I have read—in totality—every bill I have been asked to vote for. One would think that would be standard operating procedure, no?
Again, quibbling on the level of “i’m not touching you” as you wave your hand half an inch away from my nose. If you prefer:
If you had a lifetime limit, no matter how high (mine was $2M) in the policy that you had before 2010, the policy would not be grandfathered in and would have to be changed to comply or canceled.
If it was changed to comply, it would not be the same policy. And you claiming that some policies change and stay same is bull. Those are not forced changes. When you force a policy to change, no, it is NOT the same policy.
Still makes Pelosi’s (and Obama’s) statements lies.
I think both are true, but #1 is what makes it a lie. My understanding is that even grandfathered plans were required to remove lifetime limits (they could still enjoy grandfathered status after that, but rates would change accordingly). Am I incorrect?
But really, isn’t this all quibbling? 
It seems like pretty significant gymnastics to avoid the position that Obama (and it appears Pelosi, but I haven’t read any of the links, just what was quoted here) lied or deliberately misled in their statements. Plans change yes, and different people will evaluate what is significant to them to consider the plan to be changed or different in some way. Lifetime limits are pretty significant and I think it’s reasonable to believe that if that facet is changed then it is a different plan. The ACA specifically calls these out so saying lifetime limits is a significant factor seems reasonable.
Terr … your Insurance Company will have to pay all pediatric dental costs … and if you’re not paying the premiums for such, the Company will lose money. What the ACA doesn’t say is that the Company MUST continue money-losing policies.
Maybe if we knew what the actual monthly cost was of your old plan was, we would understand you’re position better … what’s included, what’s excluded … is this “in-network” or “out-network” … what’s your capital worth … do you smoke pot …
That two million doesn’t go as far as it did 10 years ago, you do sound like a person who would hate to see the tax-payers cover the other 3 million.
Wikipedia shows that 60 senators and 219 congressmen are lying, and that 65,915,796 voters thinks thats okay.
Whoa, hold up there, what? Christ Jesus, Terr, say it ain’t so!
Yeah, I think that’s pretty much the core of your argument, and it doesn’t make any sense.
Whether a change in a policy causes it to be a “different” policy has nothing to do with the cause of that change.
You’re selectively defining “different policy” as “one that Obamacare caused.” Obviously, you can win every debate if you reduce your premises to tautologies through absurd definitions.
It definitely does.
No. I am defining “different policy” as “changed when forced by law”. And you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to pretend it isn’t a different policy in that circumstance.
So that would be No.
For someone who regularly complains, factually or not, about others not doing so? Yes.
That’s not an argument, it’s just ad hominem. Which is what you’re reduced to, because arguing that what makes a plan different is whether it was caused to be different by the law is completely nonsensical.
If your premiums are more than 8% of your income, then you’re not required to get health insurance. I’m assuming an ACA compliant policy costs more, so you’re making better than $134,000 per year … my heart bleeds for you. Why don’t you just pay retail for medical service, it’s a lot cheaper in the long run.
That’s a correct statement.
If Pelosi had said “nothing in Obamacare caused an insurance plan to change in any way,” then it would be a lie for that reason.
Or if Pelosi had said “nothing in Obamacare will influence some insurers to cancel some plans,” then it would be a lie.
But she didn’t say either of those things.
Yours is not an argument it is just closing your eyes, shaking your head and repeating “no, no, no”, because of your agenda.
So your argument is “your insurance will cost more because of Obamacare - why don’t you just live without insurance”?
My state has fully embraced Hussian-O’s suggestion about allowing you to keep your policy … maybe the problem is in Annapolis.
Again, you fail to address the substance. When come back, bring argument.
Here’s mine again, in case you’re not clear: You are arbitrarily defining “new policy” or “different policy” as one with a change forced by law. This makes no sense, since whether a change is substantial enough to warrant calling the thing a new policy or new plan depends on the nature of the change, not what caused it. And this distinction matters because while Obamacare did require some changes to all policies–something Obama talked about a lot and that many now conveniently ignore–this is not the same as canceling policies. It changes them. And some insurers reaction to the change is to cancel them instead of increasing premiums, etc.
Yes, just live without insurance … because you obviously don’t want the tax-payer to pay the short-falls in your coverage. Dude, you lose both your legs in a car accident, no more $135,000 a year income, you’re bankrupt anyway. That health insurance policy only protects the hospital, not you.
Kinda like you did.
You’re arbitrarily defining a policy that has been forced to change by law as “same policy”.
And my forcing you to buy a new engine for your car if you wanted to continue using it didn’t make you sell or junk your car. You did that voluntarily. Right?
LOL. “No, you are?” That’s the argument I get back. Ohhh-kay then.