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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (236271)	10/31/2013 10:31:23 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542054

We just simply disagree about the WSJ. Before Murdoch bought it, the news section was decent, while the editorial page was abysmal. The latter just kept motoring along with Murdoch around; while more than a few of the better journalists in the news section left. One sees much more cherry picking in articles, much less serious investigative journalism, and many more flat out, ideologically driven factual mistakes. And more. So count me as a Financial Times subscriber for financial news now rather than the WSJ. The problem, now revealed, with the AFCA is that it was sold as one thing and is turning out be another thing altogether--especially for individuals who picked the insurance plan that suited their needs and pocket books (about 15 million of them according to the Journal). And here's an illustration. Most serious stuff we've now been reading. I'm in that group and I gather for most of this group it's the usual November sign ups with a bit of a new item. My Medicare supplement insurance, provided through my university, which supplements my payments, will remain roughly the same (an annual increase as always) with both payments and coverage. I gather from everything I've read that the portion hit by this issue is fairly small and consists largely of folk who overpaid for very bad insurance. I agree, I should add, with the observation that the Obama administration has done a very bad job of selling the ACA. Moreover, they should have been much clearer about this particular instances. And, finally, that we would all be much better off under a single payer system. But, having said that, I believe that once these problems are straightened out the country will be much better off with a well functioning ACA than we have been without it.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (236271)	10/31/2013 10:41:49 AM
From: renovator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542054

Lost in all of the concern and bloviating regarding the rollout site and loss of limited coverage policies is the long suffering citizen with an employer policy. These have been relentlessly ramping up in cost and deductibles for years and are just not in the current discussion. As current insureds, what are going to be the consequences going forward? More rate hikes? Will the insurers broaden or restrict their networks now?