ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (2 Viewers)

[matttyl]

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

And we have a lot of them now who are totally insurable and who are uninsured. Why are increasing prices for them going to result in higher participation? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, maybe the mandate will push more into coverage - but likely toward the catastrophic plan (if under 30) which won't have enough $ going back into the pie.

Some have argued that the subsidies will bring the costs down to the purchaser..

But in the case of my BIL that wouldn't matter.. He is single and makes above $80k a year so no subsidies for him thus no reason, other then the mandate, which is still cheaper in his mind then paying for insurance..

BTW what exactly are we calling the mandate now

Obama says it isn't a tax, the SC says it is..

Honestly, the best advice for him would be to buy currently available coverage in late 2013, and the cheapest thing he can get (cause he might agree to it). If he buys it in December of 2013, he should be able to keep it till December 2014 (his first renewal after ACA mandates). That way he shouldn't get any penalty for being without coverage in 2014, which if he's making $80k a year will be at least $800 (1%). If he can get something barebones, (and he's healthy) it may only be like $100 per month, so his "net cost" for that rolling 12 months will be like $400.

What he does after December 2014 no one knows.

 

[Foosball God]

He has no "family" to speak of.. he is single.. He does have a son who is 21, in college and gets insurance through his mother.


Again, IMO, in order for this bill to be paid for, People like him are essential for paying for it, but this bill will not make someone like him more likely to buy in, thus less coming in then predicted.

Will your wife write him off if something happens to him? If not then you'll feel the consequences too.

 

[snogger]

He has no "family" to speak of.. he is single.. He does have a son who is 21, in college and gets insurance through his mother.


Again, IMO, in order for this bill to be paid for, People like him are essential for paying for it, but this bill will not make someone like him more likely to buy in, thus less coming in then predicted.

Will your wife write him off if something happens to him? If not then you'll feel the consequences too.

Already been talked about.. he is on his own.. and that is how he wants it.. he hasn't visited us, or his parents in almost two years now.

Guessing if it came down to it my Mother In-law would try to help, but my Father in-law has gone as far as to remove him from their will now, it is that bad.. :(

 

[RCon]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

Humor me, and review the ways Obamacare improves overall care and lowers the overall cost of care. Note that I'm interested in health care, not health insurance. Also note that for these purposes, I'm completely ignoring "access to care", as I consider that falling under "getting everyone covered".

*bump*

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

Humor me, and review the ways Obamacare improves overall care and lowers the overall cost of care. Note that I'm interested in health care, not health insurance. Also note that for these purposes, I'm completely ignoring "access to care", as I consider that falling under "getting everyone covered".

*bump*

On a macro level, it's impossible to separate the two. You can't just ignore the poor care that the uninsured get in the US and suggest they aren't part of the overall equation.

 

[matttyl]

On a macro level, it's impossible to separate the two. You can't just ignore the poor care that the uninsured get in the US and suggest they aren't part of the overall equation.

And what about the many more, not poor, currently insured Americans who will have to pay far more for coverage they don't want and likely don't need. Are they part of your equation?

 

[humpback]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

If you stopped foaming at the mouth for a minute you'd realize that he didn't say "budget" anywhere, he was talking about the overall cost of care. While it would be nice if in your fairytale land this didn't actually end up adding to the deficit, it wouldn't matter if it results in increased costs to us.

 

[matttyl]

Very good letter written today, yes written by a Republican in Ohio - but the facts are the same....

By ROB PORTMAN
U.S. Senator
Earlier this year, a senior Democrat in the U.S. Senate said he was concerned Obamacare was headed for "a huge train wreck." Every day it seems that we are getting a better idea of just what that train wreck looks like-fewer full-time jobs, more difficulties for small businesses, higher insurance premiums, and fewer healthcare choices. Just yesterday, the Ohio Insurance Department announced that health insurance premiums in the individual market are expected to increase an average of 41 percent in our state next year. That's money that could be going toward Ohioans' retirement, groceries, and their children's higher education; instead it's going to cover President Obama's costly mandates. And higher costs are only the beginning of Obamacare's impact.

Recently, the Obama administration surprised everyone by announcing that it was delaying by a year a core pillar of Obamacare-a provision requiring employers with more than 50 "full-time" employees to offer "affordable health insurance" or face a fine. That requirement has had a number of negative-and entirely predictable-unintended consequences.

First, more and more small businesses are becoming "49ers" and "29ers." Some employers have felt they have no choice but to freeze growth and hiring at 49 employees rather than coming under the onerous requirements of Obamacare when they cross the 50 employee threshold. Other employers have reduced the hours their employees can work from 40 to the less than 30 hours a week required by Obamacare to keep them from counting as full-time for the purposes of the legislation. It's no surprise that the "underemployment" figure-those working part-time but wanting to work full time-has been on the rise, spiking by a dramatic 300,000 in June's jobs report.

President Obama decided to postpone the employer mandate that causes these and other problems until the beginning of 2015. Some have said this was just an effort to avoid the political fall-out until after the 2014 midterm election. The decision may make good political sense for the President and his party, but for the millions of Americans who are either without a job or underemployed, it merely prolongs the economic pain. Employers know the mandate is coming, and it will continue to encourage them to downsize and reduce hours.

More Americans will either lose their jobs or find it harder to get one, and, as happened last month, more of the jobs that will be available are likely to be part-time jobs that make it harder if not impossible to make ends meet.

To make matters worse, the parts of Obamacare that were supposed to alleviate some of these problems are failing. Earlier this summer, Health and Human Services announced that key components of the Small Business Health Options Program-or SHOP Exchange-will also be delayed until 2015. These provisions were supposed to allow employers to provide workers with a set amount of money to purchase insurance in an online marketplace. HHS pointed to "operational challenges" in their decision to delay the program. They have given no indication of how they intend to meet these challenges and get the SHOP exchange up and running.

The individual insurance exchanges represent yet another coming challenge. These exchanges are supposed to come online in October. But not unlike the SHOP Exchange, there is no indication that the technology is in place to make that happen. To make matters worse, state-run exchanges that are in place-currently in 16 states and the District of Columbia-are not able to verify employer insurance or income eligibility for substantial federal subsidies during the first year of operation. This means that there is no way to verify that someone who claims a government subsidy actually qualifies, opening the program to unintended risks of fraud and waste of taxpayer dollars.

President Obama sold his healthcare reform law by promising it would spur job growth, allow all of us to keep the healthcare we have, and reduce the costs of healthcare insurance. Unfortunately, every one of those promises has proven false. The legislation is instead becoming the train wreck many of us feared.

I believe our healthcare system as a whole needs reform, but it needs reform that works. It needs patient-centered reform that actually reduces the escalating cost of health care coverage and focuses on rewarding quality. The recent actions by the Administration only confirm the problems with Obamacare, and pushing the problems off for another year isn't going to make it better. Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with bipartisan solutions that address the high cost and uneven quality of healthcare. That's the way to avoid the train wreck and get our healthcare system on track.

 

[timschochet]

Story I'm about to tell is anecdotal, and mostly I don't like relying on anecdotal evidence. But sometimes it can be suggestive of a larger trait, and the article by Portman coincides with an phone call I received this morning:

For the past two year now, I've been working with a gold purchasing retail outlet, helping them find locations. In the struggling economy, these sorts of places "We buy gold!" have exploded everywhere. They average about 1-2 new locations a quarter. For me, it's nickel and dime stuff- these are short leases, make me a little extra cash to spend on stuff like fantasy football. Nothing major.

Anyhow, working on their latest lease deal in Norwalk, when I got a call this morning from my client. They're cancelling out. And suspending all new locations for the time being. Did the gold market finally crash, I wondered? No, doing as good as ever, he tells me. But he met with his accountant, and it turns out that he now has 49 employees. If he opens up the new location, he has to hire 50, which means Obamacare kicks in. So the accountant advised waiting.

Yeah, this ticks me off a little bit, I lose a little cash I was expecting. But the bigger deal is that a company which, in the normal scheme of things, would have continued to grow and hire more people, has stopped, thanks to Obamacare. This is EXACTLY what Portman was talking about.

 

[matttyl]

Best quote from that letter, all true.

"President Obama sold his healthcare reform law by promising it would spur job growth, allow all of us to keep the healthcare we have, and reduce the costs of healthcare insurance. Unfortunately, every one of those promises has proven false."

 

[Joe T]

I don't believe in anecdotes.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I talked to a guy at lunch who couldn't afford health care prior to the ACA, but can afford it now and is now covered.

Based on this story, I think we can conclude the ACA is an overwhelming success. Closed the thread boys.

 

[Slapdash]

Story I'm about to tell is anecdotal, and mostly I don't like relying on anecdotal evidence. But sometimes it can be suggestive of a larger trait, and the article by Portman coincides with an phone call I received this morning:

For the past two year now, I've been working with a gold purchasing retail outlet, helping them find locations. In the struggling economy, these sorts of places "We buy gold!" have exploded everywhere. They average about 1-2 new locations a quarter. For me, it's nickel and dime stuff- these are short leases, make me a little extra cash to spend on stuff like fantasy football. Nothing major.

Anyhow, working on their latest lease deal in Norwalk, when I got a call this morning from my client. They're cancelling out. And suspending all new locations for the time being. Did the gold market finally crash, I wondered? No, doing as good as ever, he tells me. But he met with his accountant, and it turns out that he now has 49 employees. If he opens up the new location, he has to hire 50, which means Obamacare kicks in. So the accountant advised waiting.

Yeah, this ticks me off a little bit, I lose a little cash I was expecting. But the bigger deal is that a company which, in the normal scheme of things, would have continued to grow and hire more people, has stopped, thanks to Obamacare. This is EXACTLY what Portman was talking about.

Sounds like you won't be able to lose as many FF leagues as you hoped. I'll make sure to pour some out for one less cash for gold place.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe in anecdotes.

Neither do I, when they're offered in lieu of statistics. But they can be suggestive of statistics to come. If we find in the next coming months that a significant number of companies have stopped growing and hiring at 49, then we'll know for sure that there's some truth to it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Story I'm about to tell is anecdotal, and mostly I don't like relying on anecdotal evidence. But sometimes it can be suggestive of a larger trait, and the article by Portman coincides with an phone call I received this morning:

For the past two year now, I've been working with a gold purchasing retail outlet, helping them find locations. In the struggling economy, these sorts of places "We buy gold!" have exploded everywhere. They average about 1-2 new locations a quarter. For me, it's nickel and dime stuff- these are short leases, make me a little extra cash to spend on stuff like fantasy football. Nothing major.

Anyhow, working on their latest lease deal in Norwalk, when I got a call this morning from my client. They're cancelling out. And suspending all new locations for the time being. Did the gold market finally crash, I wondered? No, doing as good as ever, he tells me. But he met with his accountant, and it turns out that he now has 49 employees. If he opens up the new location, he has to hire 50, which means Obamacare kicks in. So the accountant advised waiting.

Yeah, this ticks me off a little bit, I lose a little cash I was expecting. But the bigger deal is that a company which, in the normal scheme of things, would have continued to grow and hire more people, has stopped, thanks to Obamacare. This is EXACTLY what Portman was talking about.

Sounds like you won't be able to lose as many FF leagues as you hoped. I'll make sure to pour some out for one less cash for gold place.

Fewer Cash 4 Gold businesses may be the best argument in favor of Obamacare I've heard in a while.

 

[matttyl]

I talked to a guy at lunch who couldn't afford health care prior to the ACA, but can afford it now and is now covered.

Based on this story, I think we can conclude the ACA is an overwhelming success. Closed the thread boys.

That's unpossible. Key difference.

 

[humpback]

I don't believe in anecdotes.

Except for when I do.

 

[RCon]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

Humor me, and review the ways Obamacare improves overall care and lowers the overall cost of care. Note that I'm interested in health care, not health insurance. Also note that for these purposes, I'm completely ignoring "access to care", as I consider that falling under "getting everyone covered".

*bump*

On a macro level, it's impossible to separate the two. You can't just ignore the poor care that the uninsured get in the US and suggest they aren't part of the overall equation.

I already granted that Obamacare is a step in the right direction towards providing everyone access to care. I even granted that true single payer would be the best way to achieve the goal of getting everyone access to care.

I'm asking how Obamacare improves the quality of health care our country offers. I'm asking how Obamacare lowers the overall cost of care for our country. Not how it improves health insurance. Not whether or how it makes health insurance more/less expensive. Those are completely different things.

You stated "Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again." I'm asking you to humor me and review those for me.

 

[Sand]

Actually you're wrong. I find his argument very plausible. I was speaking financially only, and then only for the immediate future. I was using the logic of a young person who unwisely does not look at things long term. I think it's reasonable to assume that's exactly how many if not most young people will perceive this.

And we have a lot of them now who are totally insurable and who are uninsured. Why are increasing prices for them going to result in higher participation? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, maybe the mandate will push more into coverage - but likely toward the catastrophic plan (if under 30) which won't have enough $ going back into the pie.

I've never understood this. We're placing the financial burden for this on the people just starting out (i.e. lower wage jobs, less stored resources, etc.) and subsidizing those who have had the time to build up a nest egg (ostensibly) so that they can absorb the cost of their healthcare. This seems backwards.

 

[timschochet]

Story I'm about to tell is anecdotal, and mostly I don't like relying on anecdotal evidence. But sometimes it can be suggestive of a larger trait, and the article by Portman coincides with an phone call I received this morning:

For the past two year now, I've been working with a gold purchasing retail outlet, helping them find locations. In the struggling economy, these sorts of places "We buy gold!" have exploded everywhere. They average about 1-2 new locations a quarter. For me, it's nickel and dime stuff- these are short leases, make me a little extra cash to spend on stuff like fantasy football. Nothing major.

Anyhow, working on their latest lease deal in Norwalk, when I got a call this morning from my client. They're cancelling out. And suspending all new locations for the time being. Did the gold market finally crash, I wondered? No, doing as good as ever, he tells me. But he met with his accountant, and it turns out that he now has 49 employees. If he opens up the new location, he has to hire 50, which means Obamacare kicks in. So the accountant advised waiting.

Yeah, this ticks me off a little bit, I lose a little cash I was expecting. But the bigger deal is that a company which, in the normal scheme of things, would have continued to grow and hire more people, has stopped, thanks to Obamacare. This is EXACTLY what Portman was talking about.

Sounds like you won't be able to lose as many FF leagues as you hoped. I'll make sure to pour some out for one less cash for gold place.

Fewer Cash 4 Gold businesses may be the best argument in favor of Obamacare I've heard in a while.

So you guys are attacking the messenger and attacking Cash 4 Gold businesses- fine. But you're not responding to the point about stopping hiring and growth at 49 people to prevent Obamacare from kicking in. Do you deny that this is an issue worth considering?

 

[cstu]

I don't think Obamacare is the best way to get EVERYONE covered - single payer is. But Obamacare is way, WAY better than what we had before, particularly if your goal is to get everyone covered. I don't even understand how you can argue otherwise.

Here's the thing: getting everyone covered is a worthwhile goal, but it's not the only goal we should be pursuing. Single payer is clearly the simplest way to achieve the goal of getting everyone covered. I don't think anyone would dispute that, if getting everyone covered was the only goal. It's also pretty clear that Obamacare is a step towards this goal (from what preceded it). I don't think anyone would dispute that either, if getting everyone covered was the only goal.

Other goals we should pursue include improving overall care (i.e. "better" health care) and more efficient overall care (i.e. "cheaper" and "faster" health care). My problem with Obamacare is that I don't believe it does either of those things. Worse, not only does it not help us move toward either of these goals, it effectively precludes us from moving towards those goals at any time in the near future, because politicians won't want to take up the health care issue again any time in the near future.

You are focused very specifically on the goal of getting everyone covered, while others are focused on the other goals I noted, which is why you often talk past each other in evaluating Obamacare.

Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again.

And the official, non-partisan scorekeeper on budget related matters studied the ACA and the analysis indicates that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. So while uninformed Tea Party folks continue pushing the Obamacare will bankrupt us meme, the folks who are actually experts at interpreting legislation and accurately determining effects on our budget suggest our budget will be better off WITH Obamacare.

Humor me, and review the ways Obamacare improves overall care and lowers the overall cost of care. Note that I'm interested in health care, not health insurance. Also note that for these purposes, I'm completely ignoring "access to care", as I consider that falling under "getting everyone covered".

*bump*

On a macro level, it's impossible to separate the two. You can't just ignore the poor care that the uninsured get in the US and suggest they aren't part of the overall equation.

I already granted that Obamacare is a step in the right direction towards providing everyone access to care. I even granted that true single payer would be the best way to achieve the goal of getting everyone access to care.

I'm asking how Obamacare improves the quality of health care our country offers. I'm asking how Obamacare lowers the overall cost of care for our country. Not how it improves health insurance. Not whether or how it makes health insurance more/less expensive. Those are completely different things.

You stated "Obamacare does improve overall care and has several cost containment measures. They've been pointed out over and over and over again." I'm asking you to humor me and review those for me.

I supported it, but IMO Obamacare was never about reducing costs. It was a step towards single payer, which is the ultimate goal. It has

 

[greenroom]

So we have already made up our minds before it is even in place. What this is 1500 attempt by a Republican, to say it will not word, yet they still do not provide an alternative plan.

 

[timschochet]

So we have already made up our minds before it is even in place. What this is 1500 attempt by a Republican, to say it will not word, yet they still do not provide an alternative plan.

Good point. As far as I'm concerned, there is none. At this point, ANY attempt to derail Obamacare and replace it, either back to where we were before, or with a more progressive plan like single payer, is doomed to fail.

Love it or hate it, like it mildly or disdain it (I'm in the last option myself), we're stuck with Obamacare. The best we can do is attempt to fix some of the glitches to improve it very slightly. But nothing the Republicans are suggesting right now makes any sense whatsoever, especially shutting down the govt to defund it- that's insane.

 

[-jb-]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

 

[snogger]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

 

[Johnny Rock]

So we have already made up our minds before it is even in place. What this is 1500 attempt by a Republican, to say it will not word, yet they still do not provide an alternative plan.

Good point. As far as I'm concerned, there is none. At this point, ANY attempt to derail Obamacare and replace it, either back to where we were before, or with a more progressive plan like single payer, is doomed to fail.Love it or hate it, like it mildly or disdain it (I'm in the last option myself), we're stuck with Obamacare. The best we can do is attempt to fix some of the glitches to improve it very slightly. But nothing the Republicans are suggesting right now makes any sense whatsoever, especially shutting down the govt to defund it- that's insane.

Why can't it be stopped and switch course (besides the fact that stupid govt never does this)? If a project was started at my company, and the costs were double, a bunch of other things were going wrong and new information showed that it was going to fail, we would most certainly halt the project and reassess. We've done this many times including on very large projects. Heck, we once bought land and had earthwork and footings in the ground before pulling out due to a change in market conditions. Pisses me off that these guys stick their heads in the sand rather than make tough decisions. There's a reason that article mentions :trainwreck: so many times.

 

[DrJ]

So we have already made up our minds before it is even in place. What this is 1500 attempt by a Republican, to say it will not word, yet they still do not provide an alternative plan.

Good point. As far as I'm concerned, there is none. At this point, ANY attempt to derail Obamacare and replace it, either back to where we were before, or with a more progressive plan like single payer, is doomed to fail.Love it or hate it, like it mildly or disdain it (I'm in the last option myself), we're stuck with Obamacare. The best we can do is attempt to fix some of the glitches to improve it very slightly. But nothing the Republicans are suggesting right now makes any sense whatsoever, especially shutting down the govt to defund it- that's insane.

Why can't it be stopped and switch course (besides the fact that stupid govt never does this)? If a project was started at my company, and the costs were double, a bunch of other things were going wrong and new information showed that it was going to fail, we would most certainly halt the project and reassess. We've done this many times including on very large projects. Heck, we once bought land and had earthwork and footings in the ground before pulling out due to a change in market conditions.Pisses me off that these guys stick their heads in the sand rather than make tough decisions. There's a reason that article mentions :trainwreck: so many times.

They didn't take the time to actually assess it when it was passed, no surprise that they aren't going to do it now. The figures they toss out are really more for political show than anything.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

 

[cstu]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

The way I see it there are many other services I think we could cut besides health care. In particular Section 8 rent subsidies which cost $15B a year and are basically a handout to landlords.

 

[snogger]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So no worries then huh?? They know what they are doing and it is Paid for..

This is the FIRST step and it is already DOUBLE the cost.. All tax payers better be ready for the

 

[timschochet]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

Come on Tommy. You've been arguing this whole time that Obamacare would save money because the GAO said so, based on an individual mandate that it turns out is not gonna be enforced. Now you're arguing that at least it's not as expensive as Iraq? Obamacare is not going to break us. The Tea Party nuts have gone completely over the bend on this as they usually do. But that doesn't mean it's a good plan. It's an awful plan, a stupid bureaucratic political compromise mishmash.

 

[matttyl]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[cstu]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since when is helping keep people alive a mistake? I thought that's why conservatives were so against abortion?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

He's about 3 times as sharp as you, buddy.

 

[DrJ]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

He's about 3 times as sharp as you, buddy.

3 times 0 is still 0.

 

[snogger]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since when is helping keep people alive a mistake? I thought that's why conservatives were so against abortion?

Most, including myself, don't have a problem with getting health care for all..

I have a problem with the Left continuing to say "Trust us, we know what we are doing.. This is paid for, our numbers are spot on".

Then when article, after article, after article shows they are wrong we get "well, at least it isn't as bad as the War/bush etc.." :

 

[cstu]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since when is helping keep people alive a mistake? I thought that's why conservatives were so against abortion?

Most, including myself, don't have a problem with getting health care for all..

I have a problem with the Left continuing to say "Trust us, we know what we are doing.. This is paid for, our numbers are spot on".

Then when article, after article, after article shows they are wrong we get "well, at least it isn't as bad as the War/bush etc.." :

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

 

[matttyl]

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

And we, as Americans are ok with either of these?!

 

[snogger]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since when is helping keep people alive a mistake? I thought that's why conservatives were so against abortion?

Most, including myself, don't have a problem with getting health care for all..

I have a problem with the Left continuing to say "Trust us, we know what we are doing.. This is paid for, our numbers are spot on".

Then when article, after article, after article shows they are wrong we get "well, at least it isn't as bad as the War/bush etc.." :

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

Harry Reid finally admitted what those with half a brain knew along about the ACA...

When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Harry Reid says Obamacare will lead to single-payer system

 

[Dr Oadi]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/obamacare-depends-on-math-of-matt-saniie-from-campaign-data-cave.html

Don't worry they say.. this is paid for they say..." Costs for the health-insurance exchanges swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 combined and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, more than double initial projections.'

So the exchanges are going to cost us $11.1B over the next 3 years? We spent $10B a month in Iraq.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

So because we've made mistakes in the past gives up the right to continue making them?

TGunz isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since when is helping keep people alive a mistake? I thought that's why conservatives were so against abortion?

Most, including myself, don't have a problem with getting health care for all..I have a problem with the Left continuing to say "Trust us, we know what we are doing.. This is paid for, our numbers are spot on".

Then when article, after article, after article shows they are wrong we get "well, at least it isn't as bad as the War/bush etc.." :

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

Harry Reid finally admitted what those with half a brain knew along about the ACA...

When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Harry Reid says Obamacare will lead to single-payer system

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D7KSkZxt_zo

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

 

[tri-man 47]

Chicago Tribune now calling for a deferral of the individual mandate (in keeping with the employer deferral).

 

[cstu]

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

And we, as Americans are ok with either of these?!

What choice do we have? All of the politicians are owned by corporations so no matter who you vote for they are mostly doing the bidding of big business.

 

[snogger]

An honest discussion would never have got Obamacare passed.

All politicians are liars, you just support the liar you think has the best idea.

And we, as Americans are ok with either of these?!

What choice do we have? All of the politicians are owned by corporations so no matter who you vote for they are mostly doing the bidding of big business.

We need more people to open their eyes and realize the two party system is bought and paid for and that is time for REAL change.. aka 3rd party and FREE air time.. until then we will continue to. The first of many steps is to get your representatives to join the nolabels.org movement.

 

[cstu]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

 

[MaxThreshold]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

 

[cstu]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

That is only the premium, you did not add the deductibles and the 10K maximum you might have to pay ON TOP of the premium AND the deductibles. No family making 50K could afford the Silver plan unless they are willing to pay over 20% of their income even before income and state taxes are paid.

This plan will ensure fewer people have medical coverage because it will not be affordable to the middle class and even less to the lower end of the income scale.

Please take into consideration ALL what you will pay if you get sick, not just the high premiums.

 

[cstu]

For those of you that think Obamacare is good for the people, please go to Enroll America and run the numbers. You will then have a real world basis for your thoughts. Run it for a family making 50K a year and see if you think that family could afford the monthly premiums not to mention the 2K deductible for each member.

These exchanges are a joke, seriously run the numbers for yourself and your family, you will be shocked and dis-heartened at the reality of it all.

Here's a direct link to the calculator: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

"Affordable Care Act"?

Based on this calculator, my insurance will now go up $600 a month (Silver Plan).

So basically, we were lied to. Instead, it's costing much, much more for lower quality health care (when you can actually get in to see a doctor, that is).

The plan is good for families making about $50k or less but it looks like I can buy my health care privately for less.

That is only the premium, you did not add the deductibles and the 10K maximum you might have to pay ON TOP of the premium AND the deductibles. No family making 50K could afford the Silver plan unless they are willing to pay over 20% of their income even before income and state taxes are paid.

This plan will ensure fewer people have medical coverage because it will not be affordable to the middle class and even less to the lower end of the income scale.

Please take into consideration ALL what you will pay if you get sick, not just the high premiums.

If you don't need prescriptions then the bronze plan is the best choice, that is $200/mo. for a family of 3 making $50k. The major difference between bronze and silver is the prescription coverage - with bronze you have to meet the $5k deductible to even get any prescription coverage while the silver gets you $25 or less generics and a $500 prescription deductible for brand name drugs.

At $343 the silver plan is not cheap for the family making $50k but if need the drugs then what other choice do you have?

Plan comparisons