1
1
0
About the Law
The Affordable Care Act puts consumers back in charge of their health care. Under the law, a new “Patient’s Bill of Rights” gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health.
View Key Features of the Affordable Care Act or read a year-by-year overview of features.
Coverage
Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.
Costs
Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.
Care
Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.
For More Information
Read the Full Law
Find detailed technical and regulatory information on the Patient’s Bill of Rights.
The Affordable Care Act puts consumers back in charge of their health care. Under the law, a new “Patient’s Bill of Rights” gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health.
View Key Features of the Affordable Care Act or read a year-by-year overview of features.
Coverage
Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.
Costs
Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.
Care
Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.
For More Information
Read the Full Law
Find detailed technical and regulatory information on the Patient’s Bill of Rights.
Posted in these groups: 
Obamacare
Obamacare
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
Sgt Jay Jones - What is wrong with it is that it made people change policies and doctors they had had for a long time, despite promises from Obama that would not occur; made them get higher-priced policies with less coverage and/or coverage they did not need; drastically increased premiums on everybody to cover those who could not pay for insurance (many by choice, not ability); and was forced on the majority of Americans who opposed it by lies and political BS by the Democrat controlled Congress. Other than that, it is great, much like all the other liberal policies of the Obama Administration that are destroying our country.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Jay Jones
COL Jean (John) F. Burleson I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the Obama Administration. I believe many things have improved in this country from the time he became President. Wall Street has rebounded, the housing market has gotten better. Unemployment has improved. The rich are still getting richer. I would like to see more trickle down to the middle and lower income families. I fail to see where you can see this is the most corrupt administration after the fiasco of Watergate and I know you were around then, because so was I. In so far as being the most racist, I truly disagree with that one. In my humble opinion this country has always had a "racist" undercurrent. Much of it since the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and 70's has been covert. People just acted like they did not harbor racists views. I compare it to a "Pressure Cooker" that has a lot of "Pressure" built up. When President Obama was elected the "Pressure Cooker" could not withhold it self any longer and all of this covert racism started spewing forth in a overt way. I'm not saying that everyone is racists that would be absurd, but I do believe there is a certain element in this country that were definitely covert and then became overt. I am a 64 year old African American male raised in the inner city of Kansas City, Missouri. I was fortunate that I found a way out. I found that way through joining the Marine Corps and then transitioning to a successful career as an Air Traffic Controller for 36 years. During my years I experienced racism many times. I just accepted some of it as a way of life. I did not play the race card, even though that card was dealt to me many times. So, to say President Obama is the most Racists President we have had. I think you truly need to refer to the history of "ALL" of our Presidents before making a statement such as that. In sofar as his "immorality". I have not seen anything where he has displayed any immorality. He is a Christian and a good family man and a faithful husband. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything President Obama has done, but then I don't agree with everything my wife does either. I do believe he is a good honorable Christian man, just like Senator John McCain said.
Regarding him being divisive. I'm sorry, but who started the divisiveness? I do recall hearing "Rush Limbaugh" stating "I hope he fails". He was in fact saying I hope America fails. It is also on record that in 2009 the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives stated, "We will be against everything he is supports, even if it is good for the country". So, who stated the divisivenes.
I have never seen a President of the United States of America treated with such disrespect as I have President Obama. This is truly sad.
We are all human and I try to live my life by the two rules.
1) Do unto others and you would have others do unto you.
2) He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Respectfully submited
Sgt Jay A. Jones
Regarding him being divisive. I'm sorry, but who started the divisiveness? I do recall hearing "Rush Limbaugh" stating "I hope he fails". He was in fact saying I hope America fails. It is also on record that in 2009 the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives stated, "We will be against everything he is supports, even if it is good for the country". So, who stated the divisivenes.
I have never seen a President of the United States of America treated with such disrespect as I have President Obama. This is truly sad.
We are all human and I try to live my life by the two rules.
1) Do unto others and you would have others do unto you.
2) He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Respectfully submited
Sgt Jay A. Jones
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Sgt Jay Jones - Again, I respect your opinion, even if I find it to be very misguided. I will not beat the dead horse about Obama's Administration any more, as it has been covered in more posts in Rally Point than I care to remember. However, so that I am at least responsive to your thoughtful comments, I will simply provide a short response to the points you make, which, I fully realize, are no more than my opinions, which may differ from others.
I have seen very little in this country that has improved as a result of Obama's election. Contrary to what the Democrat spin is, the economy is worse, unemployment is worse, the national debt is worse, race relations is worse, our status and respect for our country in the world is worse, standard of living is worse, poverty is higher, immorality is rampant, lawlessness and respect for the rule of law has dramatically increased, the country is more divided (black vs white, rich vs poor, liberal vs conservative, gay vs straight, Christians vs non-Christians, young vs old, and on and on), and is worse in almost every other measure anybody can think of. I know of not one single area where I would say we are better off today than we were when Obama took office.
Anybody who denies the racist bent of the Obama Administration has his head buried in the sand. All one need do is look at such things as the Harvard professor incident, failure of the DOJ to act on the Black Panther voter intimidation incident, the Administration's stance on the Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents despite evidence to the contrary, ignoring or giving tacit support to the Black Lives Matter agitators, ignoring race riots in Missouri, Baltimore and other areas, and the obvious racial bias of the DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder and, now, Loretta Lynch. I don't deny there are race relations problems/racism in our country, but I do not think it is a one way street. To me, some of the biggest racists are black, not white. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey come immediately to mind. It is just as wrong for a black man to be racist as a white man, yet liberals seem to think that it is impossible for a black man to be racist. That is pure BS. I will stand by my opinion that Obama is the most racist President in history and I think the facts bear that out. It is a tragedy that the first black president would turn out to be the great divider, instead of the unifier we all hoped he would be.
I recall some in Congress stating they would not support Obama's liberal policies, however, I would be interested in your providing a reference for the quote you cited "We will be against everything he is supports, even if it is good for the country."
You seem to have a very short memory with your comment that you "have never seen a President of the United States of America treated with such disrespect as I have President Obama". Surely you remember the disrespect foisted upon Bush by liberals. The disrespect to him was much more prevalent and much more distasteful than that Obama has been subjected to.
As I stated in the beginning of this response, these issues and opinions have been beat to death and I do not care to have an on-going debate about them with you or anybody else. You see things from your perspective and I see them from mine and I realize that the actual truth is probably somewhere between our individual opinions. I think it is healthy that people can disagree without being disagreeable. I appreciate the manner in which you presented your opinion and know that it is heartfelt. I just see it differently than you do. That does not make me right, nor you wrong.
Take care, friend. I enjoy discussing things with you, even if we disagree.
I have seen very little in this country that has improved as a result of Obama's election. Contrary to what the Democrat spin is, the economy is worse, unemployment is worse, the national debt is worse, race relations is worse, our status and respect for our country in the world is worse, standard of living is worse, poverty is higher, immorality is rampant, lawlessness and respect for the rule of law has dramatically increased, the country is more divided (black vs white, rich vs poor, liberal vs conservative, gay vs straight, Christians vs non-Christians, young vs old, and on and on), and is worse in almost every other measure anybody can think of. I know of not one single area where I would say we are better off today than we were when Obama took office.
Anybody who denies the racist bent of the Obama Administration has his head buried in the sand. All one need do is look at such things as the Harvard professor incident, failure of the DOJ to act on the Black Panther voter intimidation incident, the Administration's stance on the Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents despite evidence to the contrary, ignoring or giving tacit support to the Black Lives Matter agitators, ignoring race riots in Missouri, Baltimore and other areas, and the obvious racial bias of the DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder and, now, Loretta Lynch. I don't deny there are race relations problems/racism in our country, but I do not think it is a one way street. To me, some of the biggest racists are black, not white. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey come immediately to mind. It is just as wrong for a black man to be racist as a white man, yet liberals seem to think that it is impossible for a black man to be racist. That is pure BS. I will stand by my opinion that Obama is the most racist President in history and I think the facts bear that out. It is a tragedy that the first black president would turn out to be the great divider, instead of the unifier we all hoped he would be.
I recall some in Congress stating they would not support Obama's liberal policies, however, I would be interested in your providing a reference for the quote you cited "We will be against everything he is supports, even if it is good for the country."
You seem to have a very short memory with your comment that you "have never seen a President of the United States of America treated with such disrespect as I have President Obama". Surely you remember the disrespect foisted upon Bush by liberals. The disrespect to him was much more prevalent and much more distasteful than that Obama has been subjected to.
As I stated in the beginning of this response, these issues and opinions have been beat to death and I do not care to have an on-going debate about them with you or anybody else. You see things from your perspective and I see them from mine and I realize that the actual truth is probably somewhere between our individual opinions. I think it is healthy that people can disagree without being disagreeable. I appreciate the manner in which you presented your opinion and know that it is heartfelt. I just see it differently than you do. That does not make me right, nor you wrong.
Take care, friend. I enjoy discussing things with you, even if we disagree.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Jay Jones
COL Jean (John) F. B. - You are correct, we do see things differently, but then again, that is why both of us made the sacrifice to our great country that we did. To give not only us, but every American the right to their opinion. You are correct I have always said you have the truth and then you have perceptions, they may or may not be the same, but you have to deal with perceptions. We both have different perceptions, but we both respect each others right to have that perspective.
COL Jean (John) Burleson, this particular article was from Time magazine in 2012
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/
Also, COL Burleson, this tidbit was also taken in 2012.
https://youtu.be/AQnKiRrX-8I
COL Jean (John) Burleson, this particular article was from Time magazine in 2012
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/
Also, COL Burleson, this tidbit was also taken in 2012.
https://youtu.be/AQnKiRrX-8I
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com
TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Sgt Jay Jones - OK ... Again, as I have also mentioned in other such threads, I think it proves nothing or us to get into a "one-upsmanship" battle over who can post the most articles, video clips and other things we can find on Google/Bing that support our views. For example, I could find a great many stories similar to the Time magazine (very liberal rag) article you provided that shows the obstructionist nature of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Democrats. It proves nothing, except that our Congress is ineffective and that the blame is evenly distributed.
As far as the clip from The Ed Show (which is like me posting something y Rush Limbaugh as "proof" of something) about Colin Powell, he also is free to express his opinion, even if he is wrong. Powell is no more a Republican than Bruce Jenner is a woman or Rachel Dozelal is black. And, he is certainly not a Republican spokesperson. His opinion about the Republican Party is about as unbiased as Donald Trump's opinion about the Democrat Party.
As far as the clip from The Ed Show (which is like me posting something y Rush Limbaugh as "proof" of something) about Colin Powell, he also is free to express his opinion, even if he is wrong. Powell is no more a Republican than Bruce Jenner is a woman or Rachel Dozelal is black. And, he is certainly not a Republican spokesperson. His opinion about the Republican Party is about as unbiased as Donald Trump's opinion about the Democrat Party.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Well... my biggest objection is that it wasn't a nationwide single-payer/"Medicaid for all" program, but then I'm coming from another perspective.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
What is wrong with that law is what is not mentioned in the question posed -
Special considerations for Louisiana and Nebraska, simply to purchase the votes of their lawmakers.
Nobody read the bill, and Congressional leaders admitted as much. It is full of special kickbacks to political allies.
It forces people to engage in interstate commerce, in order to regulate health care as interstate commerce.
All that and more sucks, but I can boil it down to one thing:
Before the law was passed in 2009, my health insurance premium for a family of four was $562/ month. It is now $1018/month. That is more than my mortgage, or any of my other bills. My deductible increased dramatically. In the six years since passage of the ACA, I have paid approximately $50,000 in health insurance premiums. I have received about $10,000 in benefits, most of which happened around the birth of my youngest son. I was told that the "average family of four would save $6000 a year" on health care costs. I am pretty average, have a family of four, and I would estimate that the ACA along with other health care related mandates has cost me an additional $5000 per year. That is a conservative estimate.
So, the conclusion drawn by me and many others is pay the tax penalty and go without health insurance. Because short of catastrophic illness or being hit by a bus, there is absolutely no chance I will come out ahead. It is not insurance, it is a shakedown. And it is completely unaffordable.
I suspect very strongly that the intent of many of the co-authors was exactly what I am saying - demolish the previous health system, replace it with something that is anything but affordable, and from that garner support to blow the whole thing up and go to a single-payer system.
That is precisely the opposite of what was publicly stated by Congress or the President. It is very difficult to believe that it was unintentional.
Special considerations for Louisiana and Nebraska, simply to purchase the votes of their lawmakers.
Nobody read the bill, and Congressional leaders admitted as much. It is full of special kickbacks to political allies.
It forces people to engage in interstate commerce, in order to regulate health care as interstate commerce.
All that and more sucks, but I can boil it down to one thing:
Before the law was passed in 2009, my health insurance premium for a family of four was $562/ month. It is now $1018/month. That is more than my mortgage, or any of my other bills. My deductible increased dramatically. In the six years since passage of the ACA, I have paid approximately $50,000 in health insurance premiums. I have received about $10,000 in benefits, most of which happened around the birth of my youngest son. I was told that the "average family of four would save $6000 a year" on health care costs. I am pretty average, have a family of four, and I would estimate that the ACA along with other health care related mandates has cost me an additional $5000 per year. That is a conservative estimate.
So, the conclusion drawn by me and many others is pay the tax penalty and go without health insurance. Because short of catastrophic illness or being hit by a bus, there is absolutely no chance I will come out ahead. It is not insurance, it is a shakedown. And it is completely unaffordable.
I suspect very strongly that the intent of many of the co-authors was exactly what I am saying - demolish the previous health system, replace it with something that is anything but affordable, and from that garner support to blow the whole thing up and go to a single-payer system.
That is precisely the opposite of what was publicly stated by Congress or the President. It is very difficult to believe that it was unintentional.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Jay Jones
1SG Jerry Healy first I would like to thank you for your feedback. I am empathic to your financial plight brought about by this law. Personally, I don't believe the "intent" of the law was intentional, maybe some of the authors of the bill did this with an intent to demolish the previous health system. I honestly do not believe President Obama was amongst the group that set out to demolish the previous system. Just as I believe President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I guess my whole point of making this post was my concern that Congress has spent 54 Million dollars in over 50 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I believe that money would have been put to better use if they would have sought ways to improve and remove the issues that cause citizens to object to the bill. I mean there has been no alternative or improvements proposed to my knowledge.
This is what I object too!
I guess my whole point of making this post was my concern that Congress has spent 54 Million dollars in over 50 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I believe that money would have been put to better use if they would have sought ways to improve and remove the issues that cause citizens to object to the bill. I mean there has been no alternative or improvements proposed to my knowledge.
This is what I object too!
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sgt Jay Jones, how did you arrive at that $54 million figure? If it is based upon the pay of Congress members, they would have been paid that anyway.
That number pales next to the billions (trillions?) spent on the ACA.
That number pales next to the billions (trillions?) spent on the ACA.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Jay Jones
1SG (Join to see) - This is a report from CBS news, from 2013.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/obamacare-repeal-votes-costs-tens-of-millions/
This latest figure I hears was $54 Million.
You may agree or disagree with CBS news, but I do consider them a reputable
news source.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/obamacare-repeal-votes-costs-tens-of-millions/
This latest figure I hears was $54 Million.
You may agree or disagree with CBS news, but I do consider them a reputable
news source.
Obamacare Repeal Votes Costs Tens Of Millions
Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote for the 37th time to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care act. The political theater will give conservatives fodder for their constituents, but will end up costing voters even more.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
OK Sgt Jay Jones, making my point. The House was in session, utilized it's time to conduct debate and vote on a bill submitted by members and because the media says that was a waste of time (fair enough) it somehow cost taxpayers the amount it takes to run the HOR? As if that was the only business on the floor, and that money wouldn't have been expended anyway. That is a specious argument, respectfully.
And it is a diversion from my central point. It costs me directly twice as much as before the ACA, and indirectly the money comes from my tax dollars to support someone else's subsidies and from Medicare benefits I would otherwise use.
The whole thing is a lie. It is a lie about it's effect once implemented. It was a lie in what it was portrayed to do. It's very name is a lie.
And it is a diversion from my central point. It costs me directly twice as much as before the ACA, and indirectly the money comes from my tax dollars to support someone else's subsidies and from Medicare benefits I would otherwise use.
The whole thing is a lie. It is a lie about it's effect once implemented. It was a lie in what it was portrayed to do. It's very name is a lie.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google