Fox news = false news

Clear, non-partisan, objective inquiry ...Do we know for a fact that they haven't?How do we know?Do we trust that source? Why?We all want this to succeed. They tell us it succeeded. We are happy. We have heard what we wanted to hear.Do we look no deeper to see that this is in fact the case?

Has anyone but one small office at HHS seen the state data? Does this contractor actually run the federal site? And of the hundreds of insurance companies involved has anyone independently aggregated their data to compare to HHS?There has been no independent corroboration. If we can be fooled in something so stark as the body count in war this insurance stuff is a piece of pie to fudge.We would like, and mostly do, think the HHS data is accurate. But we do not actually know. I think it would be politically wise to close that door with an OMB audit before November.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This may not seem to be in any way related to the OP or FOX News but it actually is. Those of you who cannot see the connection will just have to take my (trustworthy) word that this is, in fact, directly linked to the original topic of this thread.Why is there this short sign-up period requirement for health insurance? Why are changes to the policy not allowed except in the case of "life changing" events?If I want any other insurance (auto, life, homeowners, rental, etc.) all I need do is call the company and say I want some and they say OK you're covered as of today. If I call and say raise this coverage and lower that coverage just because I want it they say OK it's effective as of today.Why is ObamaCare not open to enrollment 24/7/365? What is this enrollment period restriction carpola all about?

Understood. I go through the same thing every year with my workplace insurance. Under the old business model I can see that, but this new model requires all people to have some minimum coverage as a matter of law, there are no more "pre-existing" clauses allowed, and the carriers are required by law to take on all comers, so this reason seems moot. Yes. The same issues as with all other kinds of insurance which get along just fine without this enrollment restriction. Which people won't do that often especially since the minimum requirements are the same company to company per ACA. There is no incentive to jump company to company except for price, and that is the marketplace and is a good thing. So how can the car/home/life insurance companies, which require and collect the same accurate demographic data for their actuaries, do their business very successfully without such an enrollment restriction?I'm glad you have that connection to the business because under this new business model I see no economic justification for continuing a restrictive enrollment period. I'm missing something. Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz

But aren't all required to carry the insurance?Except those willing to pay the fine. Which may be to their economic benefit until they get sick.OK, I can see this.Still, RAZD has the best idea.Thanx, PaulK.

Yep. Twice. And I am so bright that the light often keeps me awake at night. One of those bothers I must suffer for being brilliant. Another such bother is having to deal with those who's critical thinking skills are a bit shallow.This "shared responsibility payment" is no secret. If someone doesn't know about it by now then they are not paying attention to the universe around them and people like that are always getting into fixes, accidents and trouble and really need the insurance.The fee is of no bother. What the law should have done was make that annual amount a monthly amount. Now that would get some attention.As long as we're talking about what the law should have done, it should have made medical care available to everyone, citizen, visitor, green card or illegal and at no cost to the individual at the time of service.We, the good ol' US of A, should declare before the entire world that access to effective medical care is not just a constitutional right but a Human Right required to be provided by collective humanity.Oooo, that would be expensive. How do we pay for it?Confiscatory taxes. Yes, that's right, confiscatory. If you don't know what that means look it up. If you do know what that means then commence cringing.If you make over $500K a year every dollar over should be taxed at 50%. And we go up from there. At $10 mil you fork over 80%. Same for corporate taxes, different amounts, of course, but the same principle. And we can finally do what should have been done decades ago and end this heretical, blasphemous policy of not taxing churches.I hope that completes my picture for you.

It is funny, but is it real or a photoshop?