Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

world wide wally

(21,740 posts)
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:42 AM Nov 2013

So, what if Obama just came out and said...

"So some people got policies cancelled that are worth shit! (Sorry about the language, but you can change the subject now and talk about how crude I am). But what good is a shit health insurance policy if they won't pay when you need it? If it wasn't a shit policy, they wouldn't have had to cancel it!"


Just wondering

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So, what if Obama just came out and said... (Original Post) world wide wally Nov 2013 OP
That would be LBJ speaking ... JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2013 #1
I believe the word is "sentiment" Skittles Nov 2013 #2
"Sediment" could work too ... BlueMTexpat Nov 2013 #4
That was probably a pun Fumesucker Nov 2013 #7
It wouldn't be a bad idea treestar Nov 2013 #3
I think he did, at first rucky Nov 2013 #5
But I think that would cause issues with the viability of the ACA overall LisaLynne Nov 2013 #8
What,IMO, is so detrimental dotymed Nov 2013 #11
He could say... ReRe Nov 2013 #6
"Dooky" Cryptoad Nov 2013 #10
"Dooky" is way much better... ReRe Nov 2013 #12
They question I have is why did they buy those worthless policies to begin with? LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #9

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,338 posts)
1. That would be LBJ speaking ...
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:16 AM
Nov 2013

... on a day when he felt like being polite.

But yes, that's the right sediment. Might settle this whole issue.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
3. It wouldn't be a bad idea
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:42 AM
Nov 2013

Just say: you can keep this policy, but the insurance company is, by canceling it, admitting that it does not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Even the insurance company admits it covers hardly anything. Why do you want to keep it so badly?

rucky

(35,211 posts)
5. I think he did, at first
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:35 AM
Nov 2013

but was drowned out by the poutrage. So he made a concession, but it's still up to the states to decide whether or not to offer non-ACA compliant policies on the exchange. California's opting out, for one. I say let the red staters keep their crap policies if they're too ignorant and impatient to see what else is on the exchanges.

LisaLynne

(14,554 posts)
8. But I think that would cause issues with the viability of the ACA overall
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:46 AM
Nov 2013

and what it's trying to accomplish.

dotymed

(5,610 posts)
11. What,IMO, is so detrimental
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:48 AM
Nov 2013

to the ACA is the red states who refuse to open the Medicaid rolls.

They are purposely doing this so they have citizens who cannot afford any coverage, expecting to be fined for not having healthcare.

It's politics as usual and screw the poor.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
6. He could say...
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:37 AM
Nov 2013

... "doo-doo" everywhere you said shit. Besides, isn't "shit" one of those seven words the FCC says you can't say over the air waves (remember what George Carlin said!)

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
12. "Dooky" is way much better...
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:53 AM
Nov 2013

... has he used that word before? "Dooky" just sounds like something PO would say.

LuvNewcastle

(16,844 posts)
9. They question I have is why did they buy those worthless policies to begin with?
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:54 AM
Nov 2013

They might as well have been uninsured all this time if that's all they could afford or would afford. You don't get something for nothing, especially from insurance companies, so rest assured that the policy they were paying $75 a month for would have been no good to them in virtually any situation.

The only reason I can think of is that it was a sort of security blanket for them. They had a psychological need to believe they were covered, but they weren't willing or able to buy real coverage. Allowing them to keep those damned policies just feeds their delusions, in my opinion, and I really don't think the government should be a party to that. Obama never should have made the promise to begin with, and I don't think it's the government's responsibility to honor it. Looks like the state of California agrees.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So, what if Obama just ca...