Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TopCat who wrote (70372)	8/11/2009 8:28:55 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Kenneth's summary didn't address anything. It had less information than a celebrity tour of Beverly Hills. Real Estate ads say more in fewer words. What the summary said was, we ar going to have a great plan and everyone is going to like it. There will be good stuff in it. NO DETAILS lol

To: TopCat who wrote (70372)	8/11/2009 8:37:56 PM
From: Little Joe	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

I doubt Kenneth will answer you so I will. The important part of that section reads as follows: "(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR 22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except 23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any 24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and 25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be 26 fore the first day of Y1." The bill then goes on to say that if any terms or conditions are made you are then forced into a government approved plan. What this clearly means is that if you like your provider and they make a change, even if that change made your plan better, or if you did not object to the change, you would have to give up your existing coverage and go to a government approved plan. So it is obvious that the President is lying about being able to keep your own plan, although I suppose a Clintonista lawyer who would argue over the meaning of "is" would claim otherwise. lj