I don’t recall you being the one to link this to the Virginia race? Are you also posting as adaher? Why are you speaking for him?
Funny thing about this MB. Anyone can respond to a post. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Besides, I don’t see that post as speaking for another poster. He’s just chiming in as to why he thinks your question is not a good one. If you disagree, why don’t you refute his assertion?
Well then don’t mind if I do. 
When I look at the right wing sphere, the one that is the nutzo one, it seems that the Newsmax/Zogby poll (that is not much respected) 4 days ago did put McCauliffe and Cuccinelli within 3 points, yesterday the difference was back to 7 points in favor of McCauliffe.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/newsmax-zogby-poll-virginia/2013/11/02/id/534444
I think this happens a lot with polls that are friendly to a political party, the bias melts away the closer we get to the election, because the pollsters still have to sound reasonable or close to reality come election time to justify their use again by the right wingers on the next election.
I believe that most of the outlawed policies have annual or lifetime limits, and thus are not for catastrophes.
Catastrophic insurance, combined with a health savings account, is still street-legal.
You really wouldn’t call this dishonest?
“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
Your lack of imagination aside, what does “no matter what” mean to you?
You can (in theory at least, but not in reality for most people) choose never to drive on public roads. Can you *choose *never to get seriously injured or critically ill? If so, would you please share that wonderful discovery with the rest of humankind?
Or prostate cancer screenings to women, I’m sure. Don’t forget it works both ways.
Also don’t forget that the rates are set by actuaries, who are very good at such things as estimating the number of people in a coverage pool who are capable of childbearing, or of getting prostate cancer, and setting the rates accordingly. :dubious:
It wasn’t a threat. Your guys actually did it. It was in the news.
Given the recent batshittedness of the Republican party, as evidenced by that little temper tantrum as well as their campaign to sabotage a popular, socially beneficial law, and the examples of the very whackadoodles they’ve actually nominated to run for VA governor against a guy even the Dems don’t like much, it’s certainly reasonable to call the election a referendum on today’s Republican Party. Obamacare isn’t the only factor, obviously, but it’s certainly as big as any.
Question here: A policy that has a lifetime limit is no longer legal, and therefore under ACA can no longer exist but can be replaced by one that doesn’t. Are any of you actually claiming that you should have the right to keep the lifetime limit you unaccountably like, while complaining that you were lied to about it? How does that make any fucking sense whatever?
We can’t really answer that question meaningfully without knowing what percent of the policies being canceled fall into that category, or something similar. So what is that percentage? That is, better coverage, without higher premiums? You didn’t mention premiums, but if my premium goes up, you’re damn straight I want to make the decision myself whether or not I up my benefits.
It’s not my question. adaher offered the position that the outcome of the VA governor’s race will reflect something about the public’s opinion of Obamacare. He is offering this because the race is tightening up. I’m saying fine, I will hold him to that position.
I don’t give a fuck what magellan01 thinks. Magellan01 presumably is not adaher. Magellan01 presumably knows that cuccinelli will lose big and thus does not want the race to be regarded as a referendum. As I said, I don’t give a fuck one way or the other as it was not his post to begin with.
Does it bother you that we regulate Piggly Wiggly, so that they are not allowed to sell salmonella in the produce aisle? The government won’t let Mom’s Diner serve you Rt. 9 Armadillo Goulash, even though you crave a hot bowl of road kill?
We regulate all manner of products. What makes insurance special? Why should we permit substandard products to be sold? Annual cap and lifetime cap insurance are machines for creating bankruptcy. We should accept them being sold because otherwise we endanger individual rights?
Say you decided to go with the cheap plan with a low lifetime limit, and you got seriously ill. After your insurance stops paying and you run out of money, who pays for your care? The rest of us do. Your ability to choose a policy with a low lifetime limit is really your ability to dump some of your future healthcare needs on us so you can pay a lower premium.
Let’e keep in mind what we’re discussing in this thread, and the question that was asked-- would I be upset about a lie that got me a “better” policy. If my rates go up, then yes, I’m might very well be upset. Obama told me I could keep my policy no matter what. Now he’s telling me that not only can I not keep my policy, but I have to pay more for the one I can get.
Maybe he should have thought about that before he made the promise. If he needed me to pay more to make the system work, hows about he tells me that upfront instead of lying to me? Then I can make an informed decision about whether or not to support the legislation.
Obviously, “no matter what” wasn’t implied. Since, in the event of your employer changing plans, or the insurance company discontinuing the plan, or you changing employers, you’d have to change plans.
You misunderstand. Not young sick people. But young people who can have illnesses or injuries because they aren’t from Krypton. I understand that young people are statistically less likely to need care, but they can and do need care on occasion.
You seemed to imply it by suggesting that by healthy people buying into the system only supports the sick. It actually also protects society if those people get cancer, spill their motorcycle or get a case of the pregnants.
Temper, temper, there, Henty. As John Mace pointed out, it is normal for various people to respond to points being made. I bet you can’t find one thread in all of GD where that is not the case. The fact that you would bristle over it this one time is odd indeed. I wonder why you lashed out due to this very normal occurrence. I wonder…
I have not said that the VA race is a referendum on ACA, just that ACA is obviously having an influence. Cuccinelli will probably still lose. but if it’s very close, will Hentor admit that SOMETHING must have tightened the race in the last few days, despite Cuccinelli being massively outspent? Hmm, what could be big enough and important enough to make a race take a 5-10 point swing in the final days and overwhelm McCauliffe’s money?
Now obviously if Cooch still loses by 7 or more, as the earlier polls stated, fine, I was wrong again.
Another goalpost shift. I think Cooch loses by 3-6 points. The 12 and 17 point leads were always outliers, but the polls as a whole have shown a steady and significant lead for McAuliffe. It’s very common for races to tighten like this, and there’s no evidence that the ACA has anything to do with it. In general, polling as shown that the ACA is getting more popular, not less. We’ll see in a few days.
That’s not a goalpost shift. I never said Cooch would win. I think you’re moving the goalposts. 6 is reasonable, since the polls showed an average of 7 points. 3 is not. If Cooch comes within three, that means Mccauliffe lost a lot of ground in a very short period of time.
As for ACA getting more popular, what???
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
Would you agree with this:
Obamacare probably had no more or less to do with the VA race than any other single issue. BUT, if Cuccinelli wins, it is likely that the recent news about Obamacare and the lies of the president are probably the things that will have turned the election around.
I say that because I can think of no other factor that would explain the dramatic shift (assuming Cuccinelli wins). Would you agree with that? If not, can you propose any other reason for what would be a dramatic turn of events?
We’ll see. Weak argument.
That chart shows the health care plan’s popularity improving through most of October.
This is what adaher said. It is clear that both he and magellan01 would like VA to be a referendum on Obamacare, but only if the Republican wins. Otherwise, it is not a referendum on Obamacare.
Everyone follow that?
By the way magellan01, there is no affect at all involved in not giving a fuck about your opinion.