jerseyhoya wrote:It was remarkably bad.

drsmooth wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Obamenemies should be leery of "settling" for the non-fix fix that landrieu's proposal actually is.

Even more, I'm kind of surprised insurers have not screamed like stuck pigs about it yet.

Oh the humanity:

NPR wrote:Insurers Aren't Keen On Obama's Pledge To Extend Coverage

It's not clear whether the administration's proposal to let insurers extend the policies they've been canceling for the last couple of months will solve the president's political problem. But it's sure not going over very well with the insurance industry.

"Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers," Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry trade group, said in a statement Thursday.

State insurance regulators are of a similar mind.

"This decision continues different rules for different policies and threatens to undermine the new market," said Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, President of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, in a statement.

In case anyone is curious, Karen Ignagni is a shameless lying whore who would pimp out her mom & probably her dad for a nickel. Not that her freedom of speech should be circumscribed.

drsmooth wrote:My hunch is that if his children are of school age/living at home, his wife may have an occasional sleepless night with respect to covering treatment the kids may wind up needing. Going forward, you can bet that SHE is relieved that ACA will enable them to obtain more substantive support, without concerns about disqualification based on health, in the event anyone develops a health condition requiring regular clinical attention or involving regular medications. Of course if the entirety of ACA were to be dissolved they would be in a fragile situation, whether or not you or your friend - or your friend's wife -is aware of it. So yeehaw, let it go up in flames over the fine points of individual policies and those currently covered by them, right?

The Chinese government will ease its one-child family size restrictions and abolish re-education through labor camps, significantly curtailing two policies that for decades have defined the state’s power to control citizens’ lives, the Communist Party said on Friday.

The changes were announced in a party decision that also laid out ambitious proposals to restructure the economy by encouraging greater private participation in finance, encouraging market competition in key economic sectors and promising farmers better property protection and compensation for confiscated land.

Senior party officials, led by President Xi Jinping, endorsed the raft of 60 reform proposals at a four-day Central Committee conference that ended Tuesday, but the decision was released days later.

The decision also pledged to gradually reduce the number of crimes that can attract the death penalty, but gave no details about what crimes may be affected.

For decades, most urban couples have been restricted to having one child. That has been changing slowly in some cities, which have had rules on the books that couples can have two children if both parents are single children. That policy will be further relaxed nationwide. Many rural couples already have two, or sometimes more, children.

“Launch implementation of a policy that when the husband or wife is a single child, the couple may have two children,” said the decision. “Steadily adjust and improve family planning policies.”

The party leaders also confirmed an announcement made earlier this year, and then abruptly retracted, that they intend to abolish re-education through labor, which since the 1950s has empowered police authorities to imprison people without any real judicial review. Experts and officials have debated whether to adjust or abolish the system of camps since the 1980s. Now abolition is closer.

“Abolish the system of re-education through labor,” said the decision, which proposed expanding community correction to partly replace the system.

“This is a significant step forward,” said Nicholas Bequelin, a senior researcher who specializes on China with Human Rights Watch, an advocacy organization with headquarters in New York.

“It doesn’t mean that China is going to be kinder to dissent and to its critics,” said Mr. Bequelin. “But it’s an important step to do away with a system that not only profoundly violated human rights, but was also standing in the way of any further legal reform.”

Werthless wrote:That's pretty sexist to assume that she doesn't understand the tradeoffs and financial implications of their health plan.

Werthless wrote:Their out of pocket costs are going up based on how they use healthcare, based on premiums alone...

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:My hunch is that if his children are of school age/living at home, his wife may have an occasional sleepless night with respect to covering treatment the kids may wind up needing. Going forward, you can bet that SHE is relieved that ACA will enable them to obtain more substantive support, without concerns about disqualification based on health, in the event anyone develops a health condition requiring regular clinical attention or involving regular medications. Of course if the entirety of ACA were to be dissolved they would be in a fragile situation, whether or not you or your friend - or your friend's wife -is aware of it. So yeehaw, let it go up in flames over the fine points of individual policies and those currently covered by them, right?

That's pretty sexist to assume that she doesn't understand the tradeoffs and financial implications of their health plan.

pacino wrote:then there are the Republicans in the former Bush administration, equating a healthcare rollout with the response to Hurricane Katrina. jesus christ, it's hard to be reasonable when there is a level of outrage that vastly outweighs the actual event. You don't get to write off your response to a natural disaster (where people died and lives were ruined and changed forever) by equating it to a website screwup.

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:My hunch is that if his children are of school age/living at home, his wife may have an occasional sleepless night with respect to covering treatment the kids may wind up needing. Going forward, you can bet that SHE is relieved that ACA will enable them to obtain more substantive support, without concerns about disqualification based on health, in the event anyone develops a health condition requiring regular clinical attention or involving regular medications. Of course if the entirety of ACA were to be dissolved they would be in a fragile situation, whether or not you or your friend - or your friend's wife -is aware of it. So yeehaw, let it go up in flames over the fine points of individual policies and those currently covered by them, right?

That's pretty sexist to assume that she doesn't understand the tradeoffs and financial implications of their health plan.

werthless THE LIBERTARIAN telling doc about sexism, oh man. thanks dude

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:That's pretty sexist to assume that she doesn't understand the tradeoffs and financial implications of their health plan.

to the contrary - it's factist. In families - ok families where there's a husband and wife - women take the lead on health care decisions. There's copious data on this. I'm sorry you're unaware of these commonplaces.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:then there are the Republicans in the former Bush administration, equating a healthcare rollout with the response to Hurricane Katrina. jesus christ, it's hard to be reasonable when there is a level of outrage that vastly outweighs the actual event. You don't get to write off your response to a natural disaster (where people died and lives were ruined and changed forever) by equating it to a website screwup.

I think it's a pretty good comparison. It's a very public breakdown of the administration's ability to competently manage government on a vital issue that has also raised major questions about their trustworthiness.

Werthless wrote:Doc speculated that my friend's wife had trouble sleeping under their current health plan, bet that she is happy that the ACA will force changes to their plans, and then speculated that she is unaware of the ramifications of future changes. And the only information he had was... well, that she is a married woman. Apparently, to him, that implies that the husband was making all of the decisions, and the woman had nothing to do but be saved by the ACA. Oh liberals, what would she do without you fixing all of her problems?

td11 wrote:and jerz i find your equating of hurricane katrina response to the ACA website issues pretty troubling

President Obama said not wrote:You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population. And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower cost or the same cost in the marketplaces and that there -- the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them. And it didn’t. And again, that’s on us, which is why we’re -- that’s on me.