nation upside down because the lefties wanted to, not because they wanted to insure 38 million people. If they wanted to insure 38 million then they would have worked on those 38 million. NO, they are wrecking the entire American health care system because they want control over everyone. Look at retirees, they live in constant fear that someday someone will REFORM Social Security and Medicare. To the leftist, reform is another word for destroy because reform would remove their ability to control retirees (a massive voting bloc) emotional attachment to a ponzi scheme.
The plans being cancelled are in no way substandard and if you kept informed about this you'd know that instead of just buying the Administration's line, I mean lies, about it. Substandard - by whose measure, the administration's? So now the administration and congress wants everyone to have sub standard plans again - yeah if they really were substandard how could they do that? - it's a ruse.
Lol, a conservative talking smack about others not being informed?
The cancelled plans represent 15 million people at least, some putting it closer to 20 million. Now, colleges are being forced to triple the cost or not offer health plans for college students. About 7% of college students rely on the health care provided at their respective universities and do not have the mommy & daddy fall back. That is now roughly about another 5-6 million.
The total that will now be uninsured? About 20-25 million. Hmm...didn't we begin this fiasco to cover about 30 million uninsured? We are simply replacing the previously uninsured with the working or studying uninsured.
There was a Sean Hannity show a couple weeks back where a bunch of people told their sob stories about how the ACA was going to bankrupt them and force their business to stop hiring.
And then when the truth came out it either didn't apply to them or they could find cheaper policies on the exchange.
So, I'm not buying the hype on either side just yet.
I'm not sure why Obama isn't just letting people keep their policies if they like them, but I'm not buying that this is just replacing one fiasco with another.
What truth came out Cody? Do you have any sources for this? Because all I've seen is Jay Carney and MSNBC claiming those stories are bogus but no real evidence to prove it.
The proof is in the Dems up for reelection now running as far away from the President and Obamacare as they can. It's a disaster that has only just begun and is going to get even worse down the line.
Eh, if anything, the democrats are poised to take the House back and the Tea Party is going to get killed in the Senate.
It should be fun. But I'm glad somehow not using "your" tax dollars is more important than trying to find solutions to the health care mess.
Its fine if you don't like ObamaCare, but tell me how the old system was any better?
Oops! Better check that information Cody.
Polls show, both general polls and the specific races, that the GOP is actually in position to take the Senate in 2014.
The more this law collapses in on itself, the better the position for the GOP. The worse for the Democrats because it is their disaster after all.
Generic polls : GOP 40% Democrat 39%
Repeal Obamacare: 55% in favor
Unfaborable view of Obamacare: 58%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll
btw you failed to answer the question. Just spouted something that did not pertain to the conversation. Diversion tactics perhaps?
No, just common sense....
But as EA said, its too early to tell....although, having the districts Gerrymandered in your favor doesn't hurt.
Watch out for another nasty round of GOP induced budget turmoil. That and too much Tea isn't going to sit well with the voters come November.
You do understand that Senatorial elections are not in any way affected by gerrymandering?
Democrats shouldn't have too much a problem holding on to the senate though, so what's your point?
I do actually agree with EA's assessment as well but that isn't what you said.
"Eh, if anything, the democrats are poised to take the House back and the Tea Party is going to get killed in the Senate. "
While I believe it will pretty much stay the way it currently sits, if anyone does gain, current sentiment favors the GOP to gain not the Democrats.
Common sense? So common sense says ignore the question and spout something about tax dollars which I never even mentioned? lol
In a second midterm election, the opposition to the president has historically won seats. I might be mistaken, but I believe there was only one exception to that historical trend, President Clinton. It's very likely that the Republicans will win a few seats, but the GOP isn't exactly popular right now. Thus, I foresee a slight GOP gain in the number of seats but no real change in leadership for either branch of Congress. It would be a shocker to see either side dominate the election.
How would Democrats not have a problem holding on the the Senate? Mary Landrieu has authored an Obamacare fix precisely because she, and other Democrats, are concerned about holding the Senate. It isn't an absurd to question whether a lefty understands that gerrymandering cannot affect a Senatorial electoin given the recent sillyness by Toure', the great lefty genius, on MSNBC. And your response was to a posting that didn't mention the House, where gerrymandering, if it actually exists, could make a difference.
It's likely few seats will change hands, perhaps a slight shift for the GOP in the Senate. Democrats will likely still have a majority in the Senate, and the GOP will likely still have a majority in the House. It's too early to tell, but I doubt the election is going to turn out the way you belive it will. Neither side is favored by the electorate.
And now it appears you can add another 80+ million that will lose their employer coverage due to the now debunked "grandfathered clause" promise.
Absolutely. Those with employer based coverage never had a chance of being grandfathered in because you have to renew your employer based coverage every year during the enrollment period.
Why do you think Obama quietly issued that decree? Can't have that happening before mid-terms you know!
Typical liberal!... can't refute the facts so he resorts to a personal attack - is that the best your limited intellect can come up with or did you leave the functioning part of your brain under the rock you came out from under? Here is just one of the best I've got on Ovomitcare being a total failure http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11 … ax-credit/ You'd think they could find one person in all America to hold up as a success - Obama picks an example which turns out to demonstrate exactly how ovomitcare fails everybody.
Hahah so you rip on my intellect and then jump to fox news to try to prove me wrong?
Anyway, I look forward to 2014 when the Democrats have majorities in both houses and Obamacare is finally being touted as the success it is.
Keep trying though....
Well that settles it - you really are in a fantasy land...of course after the Republicans win congress I'm sure you'll claim you never said that ... or will mysteriously disappear from the conversations about it. BTW thanks for pointing out that only Fox is reporting the truth - no one else seems to be covering this story and it's not because it is false but because the rest of the media doesn't want to hurt Obama anymore than they have to which proves my points and in no way casts any dark light on Fox news. Oh wait, here is one, I suppose you have CNN on your list of news stations to dis when they report the truth? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ess-story/ So again you can't refute the truth so you resort to attacking the messenger? Now that shows profound intellect. You are pathetic. http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rud … after-all/
See you in 2014 after the elections, if I can find you.
So CNN is lying too? Actually the woman made it all up right, that is your position?
No, my position is that I would trust nothing put out by Murdoch's empire any further than I could throw it.
So it doesn't matter whether something is true or not, if Fox reports on it you will not accept it ... so since Fox reports on practically everything the rest of the media reports on you don't believe anything! I love how people like you never realize they are babbling like an idiot because of misplaced hatred.
If you have to resort to insults then I'm out of this, apart from a hint - listen to yourself.
ETA, I won't report your post, you'd better hope that nobody else does either.
ewwwe I'm scared, take my free speech away for calling a spade a spade - that's fine, just what I expect from your kind. Unlike people like you I don't live to spread babble on hubpage forums so I'd suggest you find a threat that is real if you wish to threaten your literary dversaries.The forum topic has nothing to do with Fox news yet rather than discuss the facts you and hodgepodge insist on changing the subject. You are irrelevant without any capacity to even think past making empty threats.
If she is self-employed, she needs a better accountant.
That's all I have to say...
Fox reporting the truth! That'll be the day.
Under what measure is Obamacare a success now? You might want to entertain making your statement a future-tense statement. You could defend that kind of statement a lot easier. To claim that Obamacare is a success already is outlandish.
I think you read my statement wrong.....I was saying in 2014 the Dems would have control of both houses AND Obamacare would be touted as a success.
I don't see Obamacare working, but I hope it is a success. I would certainly like to see better health care for Americans.
As for the Democrats, we'll just have to disagree. I'd far rather see Republicans gain.
Either way, it's going to be an interesting election. We'll just have to see which side makes better moves. Right now, I say let's vote all incumbents out of office!
Incidentally, I don't disagree with the notion that it's up to the consumer to know what they're buying. Perhaps it would simply be better to hold insurance companies accountable for even selling these worthless plans.
I would have to take offense at the concept that ANY ignorant bureaucrat knows what insurance plan I need better than I do. Not even a nurse or doctor can determine that - only me. Only I know my wants, my needs (other than health care) or what I want out of life.
If the consumer is too lazy to educate themselves, they deserve what they get.
By what standards are they "lousy"? Certainly there are sub-standard plans around, we are all aware of that, however, many of these cancellations are being handed out simply because they lack maternity care, pre-natal care, neonatal care and birth control coverage.
Something that IMO a single man or a woman past child bearing years should not be forced to obtain. You and the President are declaring them "lousy" and "sub-standard" without any basis in fact. Everything that Obamacare requires one purchase is not necessary for everyone to have and that doesn't make it a sub-standard plan for that individual.
You know, I would probably support maternity and neo-natal care for a couple of reasons, just not the birth control.
1) Childbirth is a natural part of being alive and needs professional care. Same for neo-natal care - it is normal for children to require this and whether that child is inside a womb or outside is irrelevant to needing care.
2) Neither is cheap and both often come at a point in a person's life when money is at a premium. Either are likely to be let slide because money is tight.
So let's go ahead and cover those. But birth control doesn't come under either reasoning, is designed and used to disrupt the natural functions of the body and is almost always purely by choice (and when it's not it should be covered like any other drug).
Apparently the government knows better than you do about what insurance you need.
President Obama said, "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
I would like to add this:
If you had insurance and it was canceled — you didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, let me get this straight. You were okay with 40 million people going uninsured during the old system, but now that it's you who might have to pay more money, suddenly it's unfair? The hypocrisy is staggering among those who still have insurance, but have to pay more (granted it was the decision of the companies to hike premiums).
Not sure who you are replying to, but have to ask why you think their cost went up (because it must pay for someone else is the right answer). And then who do you think earned that money - the one who saw their cost go up or the one it is being used to pay for?
Who said that our health care had to be socialized to solve this problem? There were other less-invasive options to fix our admittedly imperfect system.
I'm not an Obamacare supporter or opposer, seeing as my country has universal healthcare. Obamacare wouldn't be needed if the U.S. wasn't so xenophobic about "socialism".
I'm not going to explain Obamacare. The whole idea that a forum like this is created and those who don't like the idea of Obamacare can reinforce their views by reading the opinions of non-experts and then say to themselves: "oh, since this supporter can't explain what he/she likes about Obamacare, it must be a crappy law." So I'll just say that Robert Reich does a pretty good job explaining the basic premise of Obamacare. If you disagree with the basic premise, then there's no point in debating it.
I thought this was a Christian nation and that helping the poor was a mandate from Jesus Christ. Guess not.
If you're criticizing Obama for saying "if you can like your plan, you can keep it," fine. But you clearly have no understanding of context. People obviously can't keep their plan if it doesn't meet the minimum standards set by the law.
The federal government sets lots of minimum standards. If you don't believe in minimum standards and that everyone should just fend for themselves, then perhaps we should drop all regulations like for example, oh I don't know, food safety and car safety. Might as well get rid of speed limits. And let's get rid of air bags. People should be able to buy cars without air bags and if they're too stupid to know that's a bad idea, then so what?
Referring to President Obama saying "you didn't build that" is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates you do not understand context. Taking those words out of context and evaluating them outside of the statement that was being made is the kind of fundamental intellectual dishonesty that leads to complete misunderstanding about everything. It's like taking one bit of a scientific report on global warming that questions a particular hypothesis and using it to discredit the whole report. When people practice this kind of rhetoric, it's end result is stupidity and misinformation.
I want to pay a bit of respect to wilderness. Although I disagree with much of what he says, if you look at his hubs, everything is about doing things yourself and learning to be self-sustaining, so I get that it probably drives him crazy that he's off fixing everything himself, by his own hand, and the government is propagating this nanny state where people are taught that if they can't figure it out themselves then the government will do it for them and pay for it. I get it.
I wonder if the same people who are flying off the rails about Obamacare were as vocal when George Bush lied to everyone and went to war with Iraq. I mean, he lies about that are we're saddled with body bags and a lifetime of VA concerns. Obama is trying to give poor people free health care. So maybe that leads to debt, though I would argue that if we can get people out of emergency rooms (where we give them free healthcare anyway), it will drive down costs for all.
1. You've yet to address what makes the plans sub-standard. Why does the post-menopausal woman need maternity care, birth control, neonatal, etc?
2. You're correct. There are thousands of now "required" coverage. Can you understand that health insurance is not a "one size fits all" proposition? Not everyone requires the same coverage. We are simply replacing the previously uninsured with the new uninsured right now. Not sure how that fixes anything.
3. Are we helping the poor? In my state (and in most others) CHIP existed which covered all children up to generous income amounts. There was also Adult Basic coverage for $30 a month. All this could easily have been avoided by simply expanding those programs instead of expanding Medicaid, which costs more to run than any state program.
4. Not sure what good handing out Medicaid is going to do when most doctors (80%) have stated they will not be accepting any new Medicaid patients because the new payments do not even cover the cost of care.
The health care needed reform. This law stifles health care (and IMO you will see a decline in the quality and availability of that care) and targets health insurance. It is 90% new regulations, taxes and fees aimed at businesses, insurance companies and middle income tax payers.
That is simply the truth. Everyone was warned of the coming disaster and chose to discount it because of its source. Now that's it's here, they want to talk about non-existent "context" (really, I mean, you don't put the word Period at the end of a statement if you know there are conditions) and blame all its woes on a website glitch. The website glitch is only the tip of the iceberg as we are now seeing.
We saw what happened when mortgage companies were allowed to sell substandard loans. People got screwed. And sure, they should have known what they were getting into, but how many of us can say we read the fine print on that stuff or even understand it. Do we not need laws protecting people against predatory lending? I believe the same is true with health care.
Can you provide a link to the point you're making about post-menopausal women having to pay for neonatal care? That's definitely stupid.
All plans on the marketplace will offer the same set of essential health benefits. This includes:
Maternity and newborn care
Neonatal care (before birth)
These are all very valuable services for post-menopausal women and older males (sarcasm). It is, however, quite necessary when the goal is not to provide a reasonable cost for your insurance but to spread the cost among all citizens.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-does-ma … nce-cover/
No, people did not get screwed. They screwed themselves when they signed a mortgage agreement they knew they could not honor. Or one that put them right on the edge, with a recession very clearly coming very soon.
What you are calling "fine print" wasn't that at all, it was the crux of the mortgage. Like interest rate and term - things that are plainly visible and gone over at least twice, by both lender and closing agent or title company.
Lenders were making loans to people for stuff like 120% of house value. I think it's pretty well proven that many lenders were making these loans to people, not explaining the ramifications, and knew there was going to be trouble. The people they were making the loans to were not qualified for them. I can provide links if need be.
What ramifications? That it runs the payment up beyond what the person can afford? That it runs the amount owed up past what the house is worth?
Both are extremely obvious, and anyone that can't understand both should not have a mortgage whether for 80% OR 120%. You are falling into the socialist trap when you decide that people aren't smart enough to figure that out themselves. That they need daddy to protect them from themselves.
Absolutely people were signing loans they were not qualified for; that's what I said. That and that no one forced them to - they screwed themselves when they pick up that pen.
That's not a socialist trap. That's the truth. Many, many people are math illiterate.
And many of those loans are no longer available because they're dangerous.
If you are math illiterate you are also aware that you are math illiterate. That was the point Wilderness was making. If you are that math illiterate, than you aren't going to be able to figure out a budget whether you can afford the loan or not.
I'm curious though with that comment, at what point do you figure that a person bears some personal responsibility for what they do? At what point do you decide that they are "capable" without the government holding their hand? Never?
Predatory lending is about taking advantage of people. Should that be legal and we just let everyone figure it out for themselves?
The bulk of those people knew exactly what they were getting into and did it anyway because they could not afford the higher payments at that time. They figured down the line they would either 1. worry about it then or 2. get a raise and be able to afford it.
What proof do you have that the majority of those people were math illiterate? Or did they just see an opportunity in the present and decide to worry about the future later?
I only consider it taking advantage of someone if it is clear that they are mentally handicapped and could not possibly have understood the conditions of the loan. Otherwise, it is again absolving people of any personal responsibility for actions whose consequences they were well aware of at the time and chose to ignore.
You don't know that. I provided links down below. So the banks are not at fault? And it's not just about the people losing their homes. It's about the devastation to the economy.
Banks would conduct appraisals and appraise houses way above their market values to justify wild loan-to-value ratios. It's the consumer's responsibility to figure that out? That's way beyond most people.
No, the banks are not at fault for offering the types of loans that the politicians pressured them to.
Banks do not conduct appraisals. They hire it done by a licensed appraiser. And if an appraisal for my home came in 30% or more above real value I would know it as being out of line.
But then I do not depend on any seller for information on the advisability of the deal they are offering me. Whether it be a mortgage, a home, a car, a TV or a child's toy, I do not depend on the seller for accurate information. Are you seriously saying that anyone would believe a mortgage salesman claiming a value that much over sales price? While offering a morgage that you know you cannot keep up? Reminds me the words attributed to P T Barnum, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do with such people.
I would love to read some stories about politicians pressuring banks to engage in predatory lending. Please provide links.
If you're looking for political speeches to include the derogatory term "predatory lending" instead of "helping the poor" you won't find them. Congress specifically asked banks to follow the new rules they came up, including making substandard loans to people that could not afford them. Because, after all, everyone should have their own home.
If you want facts, google is your friend - you can find lots of information about what happened to the housing bubble prior to the recession and why. No links, sorry. I've long since forgotten them - this goes back nearly a decade, you know.
Mortgage lending has been heavily regulated, long before the bubble collapsed. The rules regarding lending were frequently relaxed, ostensibly, to discourage red lining. The actual result in the government compelling a relaxation of lending rules via Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the standard for all secondary market mortgages in the US, was the destruction of all prior established lending standards. It is FM and FM that created the no income verification, no documentation, no proof, no debt to income ratio loans that became the garbage at the root of mortgage backed securities.
If all mortgages had remained private lending mortgages, then there never would have been a mortgage bubble. Time and again it is the government insinuating itself into the marketplace that generates economic disaster.
I've bought a number of homes. The banks hire the appraiser. They're not independent.
That's what I said - the banks hire an appraiser that is not paid by them. The appraiser is not a bank employee and in fact YOU pay for the appraiser, and every time I've done it it has been via check made out to the appraiser on the spot. The banks typically pick one, but even then you can generally pick a second for comparison and if there is a large difference mediate with a third.
Wouldn't it be nice if the books and property of all governments, local;state;federal, be audited and appraised by 100% independent companies once every few years. They could be hired at random and paid from a trust established but not controlled by government.
Under current regulation, the lender cannot compel reappraisal, with hold payment or tell the appraiser about the expected value. I have ordered dozens of appraisals, prior to the rule changes, and concluded - with an appraiser that I relied on because of his integrity - that home values were being pushed because Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac had severely relaxed their standards and that it was unsustainable.
The Justice Department sued multiple lenders because they weren't lending to enough minorities. The established practices that required stable credit history, established income and an objective debt to income ratio were not generating sufficient minority mortgages. Typically, the government saw only the skin color of those denied loans never concerning itself with the QUANTIFIABLE and OBJECTIVE standards that all borrowers had to meet regardless of their skin color.
Again it is the GOVERNMENT injecting itself in the marketplace, solely for political purposes, that breaks that which wasn't broken.
Which was the early beginnings of the collapse. You're right - govt. meddling in the matter is what ultimately brought about the recession. The do-gooders set the policies without regard to the wider picture. Only the very narrow viewpoint they are interested in, in this case housing sales to minorities.
"Do gooders" are little more than meddlers who believe that they know better than the wisdom of the market. There is little that is more moral than a free economy. Milton Friedman often taught that a free economy "punishes" sloth, greed, avarice, lying, overindulgence and all other kinds of sins. It is the "do gooder" injecting his fantasy of moral superiority to the judgement of millions of participants in the market that inevitably collapses that market. It is Lucifer's sin that motivates the "do gooders," pride.
(before others get silly perhaps reading John Milton and Milton Friedman will help, but most likely, not.)
Unfortunately, there is a plethora of people more that willing to enforce their own personal ideas of what you should purchase and how you should behave.
And while were at it, lets get some design tips from Da Vinci and then let's take an astronomy class from Hipparchus and then use the 1st century teachings in the Bible to tell us how to define our relationships....
That is one of the requirements of ALL insurance plans now, whether it is a single male or a post-menopausal woman. That is why many of the insurance policies were cancelled because they did not provide these new requirements.
The following source lists all the Essential Health Benefits package has within it. ALL insurance plans must offer ALL of these benefits whether needed or will ever be needed or not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedi … are-act/2/
"Obama is trying to give poor people free health care."
That he is most definitely NOT trying to do. Obama is merely trying to make the poor and middle classes pay for health care for the poorest, and he isn't doing very well at it.
You mention lies; that is probably the biggest lie of all, especially when the insinuation is hidden deep within other rhetoric. THERE IS NO FREE HEALTH CARE. There isn't even cheap health care. Health care is extremely expensive - often costing more in a lifetime than any other expenditure except perhaps a lifetime of food.
So it isn't about free or even cheap health care. It's all about shifting the cost of health care, and the shift is mostly to those that simply cannot afford it - the young and healthy that are just starting out in their life. They are the ones that are being required to pick up the tab for the rest of us.
I do thank you for the comment, though. I had never thought of it that way, but there may be truth in your psychoanalysis. It's true I write on self sufficiency, and it comes from a lifetime of taking care of myself. I have had, for instance, a serviceman in my home just twice in 40 years of home ownership. I have had my car to a mechanic just 3 times; all three for an RV that was simply too large for me to handle.
So I don't understand when some politician tells me I am incompetent to run my life; it is highly unlikely that politician is 1/10th as capable as I am. I don't get it when some faceless bureaucrat tells me I can't have a Big Gulp because it's bad for me or that I have to spend 100%+ of my meager disposable income to buy insurance that will not cover my health care costs. I don't get it and I don't like it.
But my disagreement with the ACA stems primarily from two other things: it is built on lies and it will, if left alone, bankrupt the country. The people of this country expect the ACA to provide them with health care insurance that will cover their care needs, and it will not. They expect the ACA to be cheap but the total health care cost for the country will skyrocket instead. It won't even be cheap to individuals; nearly everyone I've heard of is seeing their personal cost go up.
And because the national cost of healthcare will climb so high it is not something we can afford. It WILL bankrupt the nation if left as is. For me personally, the cost of the insurance will almost certainly be more than the cost of my care, but not by a great deal. I'll survive, even if the table gets a little bare sometimes.
The nation won't. We do not have the resources to give the people of the country what they think they're getting with the ACA and the result is going to be a catastrophe. I predict that as people find they are getting neither good nor cheap insurance that they'll scream about it. And the leaders that put this monstrosity into place without ever reading or discussing it will recognize they are about to lose their jobs or power and put in better, cheaper plans paid for with money we don't have. And everyone in the nation will lose as the economy takes a dive that makes the recession look like a bull market day.
The idea that the healthy shouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy doesn't hold water with me. Of course we do. I've hardly been sick a day in my life. Between me and my insurer, I've probably paid $200,000 in premiums over the course in my life and haven't used 10% of that (if that, maybe not even 1%). Where did the rest of that money go? It went to pay for the people whose needs exceeded their plans.
If we're just going to have this cutthroat society where we don't even make an effort to care for our needs, then I want all that money back and I don't want to pay for it in the future.
Isn't part of the problem that insurance companies make billions of dollars in profit? Does that need to be controlled?
I really don't disagree that Obamacare is looking like a train wreck and perhaps it's just a reflection of our political environment, which barely functions anymore.
Insurance should cover your statistically indicated costs plus profit for the insurance company. Not the statistically indicated costs for someone of a much high risk category. Insurance is not a scheme intended solely to spread the costs: it is a method wherein you eliminate the gamble of having no catastrophic costs by agreeing to help pay for the few in similar circumstances that do (unexpectedly) have them. There is a huge difference between being cutthroat and putting all the money in the country into a huge bucket for everyone to take from as needed. Marxism is not for this country (or any other, for that matter).
Very large insurance companies may make billions, though I rather doubt it. It is controlled already by market forces called competition. Insurance company profits are not a huge part of the problems of health care costs, even though they will rise considerably form Obamacare.
We obviously disagree on a lot of stuff. I would classify myself as a liberal. However, I do want to establish that there are many liberals like me who see somebody like you and have complete respect for what they stand for.
I disagree with you about free birth control. If we made birth control free and educated people about it, we'd drive down abortion rates. I don't think you oppose that because you're opposed to people having sex. You place incredibly high value on personal responsibility. As in, if you're too stupid to know that sex produces babies and you're too lazy to buy a condom, then maybe you ought to deal with the consequences.
Then again, do we want that kind of person raising children?
Really, here's my perspective, most people are way too stupid to understand a lot of stuff and act in the best interest of society, so it's necessary for government to develop regulations to keep their stupid acts from affecting others. Unfortunately, regulations designed for stupid, irresponsible people really annoys smart, responsible, self-sufficient people (like you).
We do need to start emphasizing personal responsibility more and not jumping down the throats of those who do.
Actually, I agree with everything you've said here. There ARE stupid people and there ARE people that care not one whit about anyone but themselves. Both need reined in for the good of society.
But the answer is not to make silly little laws to cover every possible action by every possible person. Personal responsibility and duty is and should remain king; it is only the most egregious of actions that should be controlled.
As for "incredibly high value on personal responsibility" - I don't see it as "incredibly high" at all (as if you need to be told that! ). It is only as the welfare state has developed that we have lost that responsibility; given it up for a steady check from society. The two, excessive support and lack of responsibility, run hand in hand, and one promotes the other. A positive feedback between the two.
And it's really sorry to see; humans are capable of so much more! It's just that some need a little (or a big) push along the road of self sufficiency and responsibility. They never grow up to adulthood - they need kicked out of the nest so to speak.
Here are some links about predatory lending and common practices that borrowers encounter:
http://www.mortgage101.com/article/5-ex … ry-lending
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justic … paid-price
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/co … 52674.html
Stuff like this happens all the time.
there is always a say g about presidents.they care only about money.the president needs to make more money so we need to start paying medical assistance or there's a fee of 500 or more
Is what President Obama proposed even legal? When Republicans tried to delay Obamacare, Democrats responded that Obamacare was "the law of the land," passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Now, President Obama can just make new provisions and adjust Obamacare without Congress? How is this legal? If it's the law of the land, it has to be changed in Congress or by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, what's the point of even having three branches of government?
by theirishobserver.3 years ago
At Last - A Patient's Bill of Rights Good afternoon,It seems like everywhere you go in this country, you hear story after story of Americans who have been let down by the private health insurance...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when...
by Alternative Prime23 months ago
Opening his mouth doesn’t appear to be a strong suit for poor ole’ backwards Jeb - Every time he yaps his trap his big “Special” brother George W looks like the intelligent sibling ~ How much trouble is that?If...
by Scott Bateman9 months ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.