# Aca is a 'cash grab' fraud



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

ACA was not ready to launch, but it was pushed to generate huge profits for health insurance companies as the government is getting a share of the added revenue in the form of taxes from the insurance companies charging massive premiums --about 200 billion a year in tax revenue that was the lure to get other lenders to buy more treasury bonds.
It didn't work because no one is signing up for ACA.
Canada got the software contract @ 88 million 3 years ago. Most of the work was shopped out to India. Last minute changes in the basic architecture of the system was to get people to go through the enrollment giving the name and banking information before seeing the costs/options offered. It was a trap contrary to marketing ethics. When you opted out, you were emailed that a huge fine would be assessed if you didn't go back in and choose an insurance plan.
This was a pork barrel project from day one that could have been designed for $5 million. Last estimate of the ACA implementation cost was 600 million with another 100 million to make it successful.
This is simply a 'cash grab' to try and generate immediate new tax revenues to lure lenders to prop up the govt. which is in a free fall economic collapse as we speak and it is failing --notice the return to global warming schemes lately??


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

I find it amazing how many people think that every stupid government action is for the purpose of profiting some set of corporations.

Did it ever occur to you that this stupid government action was passed by a bunch of anti-business types?

If insurance companies are supposed to do so well under this scheme why have more people had their policies cancelled than new policies initiated? Are you aware that profits are limited under ACA?

There are plenty of reasons to dislike ACA. There are probably even some insurance CEOs who thought they would benefit under this scheme when it first passed, but I doubt you'll find too many a year from now whose companies have profited significantly under this law.

If you want to blame someone, leave the private sector out of it. The Democrats passed this monstrosity and they are solely responsible.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Are you saying that a law passed requiring the purchase of a product was not "for the purpose of profiting some set of corporations."? I posted this in another thread, but if the gubt actually wanted everyone to have health care then you make the system single payer or just nationalize the whole system, you dont require everyone to purchase health insurance.
And who in the gubt is anti business? A politician or political party that takes millions from business interests to fund their campaigns? Please give an example as to whom you are speaking about, lets examine their campaign funding, then we can discuss how anti business they are.
Just to pick two who just happen to be your Senators:
Why did all these business people, most of them from out of state give Booker money?
I'll admit the Booker thing (and his predecessor) is a different situation given the circumstances so maybe this isnt a great example, so lets go back to Lautenberg (this is for his whole career).
And the other guy (I'm outside of the red/blue team so I view them as all the same) Menendez (this is for the year he was first elected.
Every one of our politicians is bought and paid for. Why would businesses give them money if they are so "anti business"? They wouldnt.

I'm pretty sure that this will collapse under its own weight soon enough.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> I find it amazing how many people think that every stupid government action is for the purpose of profiting some set of corporations.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that this stupid government action was passed by a bunch of anti-business types?
> 
> ...


{{{If insurance companies are supposed to do so well under this scheme why have more people had their policies cancelled than new policies initiated?}}

Could it be the policies cancelled are bringing in $200 a month and the great ACA will bring in $1000 a month??Seems like a great incentive to cancel hundreds of thousands of policies to me!!!


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> Are you aware that profits are limited under ACA?


This has been law for a long time with insurance companies but it is easy to get around.

This web site boondoggle is bizarre. I am not into conspiracies but even our government can not have screwed up this bad without doing it on purpose. The law passed in 2009 and they couldn't have a simple website ready by 2013? Come on. And millions and millions of dollars spent. It is beyond comprehension that this fiasco happened and is still going on. And if you take their word for it that it is 'just' a screw-up then people should be fired and millions of dollars in returned due to work not performed to contract parameters. But instead in DC its just lah-de-dah business as usual, nothing to see here. No one even gets a reprimand? And the companies (why was there more than one?) that set up the web site are 'working on it'? They had a contract for a finished product at a specified time and they did not fulfill that contract. Cut and dried. No work no pay or severe monetary penalty. But nothing is happening. And they are 'hoping' to get it working in another month or so?
Has anyone in DC ever heard of the word 'responsibility'?
And people still think I'm crazy because I think the USA will collapse? Get real. I'm just surprised if it doesn't collapse today.
Sorry I got on a rant. 
:ranton::rantoff:


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Obamacare was designed to destroy the US economy and give the government control over our very lives. Full time jobs are disappearing. Health care premiums are going way up. You can bet that the same administration that used the IRS against people and groups they considered to be enemies will act the same way when it comes to who gets care and who doesn't.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

JayJay said:


> {{{If insurance companies are supposed to do so well under this scheme why have more people had their policies cancelled than new policies initiated?}}
> 
> Could it be the policies cancelled are bringing in $200 a month and the great ACA will bring in $1000 a month??Seems like a great incentive to cancel hundreds of thousands of policies to me!!!


Only if people actually buy the ACA policies, which so far isn't happening. Also, the new policies require a specific payout ratio, which limits their profitability. Furthermore, the insurance companies are required by ACA to cancel the existing policies because they don't meet ACA minimums.

At this point it looks like the insurance companies may well have less business as a result of ACA. In fact, the way things are going fewer people will be insured than were insured before ACA.

If I were running an insurance company, I would not be happy as of right now.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't think we have to worry about any insurance companies.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

hiwall said:


> I don't think we have to worry about any insurance companies.


Until you need to find one that will offer you insurance coverage that you want at a price you can afford.

My point though is not to get sympathy for insurance companies, but to keep the blame where it belongs, on the Democrats who voted for it. The Democrats would love for you to blame insurance companies for the debacle they created, just like they wanted everyone to blame the banks for the housing meltdown that was created by government requirements for mortgages for people who normally would not qualify.

If the big government types are always able to blame somebody else for the chaos created by government, then we will have lost our freedom for good.

The ACA is not an insurance industry scheme. It has been the wish of the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party going back to before FDR. These are the people responsible for this mess and blaming somebody else is foolish. Blaming insurance companies plays into the hands of the "single payer" types who want an entirely government run program. Do you really want to play the game of "The insurance companies caused this mess, so we need the government to take it over entirely."


----------



## doubleTHICK (Jun 19, 2012)

_In fact, the way things are going fewer people will be insured than were insured before ACA._ - Geek 999

You better believe the fine, whoops I mean tax, the tax will still be in effect. Regardless of the site working or not you still MUST HAVE insurance and if not . . . pay-up sucker!

_Has anyone in DC ever heard of the word 'responsibility'?_ - hiwall

You want someone to take responsibility for the website not working, but, this assumes the website is NOT working. I say the website is doing exactly what they wanted it to do and in their eyes it IS working. Therefore, they have no one to point the finger at.

Sometimes we fall into the quagmire of our government disbelief. In other words, 'No way our government would do that to us'. How many times does that need to be said before we start to see the pattern? "No way our government is now in the insurance business" "No way our government will put in power the IRS over ACA" "No way our government will try to deceive us"

There is something we ALL need to understand - Our government does not do anything that we don't let them do - You can't blame them when we camp-out overnight for a MFing iPhone. Revolution *NEVER *happens on a full stomach.


----------

