It's Working!!

[mostpost]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

[jballscalls]

I just tweeted about this. Every time Obamacare trends it's half posts about how it's the end of the world and half that it will save the world!

I really just wish we could get real accurate facts and know what is accurate, as it seems both sides have studies and statistics that say they're right.

[Clocker]

And it is only going to get better.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111125211141/mugen/images/d/de/Kool-aid-mobile-wallpaper.jpg

And they all lived happily ever after.

[Ocala Mike]

Well, something had better work for the Big O because he's getting his ass kicked on Syria, and the economic "recovery" is anemic, to say the least. All that's left is Obamacare.

[ArlJim78]

lets see, should I believe the people who manage our healthcare at work who've always been honest and upfront, and who have meticulously laid out the reasons why Obamacare has caused our healthcare costs to go up 12% this past year and will go up another 14% next year, AT A MINIMUM, or should I believe the colorful government propaganda poster prepared by people who have never told the truth about anything?
hmm, tough decision.

[iceknight]

Dunno what you are talking about.. here the premiums have gone up for me and it is going to rise further from Jan 2014. And I am not in the old age bracket yet.

Note that they have "semblance of coverage" now.. and more premiums are being sucked from everyone else and redistributed. #sham

[JustRalph]

Dunno what you are talking about.. here the premiums have gone up for me and it is going to rise further from Jan 2014. And I am not in the old age bracket yet.

Note that they have "semblance of coverage" now.. and more premiums are being sucked from everyone else and redistributed. #sham

Hey, don't be skeptical! He's crowing about what? Six states? Surely it's the truth and it will be the same in the other 90% of the country

[Clocker]

Hey, don't be skeptical! He's crowing about what? Six states? Surely it's the truth and it will be the same in the other 90% of the country

Those states currently have the highest health insurance rates in the country, largely because of state regulations. The cost of insurance to many residents of those states will go down under ObamaCare because so many people in those states will qualify for subsidies when they start buying health insurance from the ObamaCare exchanges.

Because there is no such thing as a free lunch, rates in other states will increase, with subsidies flowing from current low cost states to current high cost states.

[OntheRail]

And it is only going to get better.

No it's not regardless of the blue blur you posted from (source) assets.democrats.org

[iceknight]

Those states currently have the highest health insurance rates in the country, largely because of state regulations. The cost of insurance to many residents of those states will go down under ObamaCare because so many people in those states will qualify for subsidies when they start buying health insurance from the ObamaCare exchanges.

Because there is no such thing as a free lunch, rates in other states will increase, with subsidies flowing from current low cost states to current high cost states. And ..that would be my incentive to move out of "the best nation on the planet" where rules are being changed to another where I already might qualify for better health overall (and would anyway pay for the healthcare of others through higher taxes)
Note that I mention, better health.

[Clocker]

No it's not regardless of the blue blur you posted from (source) assets.democrats.org

Didn't you read it? It says that "Almost half of Americans enrolled in the individual market will get subsidies on average of $2672."

Subsidies! That's like free!!! How can it not be better if more and more people are getting free stuff??? How can you be against free stuff???

And it is only going to get better. Eventually it will be free for everyone. Won't that be great??? ;)

[hcap]

No it's not regardless of the blue blur you posted from (source) assets.democrats.org

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/05/kaiser_obamacare_premium_study_affordable_care_act _will_be_cheaper_than.html

Obamacare Premiums Indicates Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than Expected



The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.

......more at the link and the original study at the Kaiser Family Foundation

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/early-look-at-premiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

And

http://kff.org/private-insurance/

Nothing to do with assets.democrats.org and the first graphic. But it does back it up

[hcap]

And Forbes gives details

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2013/09/05/obamacare-premiums-will-be-cheaper-than-expected-big-study-suggests/

"The Kaiser Foundation tried to cut through all that complexity by poring through the numbers for “the 17 states plus the District of Columbia that ahve publicly released comprehensive data on rates or the rate filings submitted by insurers. These include eleven states operating their own exchanges and seven defaulting to a federally-facilitated exchange.”

The study’s conclusion:

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.

[OntheRail]

Didn't you read it? It says that "Almost half of Americans enrolled in the individual market will get subsidies on average of $2672."

Subsidies! That's like free!!! How can it not be better if more and more people are getting free stuff??? How can you be against free stuff???

And it is only going to get better. Eventually it will be free for everyone. Won't that be great??? ;)

Oh-NOOOOO Did some of their Kool-Aid get splashed on you.

Go disinfect your self and repeat Free ain't Free... Uncle Sham's Free stuff comes with translucent strings meant to ensnare you..... Free ain't Free. :faint:

[Clocker]

Oh-NOOOOO Did some of their Kool-Aid get splashed on you.

Go disinfect your self and repeat Free ain't Free... Uncle Sham's Free stuff comes with translucent strings meant to ensnare you..... Free ain't Free. :faint:

Just drink the Kool Aid and it will all make sense to you. The goal is a single payer system, where it is free for everyone. Just like Great Britain. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The study’s conclusion:

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected.

Lower than expected does not mean lower than now. And it does not mean that those premiums are not being increasingly subsidized by tax dollars.

If you think that health care is expensive now, wait until it is free.

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

Play it again Sam!

[sammy the sage]

Play it again Sam!


ok I will...for the 4th time...

""again...not ONE single REAL person has SAVED any money yet BECAUSE of this...

and again...I'll challenge ANYBODY for the 3rd time to post otherwise...

there are already MANY examples posted OF THE opposite happening ALREADY....

[HUSKER55]

Years ago when, Tommy Thompson was running the health department, he claimed that single payer and socialized medicine would lower the standards of health care.

I went to the Kaiser web page and plugged in a family of 4 earning $45 per year with two children and 1 adult smoker. Parents were 26 years old.

The health insurance is $11.5 per year and the subsidy would be $7.3 and depending on the area you live in. With the silver plan you pay 83% of costs and the bronze plan you pay 63% .

you can check it out on mostpost links.

There is also a section on Global Insurance

[Tom]

John Kerry was rejected by the United States in 2004.
Obama was rejected by the world in 2013.

Now they want us to follow then into a war with not clear cut objective, no exit strategy, and now proof there is a need to go.

[mostpost]

John Kerry was rejected by the United States in 2004.
Obama was rejected by the world in 2013.

Now they want us to follow then into a war with not clear cut objective, no exit strategy, and now proof there is a need to go.
What does this have to do with health care. There is at least one Syria thread going.

But in the grand PA tradition of taking a thread totally off the track, let me respond to you. You're right. (Don't believe I said that!) Given the self imposed restrictions, the lack of international support, the lack of domestic support, and the uncertainty of effectiveness this seems more and more a bad idea.

I'm wondering if the administration did not see this and is seeking Congressional approval while hoping they don't get it.

[Greyfox]

The health insurance is $11.5 per year and the subsidy would be $7.3 and depending on the area you live in.

Health insurance is $11.50 per year??
That might cover a box of aspirins and a band aid.

[mostpost]

ok I will...for the 4th time...

""again...not ONE single REAL person has SAVED any money yet BECAUSE of this...

and again...I'll challenge ANYBODY for the 3rd time to post otherwise...

there are already MANY examples posted OF THE opposite happening ALREADY....
You are clearly wrong. (That feels so much better than telling Tom he was right)
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/03/20130321a.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/21/1754711/obamacare-donut-hole-6-billion/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/21/affordable-care-act-3-increased-savings-seniors

Three links to stories of Seniors saving an average of $900 plus dollars due to the ACA closing the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D.

Add to that the $1.1B in rebates handed out to consumers and you have more than a single person saving money on this law.

[Clocker]

Three links to stories of Seniors saving an average of $900 plus dollars due to the ACA closing the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D.



No, that is not 3 links to stories about savings. The first link is to a Dept. of HHS press release. The second link is to a George Soros PAC reposting the press release. And the third link is to the White House site reposting the press release.

[Ocala Mike]

No, that is not 3 links to stories about savings. The first link is to a Dept. of HHS press release. The second link is to a George Soros PAC reposting the press release. And the third link is to the White House site reposting the press release.



You're right! I'll wait until I see it on Fox News to believe it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Kaiser is of course in league with Fat Al Gore and the vast international conspiracy to poison conservatives, and destroy western civilization.

[sammy the sage]

No, that is not 3 links to stories about savings. The first link is to a Dept. of HHS press release. The second link is to a George Soros PAC reposting the press release. And the third link is to the White House site reposting the press release.

You're right...reading comprehension from...well...now we all understand why the postal service is bankrupt.

[hcap]

More garbage debunked.

Study debunks myth of doctors fleeing Medicare

"The claim has become a staple of Republican efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act and transform Medicare into a system in which future elderly receive vouchers to purchase health insurance in the private market. "We are starting to see physicians turn away from taking patients who are on Medicare," the GOP.gov website warns, with "more and more physicians are choosing to opt out of Medicare altogether." In July, the Wall Street Journal dutifully picked up that cudgel, cheering one "doctor goes off the grid" while fretting "more doctors steer clear of Medicare."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/doctors-and-their-medicare-patients.html?hpw&_r=0

"The analysts looked at seven years of federal survey data and found that doctors are not fleeing Medicare in droves; in fact, the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients actually rose to 90.7 percent in 2012 from 87.9 percent in 2005. They are not shunning Medicare patients for better-paying private patients, either; the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients in recent years was slightly higher than the percentage accepting new privately insured patients. "

And

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2013-08-22-Medicare-patients_ST_U.htm

[tucker6]

Kaiser is of course in league with Fat Al Gore and the vast international conspiracy to poison conservatives, and destroy western civilization.
Finally, you and I agree on something ... :)

[sammy the sage]

More garbage debunked.

Study debunks myth of doctors fleeing Medicare

"The claim has become a staple of Republican efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act and transform Medicare into a system in which future elderly receive vouchers to purchase health insurance in the private market. "We are starting to see physicians turn away from taking patients who are on Medicare," the GOP.gov website warns, with "more and more physicians are choosing to opt out of Medicare altogether." In July, the Wall Street Journal dutifully picked up that cudgel, cheering one "doctor goes off the grid" while fretting "more doctors steer clear of Medicare."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/doctors-and-their-medicare-patients.html?hpw&_r=0

"The analysts looked at seven years of federal survey data and found that doctors are not fleeing Medicare in droves; in fact, the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients actually rose to 90.7 percent in 2012 from 87.9 percent in 2005. They are not shunning Medicare patients for better-paying private patients, either; the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients in recent years was slightly higher than the percentage accepting new privately insured patients. "

And

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2013-08-22-Medicare-patients_ST_U.htm

You've got THE cart in FRONT of the horse...come back and post the figs in 2016...when AHA is MAYBE in full... :lol: :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Finally, you and I agree on something ... :)Actually, I prefer to think of AL as "hefty" :) :)

[hcap]

You've got THE cart in FRONT of the horse...come back and post the figs in 2016...when AHA is MAYBE in full... Aren't both sides here doing this, and haven't we been doing this in each dispute. In fact isn't the entire political world always doing and running a "prediction game"?

In other words Sammy, Big..F..Deal!

[sammy the sage]

Aren't both sides here doing this, and haven't we been doing this in each dispute. In fact isn't the entire political world always doing and running a "prediction game"?

In other words Sammy, Big..F..Deal!

that ALL you got...funny...other side does THE same on other topics...I'm just in THE middle getting CRUSHED by BOTH.

[johnhannibalsmith]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coping with advanced cancer, Bev Veals was in the hospital for chemo this summer when she got a call that her health plan was shutting down. Then, the substitute insurance she was offered wanted her to pay up to $3,125, on top of premiums.

It sounds like one of those insurance horror stories President Barack Obama told to sell his health overhaul to Congress, but Veals wasn't in the clutches of a profit-driven company. Instead, she's covered by Obama's law — one of about 100,000 people with serious medical issues in a financially troubled government program.

Congrats!!!!!! It's working!!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/patients-bill-soars-health-law-program-falters-20200662

[HUSKER55]

who said there are no death panels?

[FantasticDan]

[INDENT]
Congrats!!!!!! It's working!!!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/patients-bill-soars-health-law-program-falters-20200662Seems like the problem is that the PCIP program encountered some issues and wasn't able to make a funding adjustment due to political considerations. How nice. :ThmbDown:

There are plenty of folks out there happy that the PCIP program exists:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/pcip-obamacare-supreme-court-health-insurance_n_1634449.html

[Dave Schwartz]

Truthfully, if the ACA "works" I am all for it.

IMHO, access to good medical care SHOULD be a right rather than a privilege.

That being said, I do not see how it can work, especially not since Medicare has been such a failure.

I will let you know OUR experience by the end of October when we are signed up for the exchange plan.


Dave Schwartz

[johnhannibalsmith]

Seems like the problem is that the PCIP program encountered some issues and wasn't able to make a funding adjustment due to political considerations. How nice. :ThmbDown:

...

Well, surprise. The sustainable program with ample funding that will drive down expenses, lower the deficit, and make everyone fat and happy forever and ever can't meet one its first promises without more money and more political sparring over where to get the money that it didn't have because of projections tailor fitted for rose-colored glasses. Yeah, it's working.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Truthfully, if the ACA "works" I am all for it.

IMHO, access to good medical care SHOULD be a right rather than a privilege.

...

A right? It's a mandate. An edict.

[HUSKER55]

there is a lot of bad ideas in medicare. for example, how do you use a scooter in a tri-level. If you need an elevator for the stairs you probably should be in assisted living.

The pricing and equipment rentals are a rip off. You can only see one doctor per day. Had that one pulled on me.

I don't have a car so when the neighbors go downtown I tried to get my prescriptions done to match my ride. There are time limits on prescriptions and the pharmacy does not care.

I think the program is correct but government has corrupted it.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm wondering if the administration did not see this and is seeking Congressional approval while hoping they don't get it.Nothing spells LEADERSHIP more than this...wouldn't you agree mostpost?

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

Apparently these righties (a.k.a. Corporate Loyalist) haven't been listening. I think they need to review. :jump:

[HUSKER55]

even bill Clinton said there were flaws in it.

Just curious, how much of your paycheck should be taken out for state taxes, federal taxes, social security and health care?

[Capper Al]

even bill Clinton said there were flaws in it.

Just curious, how much of your paycheck should be taken out for state taxes, federal taxes, social security and health care?

What doesn't have flaws in it?

[HUSKER55]

ok...how big of a flaw are you willing to pay for?

BO wants abut 10% of your check for health care. I think it will be higher.

Between Social Security, State taxes and federal taxes, sales taxes and taxes at the pump..lets call it 15%.


25% of your check is now in the government's account. I am pretty sure I am light.

So again...where is your stop line?

[HUSKER55]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blue-cross-aetna-united-humana-flee-obamacare-exchanges

Aetna and several other major carriers are not going to participate in obamacare.

That means you can only keep your doctor if the new plan has your doctor.

[mostpost]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blue-cross-aetna-united-humana-flee-obamacare-exchanges

Aetna and several other major carriers are not going to participate in obamacare.

That means you can only keep your doctor if the new plan has your doctor.
If you are going to summarize an on line article, do it correctly. Those companies are not participating in the insurance exchanges in a few states. There are many states in which they are participating. Furthermore, the states which they have opted out of still have a number of participating insurance companies.

Most of the people who will be seeking coverage through these exchanges did not have insurance so they did not have a doctor to keep to begin with.
Those people who have insurance and a doctor don't have to have anything to do with the exchanges.

Nothing in Obamacare is forcing individuals to get insurance through the exchanges if they already have coverage. Nothing in Obamacare is forcing companies to drop coverage or cut hours. As I said before, blaming Obamacare for the fact that companies are cutting employee hours in order to avoid providing health insurance is like blaming banks for being robbed.

I think I said that before. If I didn't I said it now.

[Clocker]

Nothing in Obamacare is forcing companies to drop coverage or cut hours.
You are correct. ObamaCare does not legally compel employers to drop insurance or cut hours. It is rational decision making and economic self-preservation on the part of the employer that compels them to do so.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... blaming Obamacare for the fact that companies are cutting employee hours in order to avoid providing health insurance is like blaming banks for being robbed.

...

Great analogy. :lol:

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Nothing in Obamacare is forcing companies to drop coverage or cut hours.

Postradomus speaks!
All heed the sage!

[HUSKER55]

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

these rate are going up, some are 255%. with more people paying in they should go down. wouldn't you think?

[newtothegame]

If you are going to summarize an on line article, do it correctly. Those companies are not participating in the insurance exchanges in a few states. There are many states in which they are participating. Furthermore, the states which they have opted out of still have a number of participating insurance companies.

Most of the people who will be seeking coverage through these exchanges did not have insurance so they did not have a doctor to keep to begin with.
Those people who have insurance and a doctor don't have to have anything to do with the exchanges.

Nothing in Obamacare is forcing individuals to get insurance through the exchanges if they already have coverage. Except the fact that individuals are losing coverages due to companies dropping them and cutting hours. Nothing in Obamacare is forcing companies to drop coverage or cut hours, except for the fact that the penalties obamacare implements on companies for not providing coverage is cheaper then continuing to cover employees. As I said before, blaming Obamacare for the fact that companies are cutting employee hours in order to avoid providing health insurance is like blaming banks for being robbed, even if Trumpka, one of my heroes say's its so. I refuse to believe him to!!

I think I said that before. If I didn't I said it now.

FTFY

[mostpost]

except for the fact that the penalties obamacare implements on companies for not providing coverage is cheaper then continuing to cover employees.
That does not make any sense. Before Obamacare there were no penalties, yet companies continued to offer coverage. They continued to offer coverage when it would have cost them nothing to drop it and now they drop it and have to pay a fine to do so. I believe the reason they are doing so is because they think they have a scapegoat. Blame it on Obamacare. It doesn't matter that the real reason is to line the pockets of the shareholders and executives.

[Clocker]

Before Obamacare there were no penalties, yet companies continued to offer coverage. They continued to offer coverage when it would have cost them nothing to drop it and now they drop it and have to pay a fine to do so.

The level of coverage that many employers would have to pay for under ObamaCare is a lot more expensive than what they were providing. The fact that they were providing coverage is not relevant. If the penalty under ObamaCare is significantly less than the cost of complying with ObamaCare, then it makes economic sense to pay the fine and drop coverage. Or cut hours to under 30/week, and avoid it all.

[mostpost]

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

these rate are going up, some are 255%. with more people paying in they should go down. wouldn't you think?
They are lying to you. Thank God your pal Mostpost is here to tell you the truth. They tell you that under Obamacare the cheapest plan in Ohio is three times what the cheapest plan was before Obamacare. What they don't tell you is that your deductible under the old plan was $7500. Under Obamacare the most it can be is $2,000. Your maximum annual out of pocket expense is lower under Obamacare by at least $1500.

In Virginia Obamacare will cost $1608; the old plan $456. In Virginia your deductible is again $7500; your maximum out of pocket expense go up to $11,000 and you pay a 50% copay.

In Maryland under the old system you pay $744; your deductible is $10,000; your max is $12,500 and your copay is 30%.

To put it another way, under the old system the chances are very good your insurance company would not have had to pay a single penny. And if they did have to pay anything, you would have paid 30 to 50% of that amount.

[Clocker]

They are lying to you. Thank God your pal Mostpost is here to tell you the truth. They tell you that under Obamacare the cheapest plan in Ohio is three times what the cheapest plan was before Obamacare. What they don't tell you is that your deductible under the old plan was $7500. Under Obamacare the most it can be is $2,000.

By your own figures, people are paying a higher premium to get a lower deductible, whether they want to or not. For many people, it makes common sense to pay less and have a higher deductible. ObamaCare says you are too dumb to make that decision yourself.

Your maximum annual out of pocket expense is lower under Obamacare by at least $1500.

Only if your claims are high enough. People who don't max out their deductible, which is to say most people, end up paying more. Again, they are not allowed to make a rational choice based on their situation.

[JustRalph]

Only if your claims are high enough. People who don't max out their deductible, which is to say most people, end up paying more. Again, they are not allowed to make a rational choice based on their situation.

I was hoping someone would bring this point up.

Btw, this is where young people are going to get royally and completely screwed.....<------and I wanted to use another word there...........

[Clocker]

Btw, this is where young people are going to get royally and completely screwed

And young males get screwed worse than females. ObamaCare prohibits charging different rates based on gender, even though it is established actuarial fact that the costs of health care for women is higher, and that insurance companies pay out more in benefits to women than to men. Somebody has to pay for that "free" reproductive health care, so men have to pick up the tab. So guys are getting screwed even if they aren't getting screwed.

[Tom]

Legal thought - no more paternity suits.
Under the Unaffordable Care Act, no woman has any excuse for getting pregnant other than by her free choice. Men can assume now that birth control has been taken care of.

[HUSKER55]

getting nervous tom? :lol:

[jballscalls]

And young males get screwed worse than females. ObamaCare prohibits charging different rates based on gender, even though it is established actuarial fact that the costs of health care for women is higher, and that insurance companies pay out more in benefits to women than to men. Somebody has to pay for that "free" reproductive health care, so men have to pick up the tab. So guys are getting screwed even if they aren't getting screwed.

Wouldn't helping to pay for proper reproductive care save us money in other ways, like having to support unwanted babies, hopefully paying for less abortions via gov't funded places like PP, and not having to support single moms with 8 kids leaching off the system?

I'd gladly pay for reproductive care if it keeps unwanted pregnancies from happening and allows those women to work or stay in school longer to have a chance at a better career and life when they do have kids.

JMO

[johnhannibalsmith]

Wouldn't helping to pay for proper reproductive care save us money in other ways, like having to support unwanted babies, hopefully paying for less abortions via gov't funded places like PP, and not having to support single moms with 8 kids leaching off the system?

I'd gladly pay for reproductive care if it keeps unwanted pregnancies from happening and allows those women to work or stay in school longer to have a chance at a better career and life when they do have kids.

JMO

All this - plus - we have more than enough humans roaming the earth now regardless of their lot in life and parental circumstances. I know it's commie talk and sounds satanic, but I'm for anything that helps stem our prolific and exponential overburdening of available resources.

[Clocker]

Wouldn't helping to pay for proper reproductive care save us money in other ways, like having to support unwanted babies, hopefully paying for less abortions via gov't funded places like PP, and not having to support single moms with 8 kids leaching off the system?

If society wants to fund such things, it should do so in an open and honest manner, through general tax funds. Funding this through artificially high premiums to young males is a hidden tax. And it is a regressive tax, with a disproportionate burden on the young and on low income groups.

The end does not justify the means. If you want it, pay for it. Don't shift the burden to young males just because it is politically expedient. BTW, this "free" reproductive care for all also means that young women pay more than they should in order to subsidize the premiums of older women, who use even more health care.

[mostpost]

By your own figures, people are paying a higher premium to get a lower deductible, whether they want to or not. For many people, it makes common sense to pay less and have a higher deductible. ObamaCare says you are too dumb to make that decision yourself.



Only if your claims are high enough. People who don't max out their deductible, which is to say most people, end up paying more. Again, they are not allowed to make a rational choice based on their situation.
Some people are too dumb. We have one poster here who has four children under the age of 14. He thinks it is a good idea to have no health insurance. And he got very offended when I told him he was a fool. You never know what might happen and thinking you are invincible is a fool's choice.

I would rather pay $1900 a year ($158 a month for good coverage than pay $460 a year ($38 a month) and worry that I might be on the hook for thousands more if something catastrophic happens. Twenty and thirty and forty year olds get cancer and have heart attacks and get into automobile accidents too.

[mostpost]

And young males get screwed worse than females. ObamaCare prohibits charging different rates based on gender, even though it is established actuarial fact that the costs of health care for women is higher, and that insurance companies pay out more in benefits to women than to men. Somebody has to pay for that "free" reproductive health care, so men have to pick up the tab. So guys are getting screwed even if they aren't getting screwed.
Let me guess. You are a young male. Like most young males you are self centered and selfish. We have laws that prohibit people being treated differently based on gender. The basis of insurance is that a large number of people will share the cost of care for a smaller number that need care. That is not unfair because you never know which of those people will be needing care.

If you never need care, you benefit because you are healthy. If you need care you benefit because the cost of that care is considerably less than it would have been. That does not mean that someone else is paying an equal amount as you for care you received. The premiums may be similar, but no insurance pays for everything. Anyone who has had a major illness or surgery knows that the out of pocket expenses are considerable.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Some people are too dumb. We have one poster here who has four children under the age of 14. He thinks it is a good idea to have no health insurance. And he got very offended when I told him he was a fool. You never know what might happen and thinking you are invincible is a fool's choice.

I would rather pay $1900 a year ($158 a month for good coverage than pay $460 a year ($38 a month) and worry that I might be on the hook for thousands more if something catastrophic happens. Twenty and thirty and forty year olds get cancer and have heart attacks and get into automobile accidents too.

So, the answer is clearly to force him via legislation into not being what you consider a fool. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Wouldn't helping to pay for proper reproductive care save us money in other ways, like having to support unwanted babies, hopefully paying for less abortions via gov't funded places like PP, and not having to support single moms with 8 kids leaching off the system?

I'd gladly pay for reproductive care if it keeps unwanted pregnancies from happening and allows those women to work or stay in school longer to have a chance at a better career and life when they do have kids.

JMO
You make an excellent point and one which does not apply to reproductive care. Providing health insurance to those who did not previously have it saves money on emergency care. Money spent on public education saves money on welfare and public safety.

[Clocker]

Let me guess. You are a young male. Like most young males you are self centered and selfish.


It sure is hard to get one past you. You got me all figured out. Well, you got the male part right.

We have laws that prohibit people being treated differently based on gender.

We didn't have such a law about health insurance until ObamaCare. We still have life insurance and auto insurance rates that vary with gender, because those risks are statistically different. By your logic, we shouldn't charge people different rates for insurance based on age either. That's not fair, we should all bear the burden equally, right.

[Clocker]

Providing health insurance to those who did not previously have it saves money on emergency care.

Do you have any evidence to show that using tax money to provide health insurance to poor people costs any less than using tax money to provide MedicAid?

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

These guys just ain't getting it. Play it one more time Sam. Thanks.

[Tom]

Wouldn't helping to pay for proper reproductive care save us money in other ways, like having to support unwanted babies, hopefully paying for less abortions via gov't funded places like PP, and not having to support single moms with 8 kids leaching off the system?


How about we pay for mandatory spaying?
One time fee.

[Tom]

And he got very offended when I told him he was a fool.

I always regretted you two never met in person.
As you said, "You never know what might happen."

[PaceAdvantage]

Some people are too dumb. We have one poster here who has four children under the age of 14. He thinks it is a good idea to have no health insurance. And he got very offended when I told him he was a fool. You never know what might happen and thinking you are invincible is a fool's choice.You talking about lsbets? Man, he must have whomped you good that you're still thinking about him.

[PaceAdvantage]

These guys just ain't getting it. Play it one more time Sam. Thanks.Oh, we're getting it all right. We're getting it real good...

[HUSKER55]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Obamacare+Subsidies+Table&FORM=QSRE3


everyone needs to look at these tables to get an idea of what is being discussed

[mostpost]

FEHB premiums for 2014 will be out in early October. We shall see.

[JustRalph]

Don't worry...........you can keep your plan.........and your doctor

The Liar in Chief said so......................


7ZqAZzWrI8g#t=61

[sammy the sage]

"Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently got a nasty surprise in the mail.

"When I saw the letter when I came home from work," Andy said, describing the large red wording on the envelope from his insurance carrier, "(it said) 'your action required,benefit changes, act now.' Of course I opened it immediately."

It had stunning news. Insurance for the Mangiones and their two boys,which they bought on the individual market, was going to almost triple in 2014 --- from $333 a month to $965.

The insurance carrier made it clear the increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/one-man-obamacare-nightmare/

[FantasticDan]

^
A related article on those "misleading intentionally" Humana letters:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2013/09/09/304518.htm

[HUSKER55]

I had a complaint with Humana several years ago. I called the state and sent them the details they requested.

In short, they have no real power. You have to get your own attorney to do anything.

Before you get involved with the state make sure they can do something. otherwise you will just shuffle papers.

[mostpost]

"Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently got a nasty surprise in the mail.

"When I saw the letter when I came home from work," Andy said, describing the large red wording on the envelope from his insurance carrier, "(it said) 'your action required,benefit changes, act now.' Of course I opened it immediately."

It had stunning news. Insurance for the Mangiones and their two boys,which they bought on the individual market, was going to almost triple in 2014 --- from $333 a month to $965.

The insurance carrier made it clear the increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/one-man-obamacare-nightmare/
$333 a month? In Kentucky in 2010 the typical family paid $1112 a month for insurance. If the Mangiones are now paying $333 a month, they have a very high deductible, low benefits policy. The ACA requires them to purchase a policy which meets certain standards.

You may not like the idea that the government can mandate coverage levels, but that does not indicate a premium increase. If the Mangione's carrier had increased their premium for the same coverage, that would be a premium increase. They will now be paying $965 a month for coverage that the typical Kentucky family was paying $1112 a month for in 2010. Sounds like a premium decrease to me.

[mostpost]

^
A related article on those "misleading intentionally" Humana letters:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2013/09/09/304518.htm
Surely, you are not suggesting that an insurance company would use Obamacare to mislead its customers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...You may not like the idea that the government can mandate coverage levels, but that does not indicate a premium increase. If the Mangione's carrier had increased their premium for the same coverage, that would be a premium increase. They will now be paying $965 a month for coverage that the typical Kentucky family was paying $1112 a month for in 2010. Sounds like a premium decrease to me.

Wow, this is brass balls even for you. This shit is so ****ing stupid and you know it, but you're still going to play the fool and claim that they are paying less because of what they should buy according to the all-knowing government and the fact that what they should buy costs less for the same policy in some other state. That's insane thinking. Two swipes at everything we are supposed to be about in an equal number of statements.

[OntheRail]

So MOPO do they pay you by the number of post you make or is it a flat rate per day. To constantly polish on this turd and spin shit?

[JustRalph]

If Obama was mandating what options you are forced to buy in your car or maybe a house, people would be screaming.

The government forcing you to buy something you don't need is tyranny. Plain and simple

[Tom]

Even Baghdad Bob is shaking his head over that one!

[Capper Al]

^
A related article on those "misleading intentionally" Humana letters:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2013/09/09/304518.htm

Thanks for sharing. This article corrects the misinformation disseminated by Fox news in the previous post.

[mostpost]

Wow, this is brass balls even for you. This shit is so ****ing stupid and you know it, but you're still going to play the fool and claim that they are paying less because of what they should buy according to the all-knowing government and the fact that what they should buy costs less for the same policy in some other state. That's insane thinking. Two swipes at everything we are supposed to be about in an equal number of statements.
It is not some other state. The Mangiones live in Louisville, Ky. So it is not ****ing stupid.

The government mandates a lot of things for the good of the whole. Things like stopping at stop lights and driving on only one side of the road. Things like paying taxes and not throwing your waste water out the window.

[mostpost]

So MOPO do they pay you by the number of post you make or is it a flat rate per day. To constantly polish on this turd and spin shit?
Nobody pays me to do anything. I post here because I cannot stand the stupidity coming from your side of the aisle. I hate the deceit and misinformation your side is spewing about Obamacare and anything Obama related. Take your choice, you are either a liar or a willing victim of those who are lying to you.

[mostpost]

If Obama was mandating what options you are forced to buy in your car or maybe a house, people would be screaming.

The government forcing you to buy something you don't need is tyranny. Plain and simple
I think he already is and I don't hear any screaming. Seat belts are mandatory and there are regulations concerning gas tanks and gas caps. There are regulations concerning building materials and construction methods.

[FantasticDan]

I hate the deceit and misinformation your side is spewing about Obamacare and anything Obama related.Good article that details facts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/obamacare-change_n_3975425.html

[johnhannibalsmith]

It is not some other state. The Mangiones live in Louisville, Ky. So it is not ****ing stupid.

The government mandates a lot of things for the good of the whole. Things like stopping at stop lights and driving on only one side of the road. Things like paying taxes and not throwing your waste water out the window.

Yeah, on the first part, I have no idea what I read that prompted the interpretation that I had there. So, sorry for that. But, of course, on the latter portion which is the meat and potatoes... that is still so ****ing stupid!

I'm sorry, I am sure that comparing rules of the road and the implementation of stop signs to mandatory consumption of a privately sold consumer good as a condition of life in this country under threat of penalty from the most hated enforcement arm of our bloated government makes sense to you. Fine. But what that means to me is that there is literally no end to the things that you think government should be compelled to make you do for the alleged "greater good" of all. I hate that justification you make because you go from seatbelts and speed limits to this ridiculous extreme that we have now and you use the former to justify the latter, essentially approving any and all extension of this absurd philosophy. And at some point, you will be making the same argument that I am now.

[Capper Al]

Good article that details facts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/obamacare-change_n_3975425.html

Don't confuse the righties with facts.

[Clocker]

I think he already is and I don't hear any screaming. Seat belts are mandatory and there are regulations concerning gas tanks and gas caps.

A totally pointless comparison. The courts have ruled that driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right, and subject to reasonable limitations. If you only use a vehicle on private property (farm vehicles, etc.) those things are not mandatory. Neither are auto insurance, license plates, etc.

ObamaCare puts limits on human rights of life, liberty, and property. To compare that to traffic laws is absurd.

[Clocker]

If the Mangiones are now paying $333 a month, they have a very high deductible, low benefits policy. The ACA requires them to purchase a policy which meets certain standards.


They did have a high deductible policy. That was their free choice, and they assumed the financial consequences. Why is that any business of yours? Or Obama's?

[JustRalph]

From the article:

"There's already been a steady drumbeat of news stories about companies changing health benefits, like Trader Joe's and Home Depot dropping part-time workers from their health plans."

Unless you work for one of those companies.

"That doesn't mean all workers will keep what they have. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 7 million fewer people will get their health insurance through work by 2023, although jobs will remain the most common source of health coverage for Americans. People who work part-time, have low-wage jobs or are employed by smaller companies are most likely to lose their job-based benefits and to use the exchanges instead."

What about Obama's promise to keep your plan? Just another lie, for millions of people.

"Those shopping on the marketplaces will see changes. People who currently buy their own insurance will find that some cheap, skimpy plans sold to individuals today won't be available, [b]and some younger, healthier people may see higher sticker prices -- especially if they don't qualify for tax credit subsidies.[b]"

Young people are getting screwed royally on Obamacare. they are going to pay a ton for something they dont want or need. Forcing people to buy something they don't want, is un-American and is unconstitutional, no matter what John Roberts thinks. Don't give me that tired old argument about forcing people to buy car insurance. There are tons of lower options when buying car insurance.

"Others will gain access to coverage they didn't have and get help paying for it."

This is what the young people will be paying for. Wealth re-distribution at it's finest.

There's nothing revelatory in that article if you have been paying attention. The basic facts and objections are the same. The president lied. The numbers being used are in no way locked in and the implementation of this atrocity will accomplish it's goal of pushing the country closer to government run socialist style healthcare. The single payer hue and cry will begin immediately after basic implementation. Hillary will be expected to carry the ball.

[Clocker]

This is what the young people will be paying for. Wealth re-distribution at it's finest.



Exactly. ObamaCare is a hidden tax to pay for the next step on the road to socialized medicine. The Dems knew that they couldn't just create another entitlement program and honestly call it free insurance paid for by your taxes. So they created a new tax, put the insurance companies in charge of collecting it and disbursing it, and they all lived happily ever after.

Except the young who have to pay for the free health insurance for others by buying more insurance than they need. And the men who have to pay the same as women, even though women's healthcare costs more. And like the family in the news who have to pay an added $600 a month because the libs think that they are too stupid and selfish to be allowed to make their own decisions.

[Clocker]

What about Obama's promise to keep your plan? Just another lie, for millions of people.

Obama also promised no new taxes or tax increases for any one making less than $200K a year. I am sure he would deny the hidden taxes in ObamaCare to pay for "free" insurance for others. But there is another new tax that cannot be ignored: the individual mandate tax.

They tried to weasel around that by calling it a penalty, but SCOTUS said it was a tax. They are still trying to weasel around the truth through gross distortion of the English language. According to the government, if you fail to comply with the individual mandate, you do not pay a tax, you are accessed a "shared responsibility payment".

They can call it what they want, but it is a tax. And it was a lie.

[mostpost]

From the article:

"There's already been a steady drumbeat of news stories about companies changing health benefits, like Trader Joe's and Home Depot dropping part-time workers from their health plans."

Unless you work for one of those companies.

"That doesn't mean all workers will keep what they have. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 7 million fewer people will get their health insurance through work by 2023, although jobs will remain the most common source of health coverage for Americans. People who work part-time, have low-wage jobs or are employed by smaller companies are most likely to lose their job-based benefits and to use the exchanges instead."

What about Obama's promise to keep your plan? Just another lie, for millions of people.

"Those shopping on the marketplaces will see changes. People who currently buy their own insurance will find that some cheap, skimpy plans sold to individuals today won't be available, and some younger, healthier people may see higher sticker prices -- especially if they don't qualify for tax credit subsidies.[b]"

Young people are getting screwed royally on Obamacare. they are going to pay a ton for something they dont want or need. Forcing people to buy something they don't want, is un-American and is unconstitutional, no matter what John Roberts thinks. Don't give me that tired old argument about forcing people to buy car insurance. There are tons of lower options when buying car insurance.

"Others will gain access to coverage they didn't have and get help paying for it."

This is what the young people will be paying for. Wealth re-distribution at it's finest.

There's nothing revelatory in that article if you have been paying attention. The basic facts and objections are the same. The president lied. The numbers being used are in no way locked in and the implementation of this atrocity will accomplish it's goal of pushing the country closer to government run socialist style healthcare. The single payer hue and cry will begin immediately after basic implementation. Hillary will be expected to carry the ball.
Let's talk about the parts of the article that you ignored or refused to see.
Right after your quoted paragraph about Trader Joe's and Home Depot, we find this paragraph:
While this phenomenon is real and disruptive to those workers, the outliers shouldn't be cause for concern for most people who have job-based health benefits, said Helen Darling, the president and CEO of the National Business Group on Health, a Washington-based association of large employers.
Followed by:
A survey of U.S. employers found that [B]93.5 percent of companies definitely or very likely will continue to offer health benefits to workers, compared to 1 percent that definitely won't or are very likely not to, according to a report the International Federation of Health Benefit Plans, a London-based trade group, issued in May.

This survey is even more interesting when you compare it with the same survey taken one year ago.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1142103/original.jpg
The first thing that you should notice is that in 2012 46.2% of employers said they would definitely continue to offer health insurance. In 2013 that number had risen to 69.5%. That means that an additional 22.3% of employers looked at Obamacare and decided to continue offering health insurance.

While you are looking at the table, you should also note that the combined definitely will and very likely to categories increased from 85.5% in 2012 to 93.7% in 2013; the three positive categories went from 95.3% to 97.7% and all of the negative (somewhat unlikely, very unlikely, definitely won't) all decreased.

By a margin of 93.5 to 1 companies are going to continue to provide health insurance. In spite of this, I am certain that you and your little friends will continue to post stories about the occasional company that decides not to.

[mostpost]

What about Obama's promise to keep your plan? Just another lie, for millions of people.
You keep asking this same stupid question and I keep explaining it to you. Obama'a promise was that there was nothing in the Affordable Care Act which would force or require anyone to leave their current plan. He did not guarantee that the company you work for would not drop the plan they were previously offering. When that happens-about one percent of the time as we learned above-the onus is on the company, not on Obamacare.

[mostpost]

Yeah, on the first part, I have no idea what I read that prompted the interpretation that I had there. So, sorry for that. But, of course, on the latter portion which is the meat and potatoes... that is still so ****ing stupid!

I'm sorry, I am sure that comparing rules of the road and the implementation of stop signs to mandatory consumption of a privately sold consumer good as a condition of life in this country under threat of penalty from the most hated enforcement arm of our bloated government makes sense to you. Fine. But what that means to me is that there is literally no end to the things that you think government should be compelled to make you do for the alleged "greater good" of all. I hate that justification you make because you go from seatbelts and speed limits to this ridiculous extreme that we have now and you use the former to justify the latter, essentially approving any and all extension of this absurd philosophy. And at some point, you will be making the same argument that I am now.
OK, let's forget the rules of the road and let's forget auto insurance. You should be required to buy health insurance because if you don't it puts a greater burden on me.

People who do not have health insurance are likely to wait too long when they become ill. That means they are spreading disease. When they finally do see a doctor it is usually at an emergency room. Emergency rooms are not free. I pay for those visits.

Now let's say that you do not have insurance, but you pay for doctor visits out of pocket. Fine as long as you do not become seriously ill or injured.

I have paid for health insurance from the time I started working. From the time I left the army to the time I was in my fifties, I never set foot in a doctor's office. In that time I estimate conservatively that I paid $35,000 in premiums. Someone like you who refuses to buy health insurance pays nothing. Then he gets into his fifties and decides he needs insurance. I have been paying in for thirty plus years and he gets the same benefits I do. Sounds like an anchor to me.

[Clocker]

Obama'a promise was that there was nothing in the Affordable Care Act which would force or require anyone to leave their current plan.

You are not able to keep your current plan when your insurance company stops offering it because it is not a qualified plan under ObamaCare. But at the microscopic nit-picking level where you love to operate, you are correct. ObamaCare does not force you to leave your plan.

In ObamaLand, you don't leave plan, plan leaves you.

[JustRalph]

Line up young people, you're about to take it in the rear.

Even Bill Clinton admits it......from Clinton's public appearance with Obama on Tuesday

"So, so far, it’s good, but I think it’s important for you to tell the people why we’re doing all this outreach, because this only works, for example, if young people show up, and even if they buy the cheapest plan, then they claim their tax credit so it won’t cost them much, 100 bucks a month or so. We’ve got to have them in the pools, because otherwise all these projected low costs cannot be held if older people with preexisting conditions are disproportionately represented in any given state. You’ve got to have everybody lined up."

[Tom]

A totally pointless comparison. The courts have ruled that driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right, and subject to reasonable limitations. If you only use a vehicle on private property (farm vehicles, etc.) those things are not mandatory. Neither are auto insurance, license plates, etc.

ObamaCare puts limits on human rights of life, liberty, and property. To compare that to traffic laws is absurd.

THIS is the type of person who lauds nO-Care. :lol:
And THAT is the best they have to offer.

That fact is, Obama care does ZERO to improve or address Health CARE - only health INSURANCE. hcap was happy to post article about how poor our HC here was, but this ridiculous bill only makes everything about it worse. As with Global Warming, the left know nothing about the topic at hand - they parrot a political message while oblivious to the reality around them. Unlike GW, this one will come home to hurt them. I say they deserve it.

Only an idiot - and that is an invitation - would argue nO-Care will help improve health care. Having insurance is meaningless when the care it gets you is shoddy, or non existent.

Already, the govt has outsource implementation to 7 HC industry companies because - guess what - THEY COULD NOT HANDLE IT! Not even up and running and the government has failed.

[Clocker]

Only an idiot - and that is an invitation - would argue nO-Care will help improve health care. Having insurance is meaningless when the care it gets you is shoddy, or non existent.



And we haven't even started to talk about death panels yet. :eek:

[johnhannibalsmith]

OK, let's forget the rules of the road and let's forget auto insurance. You should be required to buy health insurance because if you don't it puts a greater burden on me.

People who do not have health insurance are likely to wait too long when they become ill. That means they are spreading disease. When they finally do see a doctor it is usually at an emergency room. Emergency rooms are not free. I pay for those visits.

Now let's say that you do not have insurance, but you pay for doctor visits out of pocket. Fine as long as you do not become seriously ill or injured.

I have paid for health insurance from the time I started working. From the time I left the army to the time I was in my fifties, I never set foot in a doctor's office. In that time I estimate conservatively that I paid $35,000 in premiums. Someone like you who refuses to buy health insurance pays nothing. Then he gets into his fifties and decides he needs insurance. I have been paying in for thirty plus years and he gets the same benefits I do. Sounds like an anchor to me.

Mostie, I could sit here for an hour and dream up a dozen hypotheticals of scenarios where if you assume that the irresponsible have the potential to burden others by their choices in life, that legislation would be warranted to mitigate the effect of their poor choices for themselves upon others.

And frankly, when you read that sentence a time or two, you should probably see something weird about it when it is a philosophy espoused by you. Obviously, you sound exactly like a heartless conservative. So either it's a convenient argument for argument's sake, or you have more in common with some of your favorite debate partners than you care to admit. :D

I don't really care in the practical sense. The law is good for me if I'm just looking out for yours truly. I can make the most of it for sure given my place in life. But it's the wrong solution - hell, it isn't even remotely close to a solution to the core elements of the problem as initially defined. I hope I'm wrong and the sacrifices that we are making idealistically for this type of alleged "reform" is justified by the outcomes, but I just don't see how it is remotely possible.

edit: I should add - I paid for premiums for much of my younger years while working for the good old government as well. I had a few experiences with insurance much like Goren's and that was it for me. I don't do business with them unless absolutely unavoidable. Same with banks. It isn't a matter of dollars and sense, it's purely because I am a hard-headed idealist and will put myself out - and believe me I have considering what I've spent paying cash for care in the last few years - if the alternative is the slimy feeling that I get supporting something that I detest. I can't wait until it is determined that we all must have checking accounts so the IRS can do what they want with our money before we see it.

[OntheRail]

Nobody pays me to do anything. I post here because I cannot stand the stupidity coming from your side of the aisle. I hate the deceit and misinformation your side is spewing about Obamacare and anything Obama related. Take your choice, you are either a liar or a willing victim of those who are lying to you.

Sir I'm neither a lair nor a fool. I'm also not on any side... hell I register as a Democrat in the past just so I could vote in a primary for the right guy (not your guy). But I'm a independent I don't vote any party line. I can't and won't walk locked step with any party... unlike YOU. You seem to lap up whatever is vomited from your left and will regurgitate and swallow it on demand, no matter how bitterly wrong you truly know it is. This is a bad law and will have untold ramification. You won't see that as your left sighted... but if Bush had pulled this you'd be up in arms... Only difference is we'd be on the same side cause it still be a bad law coming from the right.

Many like the odd idea of self. As in I can take care of myself and my needs... I don't want Big Bother controlling every aspect of my life. If I'm not causing harm to others leave me the phuck alone. That's what America's about... not this nanny state cradle to grave bullshit getting foisted upon the masses.

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't confuse the righties with facts.You're stuck on stupid it seems. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I'll keep pointing it out to you until you get it right. Free of charge of course...

[PaceAdvantage]

You’ve got to have everybody lined up."Sounds like they are prepping for the firing squad if you ask me...

[Tom]

Let’s talk specifics.

Current guidelines for mammograms are start at age 40 and then annually.

The nO-Care panels have decided that the new direction is start at age 50 and then every other year until age 74, then stop. And no breast cnacer specialists were on this panel.

Younger women are most likely to develop breast cancer, and without early detection and treatment, mortality rates will go up. Your daughters, your sisters, YOU.

Older women will be cast aside and not treated – your granny, your mother, YOU.

It take more than pink saddle cloths to beat cancer…..this new way is aimed at lesser quality of health care.

[Clocker]

More anecdotal evidence that Obama lied.

Obama lied, my health plan died.

Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.Or rather, we had such a plan.

Last week, our family received notice from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).” The letter informed us that “to meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date.”

In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.



Full story here. (http://ike an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.Or rather, we had such a plan.Last week, our family received notice from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).� The letter informed us that “to meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date.�In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.) The article contains additional anecdotal information about people getting their plans canceled and about insurance companies dropping various kinds of plans.

It's an article by a conservative writer at a conservative publication. Please feel free, after your morning Kool Aid, to ignore the facts and savage the author and the publication.

[FantasticDan]

Some good stuff on Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/fifty-shades-of-no-way

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/fifty-shades-of-no-way---obamacare---government-shutdown

[johnhannibalsmith]

Some good stuff on Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/fifty-shades-of-no-way

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/fifty-shades-of-no-way---obamacare---government-shutdown

I literally, literally, ten seconds ago watched that video on the Week. Pretty good stuff. Not sure which excerpts you posted, but the clip that ended with "...but that we're gonna like it!" was one of the better metaphorical criticisms of Yobamacare opposition that I've seen. :D

[mostpost]

More anecdotal evidence that Obama lied.



Full story here. (http://ike an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.Or rather, we had such a plan.Last week, our family received notice from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).� The letter informed us that “to meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date.�In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.) The article contains additional anecdotal information about people getting their plans canceled and about insurance companies dropping various kinds of plans.

It's an article by a conservative writer at a conservative publication. Please feel free, after your morning Kool Aid, to ignore the facts and savage the author and the publication.
93.5% of companies surveyed are continuing to provide health insurance.
1% are not.
Keep posting about the one percent.

[Clocker]

93.5% of companies surveyed are continuing to provide health insurance.

A totally meaningless statistic. At what cost will insurance be provided? How many of those employees will pay significantly more than they do now. How many employees of those companies will be forced into different plans than they have now? How many will be forced to change doctors?

[PaceAdvantage]

Keep posting about the one percent.We learn from the best...

[Tom]

93.5% of companies surveyed are continuing to provide health insurance.
1% are not.
Keep posting about the one percent.

Source?

[hcap]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/25/obamacare_premiums_will_be_cheaper_than_the_cbo_pr ojected.html

94% of Uninsured Americans Will Have Obamacare Premiums Below What the CBO Projected

[Clocker]

94% of Uninsured Americans Will Have Obamacare Premiums Below What the CBO Projected

Wow, the train wreck isn't going to be quite as bad as we thought!:jump:

My mechanic does that every time I take my car in. He gives me a big ballpark estimate, the actual cost comes in lower, and I feel a lot better about it while I write out a $500 check.

[JustRalph]

Wow, the train wreck isn't going to be quite as bad as we thought!:jump:

My mechanic does that every time I take my car in. He gives me a big ballpark estimate, the actual cost comes in lower, and I feel a lot better about it while I write out a $500 check.

It's like that 7.50 cheeseburger at 5 Guys.......... then they fill your sack with so many fries you feel like you hit a nickel slot.........

[mostpost]

Source?
Read post #99 in this thread. Carefully.

[Clocker]

It's like that 7.50 cheeseburger at 5 Guys.......... then they fill your sack with so many fries you feel like you hit a nickel slot.........

Great. People get excited when our government operates almost as competently as a burger joint.

The CBO makes a forecast and revises it before it gets any real data. Libs assume that because they like the results of the second forecast more, that it must be more accurate. CBO admits they goofed first time, why give this one any more credence?

[mostpost]

A totally meaningless statistic. At what cost will insurance be provided? How many of those employees will pay significantly more than they do now. How many employees of those companies will be forced into different plans than they have now? How many will be forced to change doctors?
Not a meaningless statistic at all. A statistic that proves all the lies about people losing insurance are just that-lies. The only people who will be forced into different plans are those who are being forced into different plans by the companies they work for. The one percent companies.

[Clocker]

The only people who will be forced into different plans are those who are being forced into different plans by the companies they work for. The one percent companies.

Have you read the posts in this thread about insurance companies dropping plans? Are those people lying?

Those "statistics" you claim prove any thing are survey responses from companies who have no idea if they will be able to offer the same plans in the future. They are not facts or a commitment, they are opinions. They are plans, which are always subject to change. They mean nothing until after the facts are known, after the world changes.

What you present is speculation. What the "anecdotal" information presents is fact.

[mostpost]

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/09/20130925a.html
And they are 16% lower than predicted by the CBO. That is before tax credits for those who need them.

We have been discussing the Mangione family of Louisville, Ky. The story was that their insurance company was raising their premiums from $333 a month to $965 a month. The $333 was for their barebones plan. $965 was for a plan that would comply with Obamacare.

Take a look at table one here:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm

The far right columns are for a family of four (Mangiones) earning $50,000 annually. The very last column is the premium for the bronze plan after tax credits are applies. Those premiums range from $192 a month in Arizona to $15 a month in Louisiana. Kentucky is not one of the 36 states, but I cannot imagine that premiums in Kentucky will be very different.

But let's pretend Kentucky's premiums for the bronze plan will be one and a half times the most expensive plan in the other states. That imaginary premium would be $288 a month.

Let's be clear what that means. The Mangiones could get coverage that complies with Obamacare for less than they were paying Humana for coverage that did not comply.

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

It's time to get back to basics. This is the point.

[Clocker]

But let's pretend...

The foundation of all arguments for the benefits of ObamaCare.

[mostpost]

Have you read the posts in this thread about insurance companies dropping plans? Are those people lying?

Those "statistics" you claim prove any thing are survey responses from companies who have no idea if they will be able to offer the same plans in the future. They are not facts or a commitment, they are opinions. They are plans, which are always subject to change. They mean nothing until after the facts are known, after the world changes.

What you present is speculation. What the "anecdotal" information presents is fact.
What is it with your obsession about keeping crappy health insurance plans? Look at the HHS report on the 36 state Marketplaces that will begin Oct. 1. Persons seeking insurance will have an average of 53 plans to choose from. An average of eight companies will offer insurance in each state. One fourth of those companies will be offering coverage for the first time.

What I am trying to say is there are plenty of companies and plenty of plans to replace those that are being cut; plenty of better plans.

[mostpost]

The foundation of all arguments AGAINST the benefits of ObamaCare.FTFY

[Clocker]

What is it with your obsession about keeping crappy health insurance plans?


What is it with your obsession about denying people the ability to make their own decisions? Why do you insist that you know better than me how I should spend my money? Who are you to tell me that my insurance plan is crappy?

What I am trying to say is there are plenty of companies and plenty of plans to replace those that are being cut; plenty of better plans.

You have analysed all those plans and determined that they are all better than the plans ObamaCare is killing? By what standard are they all better? Why are you more competent to decide what plan is better than the person paying for it?

[Clocker]

A summary of the current status of ObamaCare, from Politico, an undisputed leftist news organization.

The Obamacare that consumers will finally be able to sign up for next week is a long way from the health plan President Barack Obama first pitched to the nation.

Millions of low-income Americans won’t receive coverage. Many workers at small businesses won’t get a choice of insurance plans right away. Large employers won’t need to provide insurance for another year. Far more states than expected won’t run their own insurance marketplaces. And a growing number of workers won’t get to keep their employer-provided coverage.



Politico (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=696BB31D-ABA6-40D4-85E8-2012B7A7BAA4)

[johnhannibalsmith]

What is it with your obsession about keeping crappy health insurance plans? ...

He's not out on some limb with this drum that is getting beaten.

The whole thing relies on the statistically least likely to purchase insurance to actually do so. It also mandates that those in that group that have existing insurance and are trying to be responsible, while also making the most of their statistical unlikelihood to actually need certain forms of insurance that are now mandatory (aka no/low deductible, high premium), must now vacate that decision in deference to the order that funnels the most money directly into the system up front to subsidize the others.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if this philosophy - that of course those in this range that don't have insurance now will plunk down a monster amount of money that they haven't previously and those that did have insurance in that range, but it ain't good enough for the law - are going to be reliable enough as the linchpin to success of the entire scheme... I'm not convinced. Especially now that everyone else is crying for their exemptions - the Cadillac plans of course, the big businesses of course... I'm not someone that actually hopes that this pseudo-ponzi fails, but I don't see how it cannot in its current form the way that it has been constructed. Every premise is dependent on another premise and none of the premises seem reliable to me. Nothing works as intended and this whole thing seems to hinge on nothing but a constant series of best case scenarios that seem implausible at best. But, insurance companies will get theirs, no doubt about that, so I guess it's good for them even if it becomes a mess for a lot of others.

[Ocala Mike]

I'm waiting to find out how, if at all, will I be affected. As a NY State retiree, I pay over $300 per month out of my pension for what is probably considered a "Cadillac" or "Platinum" plan. The state pays, I believe, three times what I pay as their part of my retirement benefit package. I belong to what is called the "Empire Plan" in NY.

I've heard that there is a good chance that people like me will have to someday report the state payment portion (or some part of it) as income, and pay taxes on it. Does anyone know the status of that? Haven't heard any discussions about it in all the brouhaha on the news networks, but just wondering.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm waiting to find out how, if at all, will I be affected. As a NY State retiree, I pay over $300 per month out of my pension for what is probably considered a "Cadillac" or "Platinum" plan. The state pays, I believe, three times what I pay as their part of my retirement benefit package. I belong to what is called the "Empire Plan" in NY.

I've heard that there is a good chance that people like me will have to someday report the state payment portion (or some part of it) as income, and pay taxes on it. Does anyone know the status of that? Haven't heard any discussions about it in all the brouhaha on the news networks, but just wondering.

Try this for a little insight. I had the same plan at one time and could only come with a guess that you'd be okay, but at the time that I was enrolled, there were a few flavors of policies available.

http://www.nyscopba.org/files/healthins/130125_new_w2_entry_tax_health_ins.pdf

[Boris]

Curious about the nice graphic that started this thread, I thought I'd just pick one and do a fact check.

Connecticut announced an average cost drop of 36%

What it should say is "In Connecticut, insurer HealthCT announced plans that would drop an average of 36% from its original proposal in the individual market". So the state of Connecticut didn't announce it, one insurer in the state is dropping. Perhaps they realized they were priced too high and adjusted.

I considered fact checking a few others, but I'm sure it will turn out just the same. Yeah, it's working.

What the hell. Before hitting the submit button I took a look at this claim:

Premiums in New York are set to fall by at least 50%

:lol: New York you say. I think the great state of New York. How about New York City, and more specifically Manhattan. :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/17/business/individual-insurance.html?ref=health

I'm tempted to go for the trifecta, but what's the point.

Your list of the crowning achievements of ObamaCare are nothing more than a fly encrusted load of pooh. Not surprising you lap dogs just laid down and rolled all in it.

[Ocala Mike]

Thanks for that, jhs. Guess I'll still be well under any threshold. Looks like I've got a "Buick" or an "Oldsmobile" plan, not a "Cadillac."

[Tom]

Read post #99 in this thread. Carefully.


All I see there are incorrect statistics and the ramblings of a madman! :lol:

[newtothegame]

Ive been rather silent on this whole mess approaching. And honestly, not sure why this discussion continues.
1. What is the likelihood Obamacare is repealed or defunded?
My thougts....ZERO chance!
So, now we have but one choice and that is to bring the damn thing on.
Lets keep in mind economics here as we proceed because NOTHING is free. All of those government subsidies will require funding. Funding comes from? The magical government printing press.....:lol:
No? It doesn't? The only way this thing even becomes remotely close to paying for itself (even Clinton said it), is if millions and millions of those young ones all of a sudden decide they need to buy into these exchanges. Of course they will!! I mean they were all just waiting for His Highness to proclaim it need be! :lol:

So, if they dont buy in...who is to pay for this? Well damn, what happened to the claim of no new taxes on the people making less then 200G's? So much for that idea huh?
But the grace in this is once they tax us, our incomes (the part we had left after taxes) becomes less. I believe for your economist, it would be called discressionary money. So, if I have less money to spend....oh darn, wouldnt that hurt the economy???? So if we spend less in the economy...uhhhh this is not going to turn out good is it??? :lol:

So I say since we cant change it, lets bring on the pain and make it hurt! My big problem now, and Vitter and other senators are now bringing it to the fore is STOP passing out those damn waivers! If there is going to be pain, LETS ALL FEEL IT! After all, that is "fair"...right?
Then, and only then, will people start to see this for what it is. Lets start collapsing the economy, reducing the number of employed, reducing the number of FT vs PT employees even further, which will only start to snowball and gain momentum!

I feel like the crazy cop (Mel Gibson), when he was on the roof with the jumper...."Do you really wanna jump"...Let's do it" !!!

Not long ago there were some who claimed the rethug party would be dead for a hundred years. I would submit that this could be the law that kills the dems for a hundred years (and take some of the rethugs) with them.

Then and only then can we gain some resemblence of people in Washington who are "for the people, by the people and of the people"!

[Capper Al]

All programs passed by any large organization will need tweaking. Medicare was a bigger initiative then the Affordable Health Care Act. There will be bugs. It can't be helped. But the public now won't let Medicare go, no way. The same will be true for the Affordable Health Care Act. Early indications are promising.

The argument about losing full time jobs is disturbing, but the reality is that the trend of losing full time jobs starting back in the Reagan administration. Globalization is hurting us. The confusion about understanding how the Affordable Health Care Act is understanding with a big undertaking like this, but how many of really understand our own private medical insurance until we get a bill? The Death panels is a scare tactic. Our private insurance companies make the call today and the public doesn't have a say-so in that. At least with a government plan, the people will be able to work out the death scenario through their representatives. We have no vote with private insurance companies.

[PaceAdvantage]

The argument about losing full time jobs is disturbing, but the reality is that the trend of losing full time jobs starting back in the Reagan administration.Well then, thank goodness President Obama has found a way not only to continue this awesome trend, but apparently, ACCELERATE it as well.

Way to go, Mr. President.

Hey, but at least everyone is going to have health care so that they only have to pay $10 or so to get a checkup....lol

Someone on this board said it best when they said something to the effect that health insurance is a good idea gone completely off the rails.

You don't use your auto insurance to pay for an oil change. Yet people expect...nay...demand that their health insurance cover every singe little instance of going to the doctor (minus their co-pay).

The system would be entirely much healthier and much more affordable in my opinion, had people only been of the mindset that insurance was for a catastrophic event, like most insurances are meant to be.

[Clocker]

Yet people expect...nay...demand that their health insurance cover every singe little instance of going to the doctor (minus their co-pay).


Actually, most people know better. Or they used to. That is why a lot of people opt for low premium, high deductible policies. It is the nanny state politicians who want cradle to grave full coverage because they think that people are too stupid to make those decisions for themselves. Once given, or promised, those things "for free", more and more people grow to expect them. And eventually to consider them to be a right.

[Clocker]

Globalization is hurting us.

Globalization is reality. What is hurting us is people who refuse to accept it as reality and to adapt to it and to use it to our advantage. What is hurting us is people who treat it as some kind of evil force and blame it for our problems, particularly those caused by a rigid, incompetent regulatory bureaucracy.

[Capper Al]

Globalization is reality. What is hurting us is people who refuse to accept it as reality and to adapt to it and to use it to our advantage. What is hurting us is people who treat it as some kind of evil force and blame it for our problems, particularly those caused by a rigid, incompetent regulatory bureaucracy.

Listen to yourself professor. We sat on top of the heap for the world's standard of living at one time. Globalization can only pull the middle class down. Yes the world should be a better places in 200 years, but until then it's going to hurt.

[Tom]

So you are saying that at one time, the USA was the top one-percenters of the world, and we should do whatever it takes to get back to that?

So it is OK to keep some groups of people in poverty but not others?
If you look at us all as human beings, than doesn't that supercede borders?
When you look at the world, our bottom 20% are probably in the top 20% globally, so should we be redistributing the wealth globally?

Don't we owe Africa and Asia? Don't we as a nation have too much? Should the UN not put a ceiling on how much wealth we can have?

Isn't that what dems are saying here?
Don't the third world countries have a right to health care and food?
Shouldn't the poor South African farmer have the right to a living wage?

I'm confused-----where does the bleeding heart liberal draw the line on who gets screwed and who gets fat and sassy?

[mostpost]

Ive been rather silent on this whole mess approaching. And honestly, not sure why this discussion continues.
1. What is the likelihood Obamacare is repealed or defunded?
My thougts....ZERO chance!
So, now we have but one choice and that is to bring the damn thing on.
Lets keep in mind economics here as we proceed because NOTHING is free. All of those government subsidies will require funding. Funding comes from? The magical government printing press.....:lol:
No? It doesn't? The only way this thing even becomes remotely close to paying for itself (even Clinton said it), is if millions and millions of those young ones all of a sudden decide they need to buy into these exchanges. Of course they will!! I mean they were all just waiting for His Highness to proclaim it need be! :lol:
It will be a success because millions and millions of those young ones have already decided to buy into the exchanges. Your problem is that you think this forum is a reflection of America as a whole. It is not. Of the 48 who responded to the thread on ages, only 8 were under forty. This forum is overwhelmingly conservative; young people are not. Sixty percent of the 18 to 29 year old vote went to Obama; 37 percent to Romney.

So, if they dont buy in...who is to pay for this? Well damn, what happened to the claim of no new taxes on the people making less then 200G's? So much for that idea huh?
I don't think any such claim was ever made. I think the claim was that income tax rates would not be raised on people in that bracket. You're thinking of George H. W. Bush.
But the grace in this is once they tax us, our incomes (the part we had left after taxes) becomes less. I believe for your economist, it would be called discressionary money. So, if I have less money to spend....oh darn, wouldnt that hurt the economy???? So if we spend less in the economy...uhhhh this is not going to turn out good is it??? :lol:
You talk about discressionary money. I prefer to call it discretionary money. Spell check is a wonderful thing. The problem with your discretionary money theory is there a lot of things which can eat into ones discretionary funds. An appendectomy without health insurance would have a major impact. The question is is it better to pay a set amount on a regular basis or to have to pay a large amount unexpectedly? Money set aside to cover a medical emergency is money you are not spending just as much as is money paid for an insurance premium, and the former is much more than the latter.

So I say since we cant change it, lets bring on the pain and make it hurt! My big problem now, and Vitter and other senators are now bringing it to the fore is STOP passing out those damn waivers! If there is going to be pain, LETS ALL FEEL IT! After all, that is "fair"...right?
Then, and only then, will people start to see this for what it is. Lets start collapsing the economy, reducing the number of employed, reducing the number of FT vs PT employees even further, which will only start to snowball and gain momentum!

I feel like the crazy cop (Mel Gibson), when he was on the roof with the jumper...."Do you really wanna jump"...Let's do it" !!!

Not long ago there were some who claimed the rethug party would be dead for a hundred years. I would submit that this could be the law that kills the dems for a hundred years (and take some of the rethugs) with them.

Then and only then can we gain some resemblence of people in Washington who are "for the people, by the people and of the people"!
If the crazies in the "Rethug" party shut down the government the party will be seriously damaged. I don't know about one hundred years.

[mostpost]

You don't use your auto insurance to pay for an oil change. Yet people expect...nay...demand that their health insurance cover every singe little instance of going to the doctor (minus their co-pay).
They talk about me using illogical comparisons. :rolleyes: An oil change runs around thirty to forty dollars. Just a visit to a doctor will run three to four hundred. Many people (not me) purchase extended warranties on their cars. That is a form of insurance.

The cost of repairing your body is much greater than the cost of repairing your car. Why is it not logical to control that cost?

[JustRalph]

Listen to yourself professor. We sat on top of the heap for the world's standard of living at one time. Globalization can only pull the middle class down. Yes the world should be a better places in 200 years, but until then it's going to hurt.

But, you miraculously recognize this theory in a discussion of Globalization but when it comes to punitive taxes and re-distribution of wealth right here at home..........it goes right over your head........... :bang:

[classhandicapper]

They talk about me using illogical comparisons. :rolleyes: An oil change runs around thirty to forty dollars. Just a visit to a doctor will run three to four hundred. Many people (not me) purchase extended warranties on their cars. That is a form of insurance.

The cost of repairing your body is much greater than the cost of repairing your car. Why is it not logical to control that cost?

Part of the reason it costs more for a doctor visit is because doctors have huge administrative costs for dealing with insurance companies and government programs and those entities have their own administrative costs. That all gets passed on as higher premiums and costs to consumers. It's all just a giant pass through mechanism - from health care providers to insurance companies to consumers.

The idea of insurance is to mitigate the damage from volatile costs that could wreak havoc on personal/business finances.

You don't want to cover what would be considered average expected costs because if you do you are just adding in additional costs.

You need surgery, a long hospital stay etc... you are covered.

You need an annual checkup, a few blood tests, an x-ray, you have a cold, flu, allergy etc... you are on your own. Those things add up, but if the cost of your insurance drops by more if they are not included (and it will), the net is a positive.

[classhandicapper]

Globalism and free trade are a great idea if you are a very long term thinker more concerned about improving the condition of all of mankind over time than just the US or an investor in well positioned businesses that can take advantage of it.

It's a terrible idea if you are a US citizen more concerned about improving the condition of other Americans over the next few decades rather than the condition of the rest of the world or have a job threatened by it (which has and continues to be a boatload of people).

[Clocker]

The cost of repairing your body is much greater than the cost of repairing your car. Why is it not logical to control that cost?

ObamaCare does nothing to control medical costs. To the contrary, it drives them up.

On October 1, the health care exchanges established in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will go online. Despite the many delays, administrative lapses, and staggering costs, few have examined the regulatory burdens of the new health care exchanges.

According to administration data, the listed paperwork burden of the exchanges exceeds 16.6 million hours, $558 million in direct costs, and 40 new forms. Examining the regulatory impact analyses from exchange regulations, the total cost to states and private entities approaches $5.3 billion. Including all current requirements under Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency imposes 645 million hours of paperwork, $35.3 billion in costs, and 4,116 federal forms.


Source. (http://americanactionforum.org/research/health-care-exchanges-impose-5.3-billion-in-costs-16-million-hours)

[Clocker]

Globalization can only pull the middle class down.

The middle class should be the primary beneficiaries of globalization. In a high tech, information based economy, well-educated information workers and entrepreneurs should thrive.

That isn't happening in this country, and the reason is over-regulation, over-taxation, and burdensome bureaucracy. Where is the middle class experiencing huge growth in the global economy? Countries that encourage capitalism in Asia. Where is the middle class least burdened by its government? The same. Where are the countries that are doing well and growing despite low taxes? The same.

Where is none of the above happening? Western social democracies.

[PaceAdvantage]

They talk about me using illogical comparisons. :rolleyes: An oil change runs around thirty to forty dollars. Just a visit to a doctor will run three to four hundred. Many people (not me) purchase extended warranties on their cars. That is a form of insurance.

The cost of repairing your body is much greater than the cost of repairing your car. Why is it not logical to control that cost?Must I spell everything out to a genius such as yourself?

You are assuming, that had health insurance not been used as a CATCH ALL for virtually ALL medical expenses, that the RATES CHARGED by doctors and hospitals would remain where they are today.

Where's that forward thinking progressive self of yours?

One of the reasons healthcare is so EXPENSIVE is because everyone knows INSURANCE will cover it, so there is rampant fraud along with everything else that goes along with the mentality of "well, you have insurance, right?" Another reason is what classhandicapper pointed out above...administrative costs associated with all this damn insurance everyone SO DESPERATELY needs when they have a SORE THROAT.

The very fact that you think healthcare would be sky-high expensive under a totally different insurance scenario tells me all I need to know about you and your thought process.

[Tom]

If the crazies in the "Rethug" party shut down the government the party will be seriously damaged. I don't know about one hundred years.

It takes both parties to shut it down.
No matter how much you spin it and try to get the LIV to believe you, the repubs have sent a bill that will NOT shut down the government. Not voting to accept it is a CHOICE by the dems. They could prevent a shut down by agreeing.

So stop you blatant lying - only the low intellects believe you. Your old "keep repeating the lie until people buy it" routine is fooling no one.

[Clocker]

According to a new study, health insurance policies on the exchanges will have much higher out of pocket expenses than most people have now under existing policies. It is feared that the high out of pocket expenses, due to much higher deductibles, will be a big disincentive for people to visit their doctor, especially those people in the lower income brackets.

Under the law, the maximum annual out of pocket expenses for exchange policies is $6350. Currently, the average for a private, employer sponsored policy is under $1200.

Consumers may have to dig a little deeper into their wallets to pay for health care in the Obamacare insurance exchanges, according to a new analysis by Avalere Health.

The study of six states suggests that consumers could face steep cost-sharing requirements — like co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles — layered on top of their monthly premiums.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/exchanges-high-costs-obamacare-97363.html#ixzz2g1gZm2kQ



Great news. We are going to give a bunch of people "free" insurance, but they won't be able to use it because they can't afford the co-pays. So instead they will just go to the emergency room.

[Capper Al]

The middle class should be the primary beneficiaries of globalization. In a high tech, information based economy, well-educated information workers and entrepreneurs should thrive.

That isn't happening in this country, and the reason is over-regulation, over-taxation, and burdensome bureaucracy. Where is the middle class experiencing huge growth in the global economy? Countries that encourage capitalism in Asia. Where is the middle class least burdened by its government? The same. Where are the countries that are doing well and growing despite low taxes? The same.

Where is none of the above happening? Western social democracies.

Professor,

You know Norway and other European countries are taxed more than us, yet their middle class is doing better than us in both income and happiness. And you should know that the US would benefit from globalization for at least 100 years or more. Now if we told our top 2 percent to let the government hold their profits and give them to their heirs 100 or so years from when globalization works for the US, what would you think that they would do?

[mostpost]

ObamaCare does nothing to control medical costs. To the contrary, it drives them up.


Source. (http://americanactionforum.org/research/health-care-exchanges-impose-5.3-billion-in-costs-16-million-hours)
You are going to be adding 30 million to the roles of the insured. Some people will be changing their policies because some companies are using Obamacare as a poor excuse to stop offering coverage. Sixteen million hours is about 30 minutes a person. I think it is worth 30 minutes to provide someone with the opportunity to have health care.

[Clocker]

You know Norway and other European countries are taxed more than us, yet their middle class is doing better than us in both income and happiness.

Hard to argue with that kind of objective, well-documented evidence.

Oh, is that happiness measurement standard or metric? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Clocker]

Now if we told our top 2 percent to let the government hold their profits and give them to their heirs 100 or so years from when globalization works for the US, what would you think that they would do?

They would do the same thing that they are doing now. They would keep their profits off shore to avoid crushing US taxes and to avoid burdensome regulation. Some of the big US companies have figured out how to adapt to globalization, but US regulatory policies prevent US citizens getting the benefits.

Obama is all buddy-buddy with Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE. Immeldt was head of Obama's job council, but did nothing himself to promote jobs in the US. And Obama did nothing to encourage Immelt to expand here. Instead GE continues to move operations off shore, and pays no US income tax on billions of dollars of profits.

[TJDave]

Some people will be changing their policies because some companies are using Obamacare as a poor excuse to stop offering coverage.

It was the intent of the crafters of this bill to drive everyone into the pools.

Through any means necessary. ;)

[Tom]

The goal has always been single-payer, government controlled HC. Obama has said so, so have other dems. That means control of us.

Why would anyone be dumb enough to think this is about health care?

[Clocker]

Why would anyone be dumb enough to think this is about health care?

You presume to criticize the Affordable Care Act simply because it makes absolutely no attempt to do anything about either care or affordability?

You are obviously a heartless, godless capitalist. :eek:

[LottaKash]

The goal has always been single-payer, government controlled HC. Obama has said so, so have other dems. That means control of us.

Why would anyone be dumb enough to think this is about health care?

That is precisely it, imo.....CONTROL..!!!...:eek: :eek: :eek:

[sammy the sage]

You are going to be adding 30 million to the roles of the insured. Some people will be changing their policies because some companies are using Obamacare as a poor excuse to stop offering coverage. Sixteen million hours is about 30 minutes a person. I think it is worth 30 minutes to provide someone with the opportunity to have health care.


what about the 47 million ON food stamps....who obviously will NOT be enrolling...

[hcap]

/qSjGouBmo0M?

[Clocker]

In regard to video showing anonymous rant about health care costs: he got some stuff right, he got a lot of stuff wrong. None of what he says is documented. He whines about being so tired of people giving simple explanations about why health care costs are so high, in the midst of his simple explanation about why health care costs are so high.

But most relevant to the discussion, none of the problems he talks about are addressed, let alone corrected, by the Affordable Care Act.

[Tom]

nO-Care does nothing to cut HC costs or to improve HC.
In reality, cost will go up, quality will go down.
There is no other outcome scenario.

[Clocker]

nO-Care does nothing to cut HC costs or to improve HC.
In reality, cost will go up, quality will go down.


Not only will health care costs go up, health insurance costs are going up under the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Under ObamaCare, the maximum allowable out of pocket costs for policies on the exchanges are $6350 per year. Pre-ObamaCare, the average actual expenses paid by people with insurance was about $1500.

And contrary to Obama's claim that the exchanges will promote competition by the insurance companies, the opposite is happening in many areas. Data just released by North Carolina shows that of the 100 counties in the state, 61 will have a single provider available through the exchanges: Blue Cross Blue Shield. Source. (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/25/3226753/nc-health-plans-fewer-costs-higher.html) Many other states are reporting similar results, especially in rural areas.

[Ocala Mike]

Keeping this related to horses, it looks like the Bluegrass State loves it some Obamacare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/my-state-needs-obamacare-now.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Remember that Eagles song, "Get Over It"?

[Clocker]

Keeping this related to horses, it looks like the Bluegrass State loves it some Obamacare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/my-state-needs-obamacare-now.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Remember that Eagles song, "Get Over It"?

The Gov. sounded like he was reading from the DNC talking point memo.

The fact that health care is a problem does not mean that ObamaCare is the solution. He speaks as if everyone in Ky will now have health insurance. The CBO says 30 million Americans still won't be covered.

He talks about all the money that will be injected into the economy. That money will come from other citizens of the state who will be paying more for insurance.

Furthermore, their children go long periods without checkups that focus on immunizations, preventive care and vision and hearing tests. If they have diabetes, asthma or infected gums, their conditions remain untreated and unchecked.

Those children probably will still go without checkups, because ObamaCare has very high limits on out of pocket costs, up to $6350 a year. If people can't afford to take their kids to the doctor now, how can they afford to buy even a subsidized policy off the exchange AND pay the high co-pays and deductibles?

[Ocala Mike]

The fact that health care is a problem does not mean that ObamaCare is the solution.



Then let's sit back and watch it fail, right? Detractors don't have a better solution right now, and are in the position of legless men who teach running.

[Tom]

Yes.....HC quality and quantity will drop for everyone.

[Clocker]

Detractors don't have a better solution right now, and are in the position of legless men who teach running.

Detractors were not allowed to participate or negotiate in crafting the bill. The Republicans were effectively shut out of the legislative process. The Dems came in with a 2000 page bill (written by consultants and lobbyists) and rammed it through without reading it and without a single Republican vote. Many of the problems with the current law could have been avoided if there was the slightest bit of bipartisanship.

[FantasticDan]

Detractors were not allowed to participate or negotiate in crafting the bill. The Republicans were effectively shut out of the legislative process. :D I dunno, for some reason these comments reminded me of this old article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/

For the last two decades, leading Republicans have supported various health care plans that looked, well, like the Affordable Care Act. Then Democrats embraced the proposal and Republicans turned against it. But that all happened pretty quickly -- too quickly, in fact, for Republicans to really develop and unite around a plausible alternative. And so when they talk off-the-cuff about what they would like to see happen in the health-care market, they tend to describe something similar to their old plan, which they now oppose. It can all get pretty confusing.

[Tom]

The status quo was far better than the debacle that is nO-Care.
Many smaller steps could have been taken to address HC costs, but that was never the goal of the dems. Still isn't, never will be. When we die from lack of care, they will just grant some more amnesty and voila!

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

So quickly they forget!

[Tom]

So quickly they forget!

"But wait.....there' more!" :lol:

[hcap]

In regard to video showing anonymous rant about health care costs: he got some stuff right, he got a lot of stuff wrong. None of what he says is documented. He whines about being so tired of people giving simple explanations about why health care costs are so high, in the midst of his simple explanation about why health care costs are so high.

But most relevant to the discussion, none of the problems he talks about are addressed, let alone corrected, by the Affordable Care Act.First thing thast must be done is recognize how piss poor the health care system was before Obama. For some reason repugs refuse to do even that and for years here the same bubch of PA righties have maintained we have the best health care system in the world. Now recently new righties have joined old righties.

One can easily tell by lack of facts the amount of noise being made :cool:

[Clocker]

First thing thast must be done is recognize how piss poor the health care system was before Obama.

How poor was it? Your video presents no facts to show poor care, only rants about how expensive it is. Some are absurd, such as the "fact" that nurses are highly paid. There was a long litany about how we spend a lot more on this thing and that thing than we would "expect", without a hint about where that "expectation" came from, or what it represents. He is correct on a number of counts, such as the high cost of drugs in this country, but fails to address the reasons, such as regulation.

And however good or bad the health care system is, ObamaCare does nothing to improve it. ObamaCare is not about health care, it is about insurance. ObamaCare does nothing to address the cost of providing health care, other than imposing billions of dollars of new regulatory compliance costs on doctors and hospitals. It increases the cost of insurance to some in order to subsidize insurance to others.

[Ocala Mike]

ObamaCare is not about health care, it is about insurance.



Agree 100%. Recall that it was the only legislation that had a chance at the time. So I guess you're in favor of Medicare for all, or single-payer? If not, better hope that the ACA works, because if it fails, you know what's next.

[fast4522]

Shut the damn government down a few months and watch his posts then.

[hcap]

How poor was it? Your video presents no facts to show poor care, only rants about how expensive it is. Some are absurd, such as the "fact" that nurses are highly paid. There was a long litany about how we spend a lot more on this thing and that thing than we would "expect", without a hint about where that "expectation" came from, or what it represents. He is correct on a number of counts, such as the high cost of drugs in this country, but fails to address the reasons, such as regulation.

Before your arrival, there were many, many expert, articles, threads discussing these issues. You evidently were still a randian-in-training then

Search this site. You will find a whole bunch. Many of which I contributed to.

And a lot of colorful graphs :cool: :cool:

[Clocker]

Before your arrival, there were many, many expert, articles, threads discussing these issues. You evidently were still a randian-in-training then



Forgive me master for expecting serious responses to postings by a humble beginner such as my lowly self.

[hcap]

Forgive me master for expecting serious responses to postings by such a humble beginner such as my lowly self.
Don' fret. Wanna partake in a free-market film venture?

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/27/atlas_shrugged_kickstarter_producer_doesnt_need_th e_money_this_is_about_psychic_value_to_people/

John Galt needs your gelt :lol:

Maybe 3 is the lucky number. 1 and 2 certainly were not. :)

[Clocker]

John Galt needs your gelt :lol:



Life is so much easier when everything is black or white. Everything is either/or. You are either a Kool Aid drinker or a godless, heartless, greedy capitalist. Nuance makes the world such a messy place, and it really makes your head hurt when you have to think about it.

[Clocker]

Before your arrival, there were many, many expert, articles, threads discussing these issues. You evidently were still a randian-in-training then

Search this site. You will find a whole bunch. Many of which I contributed to.


In other words you decline to explain or defend the content of the video you posted. That posting also being without explanation.

And a lot of colorful graphs

Dare we hope that any of them were any more relevant or better documented than the video?

[hcap]

In other words you decline to explain or defend the content of the video you posted. That posting also being without explanation.



Dare we hope that any of them were any more relevant or better documented than the video?You have only been around here a few months. What makes you think All of this, and climate change and our invasion of Iraq has not been debated many times before?Being in the minority gets tedideous particularly arguing with emotional responses and being called a "Marxist pig" and being told to "go back to Russia" etc., so many times.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/

21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/May/High-Health-Care-Spending.aspx

Explaining High Health Care Spending
in the United States: An International
Comparison of Supply, Utilization,
Prices, and Quality

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd

Americans spend over twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed country

[Capper Al]

What's interesting in the healthcare debate is people talking as if they understand tbeir current plans. My employer offers me a cafeteria of plans. They are not apples to apples to figure out. Obamacare standardizing the plans in the exchange alone is a great step forward if you believe in the free market place.

[Clocker]

You have only been around here a few months.

So therefore I need to sit back, shut up, and not question the pronouncements of the elders of the tribe?

That irrelevant, undocumented video about healthcare costs was posted yesterday, not months ago. But I am not allowed to question it because I am a new guy? How long do I have to be here before I can point out that the emperor has no clothes?


Americans spend over twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed country

And with ObamaCare we will spend even more. But to point that out is to be called a heartless capitalist who wants to see children dying in the streets of plague. How can anyone rationally use high costs to justify a law that not only does not do anything about high costs, but makes them higher?

[Clocker]

What's interesting in the healthcare debate is people talking as if they understand tbeir current plans. My employer offers me a cafeteria of plans. They are not apples to apples to figure out. Obamacare standardizing the plans in the exchange alone is a great step forward if you believe in the free market place.

The latest victory in ObamaCare's crusade to standardize the plans in the exchanges is North Carolina, where 61 out of 100 counties will have one and only one company offering insurance: Blue Cross Blue Shield. ObamaCare drove all the others out of the market. That certainly is "is a great step forward if you believe in the free market place."

[hcap]

So therefore I need to sit back, shut up, and not question the pronouncements of the elders of the tribe?
Not at all. You did ask me to substantiate the video "rant" and I did. But it appears that you are just repeating old stuff. I know that all the knee jerk righties are all rooting for you, AND you seen to be playing to that hypnotized crowd here and rarely rise above cliches.

As far as The AFC act goes, so far so good. Of course single payer would have solved the problem, but that could never happen legislatively. The AFC is only the first step on our way to reaching the same level of care much of the civilized world enjoys.

And of course a workers paradise :) :) :lol: :cool:

[FantasticDan]

The latest victory in ObamaCare's crusade to standardize the plans in the exchanges is North Carolina, where 61 out of 100 counties will have one and only one company offering insurance: Blue Cross Blue Shield. ObamaCare drove all the others out of the market.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/28/4347743/obamacare-in-nc-a-missed-opportunity.html

But Wayne Goodwin knows this: He would be more confident about the Affordable Care Act in North Carolina had state lawmakers not refused this year to participate in a state-based insurance exchange, as Obamacare encouraged states to do.

Instead, the Republican-led legislature passed Senate Bill 4, which opted North Carolina out of running a state-based exchange. As a result, North Carolinians who enroll beginning Tuesday will do so through an N.C. exchange run by the federal government, and that will affect competition, pricing and the quality of information citizens get about their health care options.

“I would feel a lot better today if we had a state-based exchange,” Goodwin told the editorial board Friday.

Participating in a state-based exchange would have allowed the state to create more opportunities for competition, as the N.C. Rate Bureau does for auto insurance companies. “With a state-based exchange, we would’ve been in control over discussions that would’ve incentivized companies to participate,” Goodwin said.

[Capper Al]

The latest victory in ObamaCare's crusade to standardize the plans in the exchanges is North Carolina, where 61 out of 100 counties will have one and only one company offering insurance: Blue Cross Blue Shield. ObamaCare drove all the others out of the market. That certainly is "is a great step forward if you believe in the free market place."

You don't believe in the market place? Spend money and they other insurance companies will come back. I would guess the companies that left had it too good.

[Clocker]

You don't believe in the market place? Spend money and they other insurance companies will come back. I would guess the companies that left had it too good.

How is the federal government telling me that I have to buy something, and that it has to meet an exact set of government specifications, a free market? How is the government telling insurance companies that they can no longer offer plans that their customers want a free market?

What in the hail does it mean to pull out of a market because you had it too good? :confused:

[Tom]

You are trying to make sense out of an Al post.....:lol:
Wait for mosite to come along - he speaks Al.

[PaceAdvantage]

What's interesting in the healthcare debate is people talking as if they understand tbeir current plans. My employer offers me a cafeteria of plans. They are not apples to apples to figure out. Obamacare standardizing the plans in the exchange alone is a great step forward if you believe in the free market place.I wonder how many young people are actually going to sign up for this thing, or decide to take the penalty hit instead?

Which would be cheaper for them? Buy the insurance or take the penalty?

[Clocker]

Which would be cheaper for them? Buy the insurance or take the penalty?

There is no penalty. However, if you do not have a qualified healthcare plan, you will be assessed an "individual shared responsibility payment".

As far as I can tell, the minimum premium for a young adult is going to be upwards of $100 a month. The individual shared responsibility payment for not having insurance is $95 a year.

Also, there is no enforcement mechanism or punishment for not paying the individual shared responsibility payment. The IRS is the enforcement agency, but they are not allowed to take action against you other than take it out of any tax refund if you have one coming to you.

[Capper Al]

I wonder how many young people are actually going to sign up for this thing, or decide to take the penalty hit instead?

Which would be cheaper for them? Buy the insurance or take the penalty?

That's a personal decision what they do. My point is that few understand their insurance now. And throw in the fact that fewer understand the in's and out's of any law passed. The scare tactics from the right play on our fears of not understanding while ignoring the fact that we exist in a state of not understanding our present circumstances anyway.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's a personal decision to decide what sort of extortion of your money you prefer, but only so long you choose one of the approved forms of extortion. Sounds about right.

[PaceAdvantage]

As far as I can tell, the minimum premium for a young adult is going to be upwards of $100 a month. The individual shared responsibility payment for not having insurance is $95 a year.If this is true, then it's a no brainer. They take the $95/yr hit and forego insurance.

Good luck getting people who feel they are invincible to pay at least $100/mo for something they think they don't need...compared to paying $95/yr to opt out of it...

So, now that we don't have these young folks' premiums helping to balance out the system, what is going to happen? Where is the money going to come from to help pay for this?

[Clocker]

My point is that few understand their insurance now. And throw in the fact that fewer understand the in's and out's of any law passed. The scare tactics from the right play on our fears of not understanding while ignoring the fact that we exist in a state of not understanding our present circumstances anyway.

Translation into English: Low information voters are clueless about what their government is doing to them now, so it makes things a lot worse if you confuse them with facts or try to get them to think for themselves.

Have a nice day, and help yourself to the Kool Aid.

[Clocker]

So, now that we don't have these young folks' premiums helping to balance out the system, what is going to happen? Where is the money going to come from to help pay for this?

A lot of the money was supposed to come from the employer mandate. Employers who do not offer qualified healthcare plans would also pay penalties, or whatever the government jargon is for that. As with the individuals, many employers will find it more economical to pay the fine than buy the insurance.

However, the employer mandate has been postponed for at least a year, because the government can't get the system in place to administer it. So it's the same old song: deeper in debt.

[FantasticDan]

I went to the nice new website NYS set up to check out the plans available to me..

https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/

This is the message I get when I click on, "Get started" or "Individuals & Families":

SRVE0232E: Internal Server Error.
Exception Message: [null]

null

IBM WebSphere Application Server
Oh well, first day jitters I guess.. :p

[Clocker]

Oh well, first day jitters I guess.. :p

Just think of it as the government version of Windows 1.0. It will take them a while to work the bugs out.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Just think of it as the government version of Windows 1.0. ...

I suspect that IBM OS/2 may be a better way to think of it.

[ArlJim78]

MSNBC demonstrates how simple it is to enroll for Obamacare.:lol:


6wCwXew9yGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wCwXew9yGg

[johnhannibalsmith]

MSNBC demonstrates how simple it is to enroll for Obamacare.:lol:


...

It worked.

She entered all her crucial personal data into the system in the first two steps and then it crashed when it was supposed to tell her about insurance in step 3.

The NSAACA. :lol:

[Capper Al]

http://assets.democrats.org/images/Blue1.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue2.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue3.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue4.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue5.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue6.png
http://assets.democrats.org/images/blue7.png

And it is only going to get better.

Better yet, it's working without Congressional funding!

[PaceAdvantage]

Better yet, it's working without Congressional funding!Does Ralph keep quoting the same image over and over and over again in his replies?

No. But a spammer does.

[mostpost]

Does Ralph keep quoting the same image over and over and over again in his replies?

No. But a spammer does.
But it's such a cool image. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Does Ralph keep quoting the same image over and over and over again in his replies?

No. But a spammer does.It is quite clear what Ralph is doing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Funny when I pounded you guys just after last election for just how inept your team and supporters really were you had many comments that I was being repetitious :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Capper Al]

Does Ralph keep quoting the same image over and over and over again in his replies?

No. But a spammer does.

Did you miss the part about Congressional funding? Maybe I shouldn't use such big words?

[mostpost]

MSNBC demonstrates how simple it is to enroll for Obamacare.:lol:


6wCwXew9yGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wCwXew9yGg
They are having problems for one simple reason. They are overwhelmed by the number of people logging on to sign up for this program that everyone hates.
As of 2:30 PM three million people had logged on to the various exchanges.

[Clocker]

Better yet, it's working without Congressional funding!


http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/BL-obamacare-exchange-cost-estimates.jpg

[Capper Al]

America is a big country. Implementing any law takes a lot of work and has a lot of holes in it. No child left behind didn't even address special education students, for example. A loyal opposition, which the repubs aren't, should point out these flaws when implementing the law. That's the loyal opposition's role. We should be all workiing together even in disagreement to build a more perfect union. Not sabotaging or rewriting the majority's laws.

[Capper Al]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/BL-obamacare-exchange-cost-estimates.jpg

Funny how your chart says nothing. We know whatever healthcare is used cost are huge and
Going to go up. Without this information your point is meaningless. You should have known that professor! Not a professor.

[Clocker]

Funny how your chart says nothing. We know whatever healthcare is used cost are huge and
Going to go up. Without this information your point is meaningless.

You said "Better yet, it's working without Congressional funding!"

That chart shows that the Congressional Budget Office says that Congressional funding will be $1.6 trillion over 10 years. If $1.6 trillion is nothing to you, you are obviously a Democratic Senator posing as a horse player.

[hcap]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/BL-obamacare-exchange-cost-estimates.jpgLook, even if your graph from the Heritage Foundation presented the case accuretly, the point you are missing is long term savings in which the CBO has alredy stated Obamacare was scored in positive territory.

http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/19210

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $84 billion
July 25, 2012

Meanwhile

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/27/saxby-chambliss/saxby-chambliss-says-obamacare-biggest-entitlement/

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)

[newtothegame]

America is a big country. Implementing any law takes a lot of work and has a lot of holes in it. No child left behind didn't even address special education students, for example. A loyal opposition, which the repubs aren't, should point out these flaws when implementing the law. That's the loyal opposition's role. We should be all workiing together even in disagreement to build a more perfect union. Not sabotaging or rewriting the majority's laws.

Maybe you can get this information to the leadership in congress that said NO NEGOTIATIONS,......Whichever party that was....

Until then, here is what I have to say towards working together with you or any other lib who defines working together as taking more of my money....
Blah blah blah.......:lol:

[detective]

I earn 24,000 dollars a year. Out of that I pay 30 percent in taxes and now they want 452.00 per month for health insurance I am forced to have. It works for who? The rich!!!If I don't buy insurance the IRS taxes me. Sure only 96 dollars the first year but take a look at the IRS tax in the third year?

[ArlJim78]

I earn 24,000 dollars a year. Out of that I pay 30 percent in taxes and now they want 452.00 per month for health insurance I am forced to have. It works for who? The rich!!!If I don't buy insurance the IRS taxes me. Sure only 96 dollars the first year but take a look at the IRS tax in the third year?
sorry but the supreme court says the government can force you to buy things whether you want to or not. welcome to the new and improved America.
and who isn't excited to have the IRS now poking around with healthcare, what a great new experience that will be.:rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Look, even if your graph from the Heritage Foundation presented the case accuretly, the point you are missing is long term savings in which the CBO has alredy stated Obamacare was scored in positive territory.

The CBO can only score based on the assumptions Congress gives them. That scoring is based on the assumption that much of the increase in Medicaid spending will be paid for by cuts in Medicare benefits. Everyone in Congress knew that those cuts would never happen, but were put on paper to make the numbers come out where the Dems wanted them.

[TJDave]

I earn 24,000 dollars a year. Out of that I pay 30 percent in taxes and now they want 452.00 per month for health insurance I am forced to have. It works for who? The rich!!!If I don't buy insurance the IRS taxes me. Sure only 96 dollars the first year but take a look at the IRS tax in the third year?

1. It is not $425. Go to coveredcalifornia.com

2. You're telling us you don't currently have insurance? Do you have sufficient savings to cover a large medical emergency? If not, and you got sick or injured who would pay your bill?

3. If you earn 24,000 and pay 30% you have a fool for a tax preparer.

[Tom]

Did you hear the idiotic crap O. Hussein said about Apple and glitches?
Guess he is not aware that Apple cannot FORCE you but an I Pad.

What a total moron. :lol:

[JustRalph]

They are having problems for one simple reason. They are overwhelmed by the number of people logging on to sign up for this program that everyone hates.
As of 2:30 PM three million people had logged on to the various exchanges.

Typical extremist liberal bullshit. Screw over 99% for 1% of the population.

Btw, I have some Liberal friends who are starting to worry about the stories they are hearing. They are becoming more aware and they also have met people who have lost their jobs or cut to part time due to Obamacare. I don't lump all liberals or left leaners in with the group I am responding to here. There are many who are very worried about how this is all going to play out.

[Tom]

As of 2:30 PM three million people had logged on to the various exchanges.

How many are just curious?
Answer - you have freaking idea.

How many are because they have no choice?
Answer - you have no friggin idea.

But that never stopped you,now, did it?

[mostpost]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/BL-obamacare-exchange-cost-estimates.jpgThe cost of the ten years from 2010 to 2020 has not changed. Each new projection is for the ten year period beginning with that month. So the projection from February 2013 is for the period ending February of 2023.

There were costs that began in 2011 that were not in effect in 2010. There were costs that began in 2012 that we did not incur in 2010 and 2011. And-guess what-there are costs that began this year that were not there in 2010, 2011, or 2012. That is why the rolling projection has increased.

[sammy the sage]

The cost of the ten years from 2010 to 2020 has not changed. Each new projection is for the ten year period beginning with that month. So the projection from February 2013 is for the period ending February of 2023.

perhaps you can POST a chart where THE government's 10 year projections ON ANYTHING have EVER been accurate or right.....

and you can even USE a projection from when THE right was in power AS well...

just ONE...

obviously anything to do w/post office has been an abject failure...or Social Security...

so you've got your work cut out for ya...

[mostpost]

I earn 24,000 dollars a year. Out of that I pay 30 percent in taxes and now they want 452.00 per month for health insurance I am forced to have. It works for who? The rich!!!If I don't buy insurance the IRS taxes me. Sure only 96 dollars the first year but take a look at the IRS tax in the third year?
I think you should look into that more closely. I went to the "Covered California" website. Covered California is the Exchange for the state of California. The general website-not where one would go to sign up for coverage.
http://www.cahba.com/covered-california/premium-subsidy.htm

You don't say how old you are but I am guessing not too old. You earn $24,000 a year which is 200% of the federal poverty. If you are 21, your premium for the most affordable silver plan is $108 a month. If you are 40 it is $104 a month. That is after premium assistance which the law provides.

The silver plan pays 70% while you pay 30% of expenses. There is also a bronze plan in which the ratio is 60 to 40. That is cheaper but I do not have exact figures.

Do not try to get coverage from an individual company. That will be way expensive. Go to the exchange. Covered California.

[PaceAdvantage]

It is quite clear what Ralph is doing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Funny when I pounded you guys just after last election for just how inept your team and supporters really were you had many comments that I was being repetitious :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:I don't really care one way or the other.

The Republican party is dead.

To Al, this is me preaching right-wing propaganda... :lol:

You tell me who has lost their grip on reality?

[PaceAdvantage]

They are having problems for one simple reason. They are overwhelmed by the number of people logging on to sign up for this program that everyone hates.
As of 2:30 PM three million people had logged on to the various exchanges.Cool. I can't wait to see how successful this is going to be.

Republicans are dead.

Long live Democrats.

This bit of right-wing propaganda and repetitive posting has been brought to you by Alfie and Carmel.

[PaceAdvantage]

They are having problems for one simple reason. They are overwhelmed by the number of people logging on to sign up for this program that everyone hates.
As of 2:30 PM three million people had logged on to the various exchanges.How can they differentiate between people genuinely looking for information and to sign up, and a DOS (Denial of Service) attack?

Obama said something like a million or two million people were on before 7 in the morning? I find that difficult to believe.

But a DOS that brings the site to its knees? That I can believe...

But I bet that will NEVER be reported... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh SNAP! It's still NOT WORKING...damn those Republicans...

So I go to HealthCare.gov or whatever it's called, and I go to sign up...and I tell them I'm from NY...now they want to send me to the NY website...oy...so I click through to the NY website, and I am greeted with:

Due to overwhelming interest in the NY State of Health, the Marketplace is currently having log in issues. We encourage users who are unable to log in to come back to the site later when these issues will be resolved.Awesome. It's almost 11pm on the east coast, and they still can't fit me in. Must be that wild interest in health care from the night owls like me.

Even the offloaded sites aren't working, like NY. This sure must be leaving an amazing first impression on those who might have a bit of trepidation in the Fed government's ability to manage their healthcare...

Should we temporarily change the title of this thread?

[mostpost]

Oh SNAP! It's still NOT WORKING...damn those Republicans...

So I go to HealthCare.gov or whatever it's called, and I go to sign up...and I tell them I'm from NY...now they want to send me to the NY website...oy...so I click through to the NY website, and I am greeted with:

Awesome. It's almost 11pm on the east coast, and they still can't fit me in. Must be that wild interest in health care from the night owls like me.

Even the offloaded sites aren't working, like NY. This sure must be leaving an amazing first impression on those who might have a bit of trepidation in the Fed government's ability to manage their healthcare...

Should we temporarily change the title of this thread?
The open season runs until April 2014 and the deadline to start coverage Jan 1 is in mid December. It's like the I phone. You can wait in line 24 hours on the first day, or walk in and out in ten minutes a week later. Or do you think the DOS attacks will still be continuing then. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

The open season runs until April 2014 and the deadline to start coverage Jan 1 is in mid December. It's like the I phone. You can wait in line 24 hours on the first day, or walk in and out in ten minutes a week later. Or do you think the DOS attacks will still be continuing then. :rolleyes:Comparing the iPhone to health care coverage. I like it!

Makes it more relatable to the peeps...good strategy mostpost. Hip and fresh...way to connect to the younger generation...they're sure to understand now...

Obama and HealthCare.gov.....FTW!!

[Clocker]

The cost of the ten years from 2010 to 2020 has not changed. Each new projection is for the ten year period beginning with that month. So the projection from February 2013 is for the period ending February of 2023.

There were costs that began in 2011 that were not in effect in 2010. There were costs that began in 2012 that we did not incur in 2010 and 2011. And-guess what-there are costs that began this year that were not there in 2010, 2011, or 2012. That is why the rolling projection has increased.

So?

Try to keep up. The discussion is about the Capper Al claim that there is no Congressional funding of ObamaCare. Please tell me how you can slice and dice that chart with anything from a Ginzu knife to a Vega-Matic and come to the conclusion that there is no tax money going into ObamaCare.

[mostpost]

So?

Try to keep up. The discussion is about the Capper Al claim that there is no Congressional funding of ObamaCare. Please tell me how you can slice and dice that chart with anything from a Ginzu knife to a Vega-Matic and come to the conclusion that there is no tax money going into ObamaCare.
I'm not sure what Al meant by that. I'm going to guess that he meant Obamacare was not a part of discretionary spending that has to be approved by Congress each year. Once the bill was passed the funding was assured until the law is repealed. No chance of that by the way.

And to keep up with you, I would have to slow down.

[Clocker]

I'm not sure what Al meant by that.

Then why are you trying to defend what he said? Just a knee-jerk reaction to the people involved, without regard to the issues. It's hard to keep up when you are going in the wrong direction.

[Capper Al]

I don't really care one way or the other.

The Republican party is dead.

To Al, this is me preaching right-wing propaganda... :lol:

You tell me who has lost their grip on reality?

Actually, the repubs will do well over the long run. Money is what wins in the end, and they have it. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agree to this point. Karl Marx's prediction went as far as to that the capitalist will industrialize the world. That's what's happening and going to continue to happen no matter what party wins or loses.

[hcap]

Comparing the iPhone to health care coverage. I like it!

It is not too hard to look at this as comparing the POPULARITY of both, is it now?

Did not clarify things for you? :)

[Tom]

But that is not what O. Hussein was doing, now was it?
Come on, you are better than that.
Aren't you?

[hcap]

Well according to your brilliant republican pollster that predicted an overwhelming victory for the "dtnamic duo", Obama was "otherwise occupied"

'UnskewedPolls' Founder: Barack Obama Is 'Actually' Gay :lol: :lol: :cool: :cool: :D :D

[sammy the sage]

perhaps you can POST a chart where THE government's 10 year projections ON ANYTHING have EVER been accurate or right.....

and you can even USE a projection from when THE right was in power AS well...

just ONE...

obviously anything to do w/post office has been an abject failure...or Social Security...

so you've got your work cut out for ya...

Ignoring I see... :p

Here I'll provide sample of what you'd END UP finding anyways....

"In 1990, rather than costing American taxpayers $12 billion, Medicare cost $107 billion – an increase of 800% over the government’s best guess at the program’s cost 23 years before.

That cost has increased exponentially as the years have passed since 1990. This year, $484 billion will be spent on mandatory Medicare outlays; by 2018, that number will be $885.1 billion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

The total amount owed Medicare beneficiaries (American workers who are at least 22 years old and who have paid into the system, meaning they are due Medicare coverage upon retirement) is a staggering $32.3 trillion – an amount over twice America’s GDP, and nearly five times the publicized national debt."

http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/25/the-cancerous-lie-of-unbounded-positive-rights/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[hcap]

PLEASE NOT REDSTATE!

From the CBO. in billions

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/spending_chart_1986_1994USb_15s6li011mcn_10f_US_Me dicare_Spending

US Medicare Spending
1986 106.1
1987 115.08
1988 123.36
1989 133.34
1990 155.8
1991 175.66
1992 208.51
1993 229.95
1994 251.86

So you and redstate expect us to believe after a progressive rise of approx 7 percent medicare jumped 800% ?

"In 1990, rather than costing American taxpayers $12 billion, Medicare cost $107 billion – an increase of 800% over the government’s best guess

Shove redstate and learn who is bullshitting or "SAGE" must be dropped immediately :cool:

[HUSKER55]

http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster.


medicare has been under estimated forever.

[hcap]

And the military? Maybe we should eliminate bombs?
Or Generals? Not an argument. The private sector does it as well.

But don't give me grossly exaggerated obviously false figures like increase in Medicare costs as in redstates' bogus 800% sudden increase

[mostpost]

Ignoring I see... :p

Here I'll provide sample of what you'd END UP finding anyways....

"In 1990, rather than costing American taxpayers $12 billion, Medicare cost $107 billion – an increase of 800% over the government’s best guess at the program’s cost 23 years before.

That cost has increased exponentially as the years have passed since 1990. This year, $484 billion will be spent on mandatory Medicare outlays; by 2018, that number will be $885.1 billion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

The total amount owed Medicare beneficiaries (American workers who are at least 22 years old and who have paid into the system, meaning they are due Medicare coverage upon retirement) is a staggering $32.3 trillion – an amount over twice America’s GDP, and nearly five times the publicized national debt."

http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/25/the-cancerous-lie-of-unbounded-positive-rights/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Not ignoring; busy with more important things. To get back to your original question whether or not the CBO projections are always accurate is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about how you interpret the projections you have.

Clocker provided a graphic which showed that in 2010 the ten year cost of Obamacare would be $898B. It also showed that in 2013 the CBO estimated the cost at $1.67T.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/BL-obamacare-exchange-cost-estimates.jpg

He used that graphic to imply that the cost of Obamacare had almost doubled in three years. What he neglected (conveniently) to mention was that many of the more expensive facets of Obamacare were not in effect until 2013. Programs such as the Exchanges and premium subsidies do not go into effect until 2014. In the 2010 projection which runs through 2019, you have to include payments for such things a running the exchanges and subsiding premiums for six years. In the 2013 projection you must include them for nine years (2014 through 2023). You are paying more in the later years, but you are getting much more.

[tucker6]

Mostie, do you have similar projections for savings?

[Clocker]

He used that graphic to imply that the cost of Obamacare had almost doubled in three years.

That is not correct. I will not say that you are lying, because you may actually believe what you just said. You said it before, and I corrected you then. I will now correct you again. i posted that graphic in response to an irrational claim by another poster that ObamaCare was receiving no Congressional funding. Do you deny that the graph shows that Congress is funding ObamaCare?

Since you cannot remember a few posts back when I corrected your distortion, I can't imagine you can remember a little earlier in the thread when I posted the graph for the first time. I posted the graph without comment. The twisted logic that allows you to distort a graph posted without comment into what you attribute to me in your last post defies belief.

[mostpost]

That is not correct. I will not say that you are lying, because you may actually believe what you just said. You said it before, and I corrected you then. I will now correct you again. i posted that graphic in response to an irrational claim by another poster that ObamaCare was receiving no Congressional funding. Do you deny that the graph shows that Congress is funding ObamaCare?

Since you cannot remember a few posts back when I corrected your distortion, I can't imagine you can remember a little earlier in the thread when I posted the graph for the first time. I posted the graph without comment. The twisted logic that allows you to distort a graph posted without comment into what you attribute to me in your last post defies belief.
Of course Congress is funding Obamacare. Your graph does not prove that. All your graph does is predict how much money will be spent on Obamacare over various ten year scenarios. In order to prove that Congress is funding Obamacare you would have to go to the federal budget and find that appropriation. No need for you to do that; I will stipulate it is there.

Our misunderstanding lies in the fact that I could not conceive that you would use that graphic to try and post that graphic as proof Congress was funding Obamacare. I have seen the same graphic used in an attempt to prove the cost of Obamacare was rising rapidly. That is what I responded to.

[mostpost]

FEHB premiums for 2014 will be out in early October. We shall see.
The American Postal Workers Union Health Plan (APWUHP) is a part of FEHB. Today I saw the APWUHP premiums for 2014.
We have been hearing for months that Obamacare will cause shocking, unprecedented increases in premiums. We have been shown examples of large premium increases that compare completely different levels of coverage.

Of course I no longer work for USPS. But if I were still working there and still had the same plan I had when I worked there, I would now be facing a shocking increase in my premium. Shocking if you consider one dollar and thirty three cents every two weeks shocking.

As a retiree I have not received my new premium amount yet. I will let you all know when I do. I'm sure it will be shocking. :rolleyes: