Statement from President Obama about DACA

To word vomit this out again:

I grew up in New York. The real New York not the city. Everything about trump was suspect. I can not fathom how ANY New Yorker over 40, voted for this clown. Well except for my stupid ass red neck relatives. Who all take some sort of public assistance.

Trump is about his own agenda. Always has been. Always will be.

The people who buy the snake oil always believe that the snake oil salesman has their best interest at heart.  They find it exceedingly hard to ever admit that a) the snake oil doesn't work and b) they fell for the words of a fast-talking snake oil salesman in the first place. 

Can you give more jnfo? Typically, the insurance companies decide which providers they will approve and which they won't. Or the providers decide that they won't take a certain insurance due to the rates. I'm not sure how the terms of ACA itself would have affected what provider a person can use.

Yep--I'm sticking with my same response--your linked article confirms it--

“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

— Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.

“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”

While it was naive/bold to make that claim--and nothing in the ACA ordered insurance companies to stay as they were, the INSURANCE COMPANIES STILL ARE THE ONES WHO CHANGED ALL THE PLANS.

Why?


$$$$$$$

The insurance companies screwed people over for the almighty dollar.

What the ACA did was set up minimum benefits that all plans must carry.  But it also "grandfathered in" existing  plans for a period of time but only if the insurance companies didn't make any changes to the terms of the existing plan.  A term can be something as simple as changing a deductible.  If the terms were changed the existing plan became invalid and the new plans would have to include the minimum benefits.  And that is why you had all those cancellations of the old plans.  

The ACA , whether it intended to our not, gave the insurance companies a way to dump the old plans and force people on to the more expensive plans.  And they took it with open arms.  The Obama Administration was caught by surprised by all the cancellations and yes it became a publicity nightmare for them.  And that is why they pushed back the requirement for having insurance for two years for those who's insurance was cancelled. 

As to keeping the same doctor again there is nothing in the ACA to require insurance companies to keep the same network grid in their plans.  In fact Insurance companies had already started to narrow the network grid prior to the ACA because they found they could cut costs by doing so.  

If the Republicans hadn't been so hell bent on repealing the ACA with vague promises of a replacement all those years these and other problems in the ACA could have been addressed.  And yes this is on the Republicans because they had the majority in the House and Mitch I never saw a filibuster I didn't like McConnell was gumming up things in the Senate.

I think you are being naive about how insurance companies work. They have been changing their plans for years, which is why ACA was needed in the first place.

As we speak, there have been recent changes in the reimbursement rates for mental health services (possibly other services as well but I only know first hand about the changes in mental health cereals) of many insurance companies, including BCBS. Changes that will put many providers out of business. Do you think that is due to the Greed of insurance companies? Or is it due to Trump wanting ACA to fail, and using this as a tool to "show" that a change needs to be made?

And insurance companies did not have to change people's choices of doctors like they did in order to comply. They knew what was coming and what the ACA was all about, including the statement of "you can keep your doctor/plan".

The law doesn’t force Americans to pick new plans or new doctors, however There is no guarantee that your employer won’t switch plans, just as companies could have done before the law. And if you switch jobs, your new work-based coverage might not have your doctor as an in-network provider, either. And insurance companies can change their plans at will.

And so what IS wrong with an admittedly very low federal minimum wage, along with locally-adjusted minimum wages set by states and cities as needed? 

I just don't understand this attitude from conservatives, who traditionally champion states' rights, except when states' rights might step on the toes of big business. Not talking about your response, but @jenny2's original statement that minimum wage should only be set by the Feds, despite the fact that living costs vary so wildly across the country.

And don't even get me started on Republican state governments that want to limit their own cities' rights to set higher local minimums, as voted on by the very residents who would be affected. 

I don't have any problem at all with what you suggest.  If a locality votes for a higher minimum wage and the residents of that locality are unhappy, they vote the incumbents out.  That's how it should be.