Is this an Obama lie?

Didn't he say if you wanted to keep your present health care you could?

Is passing a law that create standards that private industry cannot match and stay in business violating his promise to the American people?

I guess if you tell people they don't have to buy something from you, and then you eliminate their ability to do otherwise is not technically a lie. I'm learning these nuances from our leftist bloggers on this forum.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-96189484.html

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Is this an Obama lie?

Didn't he say if you wanted to keep your present health care you could?

Is passing a law that create standards that private industry cannot match and stay in business violating his promise to the American people?

I guess if you tell people they don't have to buy something from you, and then you eliminate their ability to do otherwise is not technically a lie. I'm learning these nuances from our leftist bloggers on this forum.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-96189484.html

He did say, I heard him, that you can keep your healthcare. This is an opinion piece with nothing to back up the claim. If it turns out to be true then it would be a lie.

Well, gee, here at the defense contractor where I work, they're EXPANDING health care to cover kids up to age 26 who don't ahve to live with you in order to qualify. And yes, they specifically mentioned that they are going to EXCEED the requirements of the new regulations.

Now, here's a question - since the health care bill changed more times than a chameleon on a checkerboard, WHEN, in relation to the final bill, was this research done? If it was done at the beginning, when they were still talking about the 'public option', yeah, I'd certainly believe the report.

One thing is a fact !!!

Right after the bill was signed, a number of companies said that it would take a huge bite out of their earnings and said so publicly (ATT, Verizon, Deere).

Congress felt they had to be manipulating the books and demanded and subpoenaed records and scheduled hearings ! It was in the press and covered extensively.

What has not been reported is that after Congress got the records that they had subpoenaed, they CANCELLED THE HEARINGS !

This bill is such a mess, and a totally political bill that we will be dealing with this for years and years and years.

You cannot draft a bill behind closed doors, drop the main thrust of the bill (reduce costs), have a need to pay folks to vote for it, all the while having the american public be opposed to it, and have anything close to an asset for this country !

he was addressing the unions that became grand fathered with their current coverage and plan......even if they change employers.

If you are in one of his constituency blocks you are probably OK.

I do believe that may be why we do not hear much from his supporters about the issues....maybe they got a "deal" and the tab is keeping quiet!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

Well, gee, here at the defense contractor where I work, they're EXPANDING health care to cover kids up to age 26 who don't ahve to live with you in order to qualify. And yes, they specifically mentioned that they are going to EXCEED the requirements of the new regulations.

Now, here's a question - since the health care bill changed more times than a chameleon on a checkerboard, WHEN, in relation to the final bill, was this research done? If it was done at the beginning, when they were still talking about the 'public option', yeah, I'd certainly believe the report.

They are "expanding" your health care to cover "kids" (??) up to age 26 because it is a federal mandate as of Sept. 2010.

If what you say is true, my company lied to me. They said that they were doing it "beyond what is required by new federal regulations" and they were investigating whether or they would be legally allowed to include adopted kids. They made it sound like they were voluntarily going 'above and beyond' the 'mandate' of 'Obamacare'.

The fact remains that if my 22 year old daughter lives with me, her health care would cost me nothing extra (if she were still in college). Because she's on her own 300 miles away (and can't afford coverage, working as a contractor so it's double FICA for her) it would cost her a LOT. My 17-year-old would be covered under many plans (even though she's now living a few block away with her mother) but some would dump her if she wasn't in college.

I'm hoping that I can get both my kids covered when my own status changes here in a month or two (my 17 year old still is) and my fiancee should be ok once we get married in about 6 weeks.

Maybe they are going above the federal mandate djplong. But the fact remains, "The Affordable Care Act allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plan until age 26," according to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services website.
Read it yourself. There are stipulations. For instance, the "child" can't be employed with a company that offers health insurance and the "child" must be claimed as a dependent be the parent/s for tax purposes.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...act_sheet.html

Now the next thing you need to figure out is how the grandfather clause is going to apply to the company you work for so you'll know if you get to keep your present insurance under your employer. That is what the original post by RichieLion is about.

Originally Posted by djplong

The fact remains that if my 22 year old daughter lives with me, her health care would cost me nothing extra (if she were still in college).

I would not bet on that. No health care is free and if any insurance is going to have to cover her, there will be a cost.

No insurance company will be able to survive giving out free services.

That is a very good point zcaveman. Even if you work for a company that provides health insurance at "no cost" to you and your dependents, somebody still pays. It comes from the company's budget (remember company means people) in some way, shape or form. The same for "free" government health insurance. The government is we, the people. We will pay.

If you pay for insurance through your company, you will have to pay the rate for an additional dependent.

djplong said, "...and they were investigating whether or they would be legally allowed to include adopted kids..."

I won't bill you for this bit of advise, but have your employer research ERISA Section 609(c)(1). (This refers to group health insurance plans, not private plans and has been the law of the land for many years now.)

"In general, section 609(c)(1) requires group health plans that provide coverage for dependent children to provide such coverage to children who are placed for adoption with participants or beneficiaries, with coverage being effective upon such placement.2 Benefits must be provided under the same terms and conditions that apply to dependent children who are natural children of participants or beneficiaries under the plan, irrespective of whether the adoption has become final. Section 609(c)(2) provides that a group health plan may not restrict coverage under the plan of any dependent child adopted by or placed for adoption with a participant or beneficiary solely on the basis of a preexisting condition of such child at the time the child would otherwise become eligible for coverage under the plan, if the adoption or placement for adoption occurs while the participant or beneficiary is eligible for coverage under the plan," Robert J. Doyle, Director of
Regulations and Interpretations, US Dept. of Labor



http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/programs/ori...y95/95-18a.htm

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

That is a very good point zcaveman. Even if you work for a company that provides health insurance at "no cost" to you and your dependents, somebody still pays. It comes from the company's budget (remember company means people) in some way, shape or form. The same for "free" government health insurance. The government is we, the people. We will pay.

If you pay for insurance through your company, you will have to pay the rate for an additional dependent.

Thank you BK and ZCAVE.....I have been saying from day one that this nightmare of a bill will RAISE costs on those who can afford it less....Not lessen them !!!

This bill had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with health costs!

This bill is such a mess and getting messier...

"In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/17...es-in-court-th


This administration will openly lie and change stories and you folks continue to suck it up. Thankfully, according to the polls folks are beginning to see how this country was totally conned.

"The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate. Most prominently, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that the mandate was "absolutely not a tax increase," and he dug into his view even after being confronted with a dictionary definition:"

As long as nobody questions his not have traiditional press conferences and folks back him because he is either a Democrat or not a Republican he is/will run all over this country !!!!

Originally Posted by zcaveman

I would not bet on that. No health care is free and if any insurance is going to have to cover her, there will be a cost.

No insurance company will be able to survive giving out free services.

Hey, it's the company that set it up in such a way that covering me costs one amount and covering "family" costs another. It doesn't matter, from a paycheck standpoint, if I have 1 kid or 18 (as far as those premiums are concerned]

Oh - and no insurance company is giving out free services. Check their balance sheets - they make quite a profit.

My point was that there is no difference between providing those services to my daughter if the only difference is under which roof she lives. The idea that they'll cover her if she lives here, but not if she lives so much as next door highlights the "''Splain me that one" aspect of this rule.

As I'm no longer going to be working for this company in a few weeks (according to everything I'm hearing) it'll be a moot point but the rest of the employees are certainly going to be interested in the outcome.

What matters most to me is if, indeed, the "cover them until 26 even if not a student and not a home" bit *is* a regulation (as of 9/2010 according to one poster) as that WILL be something I have to stay on top of. Things are a bit complicated since my divorce and my older daughter's graduation from college.