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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
6. Exactly.....
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:38 PM
Nov 2013

You cannot have a system based on private insurance that limits the amount of money they can use for profits, etc. and then tell them they must keep coverage and prices at a fixed level "indefinitely".

I think Obama made a mistake in not making clear that the ability to keep your policy is subject to the decisions of your insurance provider. He could have stated that the law (assuming this was part of the law) encourages issuers of current policies to support the existing policies for a transition period of say 5 years but that nothing is GUARANTEED.

It is similar to his faux pax on "use of chemical weapons in Syria is a red line". He should have said that "certain actions by either side, such as use of chemical weapons, MAY constitute a red line and the U.S. will respond accordingly.

While he is so professorial, there are times when the precision of his statements are not in fact rooted in reality.

I fully support him but think he needs to correct these types of mis-statements and ensure no other ones come in future.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Surprisingly, as I understand both plans, Upton is correct. Mass Nov 2013 #1
Redstate does NOT want the Landrieu plan Dawson Leery Nov 2013 #2
It is better, actually, as it (a) binds the insurance companies rather than granting geek tragedy Nov 2013 #3
I keep waiting for folks to think through the elements you mention. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #11
They wouldn't have to maintain the plans--they could just leave the individual market in the geek tragedy Nov 2013 #13
Wrong, wrong, wrong....... Swede Atlanta Nov 2013 #4
This is a very small portion of the marketplace, and is not self-sustaining. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #5
Exactly..... Swede Atlanta Nov 2013 #6
Who said they have to keep prices constant on those individual plans? geek tragedy Nov 2013 #8
It was explained that way in a Bill Maher clip on numbers and the the ACA. freshwest Nov 2013 #20
Kabuki theater... the situation can't be reversed quadrature Nov 2013 #7
forcing private companies to do something they do not want? geek tragedy Nov 2013 #9
lol ... maybe some are figuring it out. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #12
There's a reason that (a) it's being offered by a red state Democrat geek tragedy Nov 2013 #14
+1 Dawson Leery Nov 2013 #15
The thing is ... I don't think the House would pass the Senate version. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #16
That's why Upton's remark is so surprising. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #17
Agree. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #18
I read an article today on this board saying the White House opposed it. nt Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #19
Hey, if the 3% - 5% want to keep their health insurance Iliyah Nov 2013 #10
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»House GOPer: Senate 'Keep...»Reply #6