What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (3 Viewers)

So if I'm reading this correctly, about 50-60 million people were uninsured. Obama website said about half of them will be eligible for some form of "cost assistance." Now we hear that about 17 million uninsured or individually insured will be eligible for premium tax credits, and many millions more will be eligible for assistance with out of pocket costs. Together, that number (17 million, minus individually insured people eligible for premium tax credits, plus people below 250% of the FPL) could every easily total 25-30 million, correct?
So where's the "lie" you were ranting about? And why did you do all that fuzzy math to get to that ridiculous 5% number?
No, there will not be "millions more", they will be the same people. You can't get assistance with out of pocket costs unless you were already getting a subsidy. You get a subsidy if you're under 400% of the FPL, and you get OOP assistance if you're under 250% of the FPL. You can't be under 250% of the FPL unless you're already under 400% of it.

I hope you don't consider that "fuzzy math".

And 17M =/= half of the 50 or 60 million uninsured.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's very very hard to believe it could happen if you understand how the safety net actually works instead of how Rush Limbaugh tells you it works. And it's even harder to believe that it could happen without explicit legislation granting the authority to do so that would make headlines for months.
That hasn't stopped people from lining up to "get theirs" before.
If you're referring to the article you posted, in the first case there was actually something to "get" in that case, which you'd see if you clicked through to the AP article instead of relying on infowars.com to provide your news, and the second case it appears to be a ID scam with only a tenuous link to the government. Not sure either case is anything like thinking the government is providing free gas for black people (but not white people) under the Affordable Care Act.
What are you trying to prove? All I'm saying is that there are clearly people out there that believe there's free stuff to be had from the government and are willing to line up to get it.
Just like there are people who believe there are free iPads, GAP jeans, etc. to be had from private companies for forwarding emails.

Do you have a point?
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
Of course you do. It's the undeserving poor blacks getting free everything.
Has nothing to do with black, or undeserving, it's free stuff for the poor.. Some of it is a great idea, some of it not so great. Which is why it wouldn't surprise me if there was free gas as well... You've already had it explained to you now by at least 3 people... Pointing out free stuff for the needy, and/or having a problem with benefits based on skin color, does not equate to me believing poor blacks are undeserving..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's very very hard to believe it could happen if you understand how the safety net actually works instead of how Rush Limbaugh tells you it works. And it's even harder to believe that it could happen without explicit legislation granting the authority to do so that would make headlines for months.
That hasn't stopped people from lining up to "get theirs" before.
If you're referring to the article you posted, in the first case there was actually something to "get" in that case, which you'd see if you clicked through to the AP article instead of relying on infowars.com to provide your news, and the second case it appears to be a ID scam with only a tenuous link to the government. Not sure either case is anything like thinking the government is providing free gas for black people (but not white people) under the Affordable Care Act.
What are you trying to prove? All I'm saying is that there are clearly people out there that believe there's free stuff to be had from the government and are willing to line up to get it.
Just like there are people who believe there are free iPads, GAP jeans, etc. to be had from private companies for forwarding emails.

Do you have a point?
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
Of course you do. It's the undeserving poor blacks getting free everything.
Why shouldn't we be mad at these undeserving people taking everything? I mean clearly all of the deserving poor blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, central europeans, and many many others aren't getting what they deserve due to this activity. We shouldn't stop at the undeserving blacks though, we needs to target every and all undeserving group and put a stop to this wholesale rape of those who truly need help!Schlzm
I'm not making any judgment here, simply identifying CH's beliefs .
 
So if I'm reading this correctly, about 50-60 million people were uninsured. Obama website said about half of them will be eligible for some form of "cost assistance." Now we hear that about 17 million uninsured or individually insured will be eligible for premium tax credits, and many millions more will be eligible for assistance with out of pocket costs. Together, that number (17 million, minus individually insured people eligible for premium tax credits, plus people below 250% of the FPL) could every easily total 25-30 million, correct?
So where's the "lie" you were ranting about? And why did you do all that fuzzy math to get to that ridiculous 5% number?
There will not be "millions more", they will be the same people. You can't get assistance with out of pocket costs unless you were already getting a subsidy. You get a subsidy if you're under 400% of the FPL, and you get OOP assistance if you're under 250% of the FPL. You can't be under 250% of the FPL unless you're already under 400% of it.

I hope you don't consider that "fuzzy math".

And 17M =/= half of the 50 or 60 million uninsured.
Got it.

So they said "about half" of uninsured would get some form of cost assistance and so far it turns out it's closer to a third (assuming there's no other cost assistance available to those other 33 million).

Why not just say that? Why go on a bizarre rant that wrongly concludes that the number is actually about 5%? What purpose does that serve, other than to mislead people in an effort to make the administration/the law look worse? Why should I consider the rest of your posts credible when you do that? For example, I have no reason to believe that the other 33 million aren't eligible for any other forms of cost assistance other than your word, which appears not to be worth all that much.

 
So if I'm reading this correctly, about 50-60 million people were uninsured. Obama website said about half of them will be eligible for some form of "cost assistance." Now we hear that about 17 million uninsured or individually insured will be eligible for premium tax credits, and many millions more will be eligible for assistance with out of pocket costs. Together, that number (17 million, minus individually insured people eligible for premium tax credits, plus people below 250% of the FPL) could every easily total 25-30 million, correct?
So where's the "lie" you were ranting about? And why did you do all that fuzzy math to get to that ridiculous 5% number?
There will not be "millions more", they will be the same people. You can't get assistance with out of pocket costs unless you were already getting a subsidy. You get a subsidy if you're under 400% of the FPL, and you get OOP assistance if you're under 250% of the FPL. You can't be under 250% of the FPL unless you're already under 400% of it.

I hope you don't consider that "fuzzy math".

And 17M =/= half of the 50 or 60 million uninsured.
Got it.

So they said "about half" of uninsured would get some form of cost assistance and so far it turns out it's closer to a third (assuming there's no other cost assistance available to those other 33 million).

Why not just say that? Why go on a bizarre rant that wrongly concludes that the number is actually about 5%? What purpose does that serve, other than to mislead people in an effort to make the administration/the law look worse? Why should I consider the rest of your posts credible when you do that? For example, I have no reason to believe that the other 33 million aren't eligible for any other forms of cost assistance other than your word, which appears not to be worth all that much.
They also claimed that half of Americans who buy their insurance directly would also qualify for a subsidy. That's why I included the other 28 million people. LInk:

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% of Americans who buy individual insurance today would be eligible for subsidies. They would receive an average of $5,548, which would cover 66% of the price.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html

Here is the President himself saying that 6 in 10 uninsured would be able to get subsidized coverage....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-obamacare-offers-health-insurance-less-your-cell-phone-bill_756593.html

His direct quote - "In just over a week, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and the leadership shown by the CBC and others in Congress -- so many of you fought to pass this law -- thanks to your efforts, 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will finally be able to get covered for less than $100 a month. Everybody is going to be able to get coverage; 6 in 10 will be able to get coverage for less than 100 bucks a month."

"About half of the people won't be paying the sticker price," said Gary Claxton, director of the health care marketplace project at Kaiser, an information clearinghouse on the health care system. "The people who get help will get quite a lot of help." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-study-half-those-who-now-buy-their-own-health-plans-will-get-subsidies#sthash.qOEAqmOD.dpuf
 
I haven't been following closely, are we still calling the Tea Party racist idiots even though they were completely right about everything about this? TIA.

 
To be fair...it's apples and oranges. The first link is saying that the CBO forecast now for ACA premiums is 16% different than the previous CBO forecast. The second is comparing pre-ACA premiums with post-ACA premiums of similar plans. Personally, I don't care about the first. I care more about the later. That's where all the promises were made.
I'm personally not that interesting it whatever promises a politicain makes. They are almost never followed through on.

It has been pretty clear for a while now that the individual market (~20mm) was going to price much higher as a result of Obamacare. I have always been surprised they expected the enrollment to grow regardless.
Hard to disagree, but at the same time, people believed "Romney math" during the last election too. And today people believe that Obamastations are going to be opening all over the country giving all black people free gas while telling white people to pound sand.
Obamastations :lmao:
:lol: Go back a couple pages to get the full effect

 
Government Opening Free Gas Stations in Poor NeighborhoodsOct 29, 2013
First 'Obamastation' Debuts in Detroit, Seventy Planned Nationwide


Obamastation-257x167.jpg
As the battle over Obamacare rages in Washington, the White House is quietly using a little known provision of the law to roll out a nationwide network of free gas stations for minorities and the poor.

According to a report in The Detroit News this morning, the administration is using its authority under the Affordable Care Act to "improve transportation routes to hospitals" to dispense gasoline free of cost in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The $2 billion-a-year program aims to distribute 40 million gallons of free gasoline each year through 70 new gas stations constructed in major metropolitan areas. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) will be responsible for operating the network, whose first station opened yesterday in Detroit.

"It's not something we're publicizing very much, for obvious reasons," explains Dori Salcido, assistant DHS secretary for public affairs. "But under the law we are well within our rights to offer this service, and we think it's good public policy.

"How are people supposed to get to the doctor's office if they don't have gas in their cars? Health insurance is worthless if you can't make your appointment. This is just another fine example of government stepping in and solving big problems."

<a href="http://cas.criteo.com/delivery/ck.php?cb=000000" target="_blank"> <img src="http://cas.criteo.com/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=8923" border="0" alt=" "/> </a>
No Gas for YouAlthough some developing oil-rich nations like Venezuela and Indonesia subsidize gasoline for the poor, the practice has never before been tried in the United States. The plans are proving controversial with some taxpayers who are loathe to see their money go to subsidize others.

"So basically I'm being punished for not living in the ghetto," says Colin Blair, a white person from the affluent Detroit suburb of Farmington Hills. "I have three kids and a mortgage. Life isn't cheap for me either. I could use some free gasoline too."

An investigation into the station's operations, however, reveals that Blair is unlikely to be able to use the service.

"Supposedly access to the station is determined by income," says Ebony Jackson, manager of the first Obamastation. "But it's pretty unrealistic to do an income check on each and every driver. So what we do is basically let all the black people pump for free, and charge all the white people the market rate."

The Obamastations scandal was uncovered by Nolan Finley , a conservative Detroit News columnist widely lauded for his groundbreaking exposé on Obamaphones. Finley says the blatant racial bias in the program is only one of its many outrageous aspects.

"The stations have Obama campaign logo on them and giant photos of the president," he explains. "He's trying to buy votes ahead of the midterm elections. This is something you normally only see in third world countries. I've never been more scared for our democracy."
http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/29/government-opening-free-gas-stations-in-poor-neighborhoods/

I hope this is not true...

wtf?
The Daily Currant - The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record
I was unfamiliar with the source.. Obviously an onion wannabe..

Reality is that it's not hard to believe this could happen.. Free gas in poor communities (I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that under certain circumstances) and then employees at the stations giving preferential treatment to minorities (I'd have a problem with that)..
Sorry....the only people who would even entertain something like this being true are the people who WANT it to be true.
Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
For me? Yes...incredibly hard It's probably not hard at all to believe it for the intended audience. Shooting fish in a barrel most of the time.
I've seen similar situations myself..
What SIMILAR situation have you "seen" that is close to the article you posted?
I've already posted about it a page ago...

While volunteering at the local Christmas Bureau, an event where the department of social services collects donations, and puts together thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, and provides money and gifts so that needy families can have Christmas, there were people working there who were alleged to have been giving more benefits, easier to other people of the same skin color, and denying or giving more to some who had all the same circumstances that were not the same color. Once their applications where inspected, one person was fired as it was evident that she had indeed done exactly that...

An anecdotal story, but a true story... It surprises me that you find it had to believe that people would do this....
I know the Christmas bureau actually....and to be clear....you are suggesting our local Christmas bureau is similar enough to our gas stations that you felt they were a good example to support your assertion?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I'm reading this correctly, about 50-60 million people were uninsured. Obama website said about half of them will be eligible for some form of "cost assistance." Now we hear that about 17 million uninsured or individually insured will be eligible for premium tax credits, and many millions more will be eligible for assistance with out of pocket costs. Together, that number (17 million, minus individually insured people eligible for premium tax credits, plus people below 250% of the FPL) could every easily total 25-30 million, correct?
So where's the "lie" you were ranting about? And why did you do all that fuzzy math to get to that ridiculous 5% number?
There will not be "millions more", they will be the same people. You can't get assistance with out of pocket costs unless you were already getting a subsidy. You get a subsidy if you're under 400% of the FPL, and you get OOP assistance if you're under 250% of the FPL. You can't be under 250% of the FPL unless you're already under 400% of it.

I hope you don't consider that "fuzzy math".

And 17M =/= half of the 50 or 60 million uninsured.
Got it.

So they said "about half" of uninsured would get some form of cost assistance and so far it turns out it's closer to a third (assuming there's no other cost assistance available to those other 33 million).

Why not just say that? Why go on a bizarre rant that wrongly concludes that the number is actually about 5%? What purpose does that serve, other than to mislead people in an effort to make the administration/the law look worse? Why should I consider the rest of your posts credible when you do that? For example, I have no reason to believe that the other 33 million aren't eligible for any other forms of cost assistance other than your word, which appears not to be worth all that much.
They also claimed that half of Americans who buy their insurance directly would also qualify for a subsidy. That's why I included the other 28 million people. LInk:

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% of Americans who buy individual insurance today would be eligible for subsidies. They would receive an average of $5,548, which would cover 66% of the price.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html

Here is the President himself saying that 6 in 10 uninsured would be able to get subsidized coverage....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-obamacare-offers-health-insurance-less-your-cell-phone-bill_756593.html

His direct quote - "In just over a week, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and the leadership shown by the CBC and others in Congress -- so many of you fought to pass this law -- thanks to your efforts, 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will finally be able to get covered for less than $100 a month. Everybody is going to be able to get coverage; 6 in 10 will be able to get coverage for less than 100 bucks a month."

"About half of the people won't be paying the sticker price," said Gary Claxton, director of the health care marketplace project at Kaiser, an information clearinghouse on the health care system. "The people who get help will get quite a lot of help." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-study-half-those-who-now-buy-their-own-health-plans-will-get-subsidies#sthash.qOEAqmOD.dpuf
So the Kaiser Family Foundation = "Most Dems"? I just googled Kaiser Family Foundation and it says that they're a non-partisan private operating foundation" right there at the top of the first page of results.

And you still haven't explained why you concluded that the number was around 5%. Why did you do that?

You seem to be far more interested in making the Act and the administration look bad than you are in being truthful. It's a shame, you seem pretty knowledgeable on the topic but I'm not sure why anyone should trust you at this point.

 
So if I'm reading this correctly, about 50-60 million people were uninsured. Obama website said about half of them will be eligible for some form of "cost assistance." Now we hear that about 17 million uninsured or individually insured will be eligible for premium tax credits, and many millions more will be eligible for assistance with out of pocket costs. Together, that number (17 million, minus individually insured people eligible for premium tax credits, plus people below 250% of the FPL) could every easily total 25-30 million, correct?
So where's the "lie" you were ranting about? And why did you do all that fuzzy math to get to that ridiculous 5% number?
There will not be "millions more", they will be the same people. You can't get assistance with out of pocket costs unless you were already getting a subsidy. You get a subsidy if you're under 400% of the FPL, and you get OOP assistance if you're under 250% of the FPL. You can't be under 250% of the FPL unless you're already under 400% of it.

I hope you don't consider that "fuzzy math".

And 17M =/= half of the 50 or 60 million uninsured.
Got it.

So they said "about half" of uninsured would get some form of cost assistance and so far it turns out it's closer to a third (assuming there's no other cost assistance available to those other 33 million).

Why not just say that? Why go on a bizarre rant that wrongly concludes that the number is actually about 5%? What purpose does that serve, other than to mislead people in an effort to make the administration/the law look worse? Why should I consider the rest of your posts credible when you do that? For example, I have no reason to believe that the other 33 million aren't eligible for any other forms of cost assistance other than your word, which appears not to be worth all that much.
They also claimed that half of Americans who buy their insurance directly would also qualify for a subsidy. That's why I included the other 28 million people. LInk:

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% of Americans who buy individual insurance today would be eligible for subsidies. They would receive an average of $5,548, which would cover 66% of the price.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html

Here is the President himself saying that 6 in 10 uninsured would be able to get subsidized coverage....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-obamacare-offers-health-insurance-less-your-cell-phone-bill_756593.html

His direct quote - "In just over a week, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and the leadership shown by the CBC and others in Congress -- so many of you fought to pass this law -- thanks to your efforts, 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will finally be able to get covered for less than $100 a month. Everybody is going to be able to get coverage; 6 in 10 will be able to get coverage for less than 100 bucks a month."

"About half of the people won't be paying the sticker price," said Gary Claxton, director of the health care marketplace project at Kaiser, an information clearinghouse on the health care system. "The people who get help will get quite a lot of help." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-study-half-those-who-now-buy-their-own-health-plans-will-get-subsidies#sthash.qOEAqmOD.dpuf
You seem to be far more interested in making the Act and the administration look bad than you are in being truthful.
He doesn't have to do that. The Act and administration are doing a great job by themselves at looking bad.

 
I haven't been following closely, are we still calling the Tea Party racist idiots even though they were completely right about everything about this? TIA.
In other words you're saying f those Undeserving Poor Blacks © this phase is the intellectual property of timschochet

 
So the Kaiser Family Foundation = "Most Dems"? I just googled Kaiser Family Foundation and it says that they're a non-partisan private operating foundation" right there at the top of the first page of results.

And you still haven't explained why you concluded that the number was around 5%. Why did you do that?

You seem to be far more interested in making the Act and the administration look bad than you are in being truthful. It's a shame, you seem pretty knowledgeable on the topic but I'm not sure why anyone should trust you at this point.
Sorry, I posted my last comment when I was leaving the office in a rush to get home before it's dark (which I wasn't able to do).

Anyway, I posted above how Obama himself said that "6 in 10" uninsured would be able to get subsidized coverage. In fact the Obamacare website says "6 in 10 Americans without health insurance can get health insurance for under $100 through their State's Health Insurance Marketplace" (which is obviously a subsidized figure). Again, 17m =/= 6 in 10 of the uninsured. Here's a quote from Sebelius saying the same - "With more than half of all uninsured Americans able to get coverage at $100 or less, the health care law is delivering the quality, affordable coverage people are looking for." (Source http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/100-dollar-premiums-exchanges/2822979/)

The Obamacare website also says "Americans making less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level can use the health insurance marketplaces to get reduced premiums and lower out of pocket costs on health insurance for 2014." Again, that's not true as that's over half of the US population is under that amount (Source - http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/population-up-to-400-fpl/), but as I pointed out above only 17M will be subsidy eligible (which is only 5% of the US population, which is why I pointed that out). The KFF (who you googled) did the study that just showed how many people are under that amount, it was the Dems who then said that's the amount of people who would qualify for subsidized coverage, which as I'm pointing out to you, is false.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While volunteering at the local Christmas Bureau, an event where the department of social services collects donations, and puts together thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, and provides money and gifts so that needy families can have Christmas, there were people working there who were alleged to have been giving more benefits, easier to other people of the same skin color, and denying or giving less to some who had all the same circumstances that were not the same color. Once their applications where inspected, one person was fired as it was evident that she had indeed done exactly that...

An anecdotal story, but a true story... It surprises me that you find it hard to believe that people would do this....
I know the Christmas bureau actually....and to be clear....you are suggesting our local Christmas bureau is similar enough to our gas stations that you felt they were a good example to support your assertion?
I'm saying that the people that are placed in the position to dole out these benefits are part of the same pool of people every other biased and discriminating nut-job is a part of, it's not hard to believe that some of them may have biases, and that some of those with biases may let their biases get in the way of an otherwise fair and impartial distribution of said benefits. Regardless of what that benefit would be...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to get back to ways to fix ACA. A few days ago I offered what I think might be a pretty simple solution, even though it will end up costing the taxpayer more money, and that is this: if your existing policy is cancelled, and your only choice is a much more expensive policy with a much higher deductible, and you are below a certain income level (excludes upper middle class and above), then you would be entitled to some sort of subsidy, rebate, or tax deduction- one way or another, the difference owed would be covered.

I realize this will make the program cost much more. But if the current program is unacceptable, and if getting rid of it is not going to happen, and if going to single payer is not going to happen, then this seems to be the most reasonable of alternatives.
Not really practical. As a one-time event, it could work. That is, if your cost was $100 last year, but under ACA it will be $150 this year, a one-time $50 tax credit might be practical and easily calculable. But do you intend to credit that person $50 per year for the rest of their life? What if they change policies to something completely different? What if they get married, have kids, get divorced, etc.? Still a $50 tax credit forever? What if the person becomes part of the 1%? Does the $50 need to be indexed to inflation?

Even all of that ignores the fact that the plans would still be different. Who judges the difference in value between the plans?

Lastly, the fact is that with any government policy, there are going to be winners and losers. You seem to be of the opinion that there should never be any losers (i.e. no one should experience any pain); that any time government policy creates a loser, that person needs to be compensated. This simply isn't an affordable position.
I really think people take me too absolutely about the pain stuff. Of course there is always going to be pain, and losers. But my attitude is generally:

1. Let's try to reduce the pain whenever we can.

2. Let's try to eliminate stupid pain which (IMO) doesn't achieve any purpose beyond politics (such as the sequester cuts.)
The sequester cuts certainly serve a purpose. Because it is an idiotic approach to addressing concerns with the deficits doesn't mean it isn't serving that purpose.

And maybe the ACA will fail miserably, but it is clearly attempting to serve a "purpose beyond politics ",

 
matttyl - let's get your prediction clearly on the record.

Is it your opinion that fewer Americans will have health insurance 3 years from now due to the ACA?
I never gave a definitive time-frame at all. What I'm "clearly" saying, is that unless the ACA makes drastic changes and does so very quickly, over time we will not see a vastly larger percentage of the overall under age 65 population covered by medical insurance (and I'm not counting Medicaid in that) than we would have seen otherwise without the ACA - and we could very well see less people covered.
Then this is becomes a completely meaningless assertion.

 
There is nothing in the ACA (tort reform, free market competition, etc.) that will bend the cost curve downwards.
Free market - how are the exchanges anything but more open competition?

Tort reform - where has this worked? It is not like the red states haven't rolled this out over the past decade or so. With much less success than even the ACA. And isn't "tort reform" a direct contradiction to the belief in the capabilities of the free market?
Sand is a TypiKal Republican--he hates free market competition.
We didn't have market competition before? ....
Comparison shopping at the bazaar is shopping in a freer market place than at the company store.

 
There is nothing in the ACA (tort reform, free market competition, etc.) that will bend the cost curve downwards.
Free market - how are the exchanges anything but more open competition?

Tort reform - where has this worked? It is not like the red states haven't rolled this out over the past decade or so. With much less success than even the ACA. And isn't "tort reform" a direct contradiction to the belief in the capabilities of the free market?
Let's be honest here: massive regulation does lead to less free-market competition. For example, the market would be more free absent regulations on mandatory coverages (e.g. maternity coverage). The health insurance market hasn't been completely "free" in ages. It's not completely "un-free", but let's not pretend it's completely free either.
Sure. Who said that it was? Certainly not me?

 
We know this, if it was internally determined by this administration to be overly costly to the government, or to cause health care and health insurance costs to rise, or to decrease the quality of health care overall or in many cases, and/or generally to be actually harmful to a good number of average Americans...

...the administration would never repeal it, and would fight to reveal those facts, because it would be too harmful to its leaders and their party.

 
JHC. Don't any of you buttholes work? I don't appreciate coming home from work and having to catch up on 15 bazillion pages of comments posted during working hours. I'm assuming all of you qualify for Obamacare subsidies since you're posting in these forums all day long?

So...is there an Obamastations app I can use to locate the closest one? :)

 
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/state-by-state-estimates-of-the-number-of-people-eligible-for-premium-tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act/

"Key provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) create new Marketplaces for people who purchase insurance directly and provide new premium tax credits to help people with low or moderate incomes afford that coverage. We estimate that about 17 million people who are now uninsured or who buy insurance on their own (“nongroup purchasers”) will be eligible for premium tax credits in 2014."

Haven't Dems. been saying the entire time that nearly half of Americans will qualify for a subsidy?!

17M =/= half of Americans. Yet another lie. We've got ~50 million uninsured (~60M if you ask the CBO), with another ~28M covered by an individual policy currently. So we're talking about ~80M people, and less than a quarter of them are going to be eligible for a subsidy. How many lies are we up to at this point?

17M is only 5% of the population. I guess some Dems. just wanted to add a zero on the end of that.
Key provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) create new Marketplaces for people who purchase insurance directly and provide new premium tax credits to help people with low or moderate incomes afford that coverage. We estimate that about 17 million people who are now uninsured or who buy insurance on their own (“nongroup purchasers”) will be eligible for premium tax credits in 2014. This issue brief provides national and state estimates for tax credit eligibility for people in these groups. We also estimate that about 29 million people nationally could look to new Marketplaces as a place to purchase coverage.

:

:

The analysis starts with a pool of people who have no insurance or who purchase nongroup insurance. People who are covered by a public program or by employer-based coverage are assumed to retain that coverage and would not be eligible for premium tax credits. Two other groups of people were then removed from this potential pool of tax-credit eligible individuals: uninsured adults and children whose incomes would make them eligible for Medicaid or CHIP and people who are not legally residing in the United States. Neither group is eligible for premium tax credits under the ACA.

:

:

Potential Market. As with our estimates for tax-credit eligibles, the estimate for the number of people who might look for coverage in Marketplaces starts with people legally residing in the United States who are uninsured or have nongroup coverage and have incomes above Medicaid and CHIP eligibility levels. We retain all remaining nongroup purchasers, even those with low incomes, as potential Marketplace purchasers because they are purchasing nongroup coverage now. Among the current uninsured, we excluded two groups from potential purchasers. The first group is people with access to employer-based coverage. As discussed above, we assume that these people would choose coverage through a job rather than nongroup coverage if they want to get insurance. We used information from Wave 6 in SIPP, as described above, to remove them from the number of potential marketplace purchasers. Excluding currently uninsured people with access to employer-sponsored insurance reduces the number of potential purchasers by a little over five million people. The second group we excluded was uninsured people with incomes below poverty, referred to as the gap group. These uninsured adults live in states that elected not to adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion, and are not eligible for financial assistance to help them get coverage in exchanges. We assume that few would have sufficient resources to purchase nongroup coverage. Excluding this gap group reduces the number of potential purchasers by about 4.8 million people.
17/29 = 58.62%

or even 17/(29+4.8) = 50%

 
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/state-by-state-estimates-of-the-number-of-people-eligible-for-premium-tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act/

"Key provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) create new Marketplaces for people who purchase insurance directly and provide new premium tax credits to help people with low or moderate incomes afford that coverage. We estimate that about 17 million people who are now uninsured or who buy insurance on their own (“nongroup purchasers”) will be eligible for premium tax credits in 2014."

Haven't Dems. been saying the entire time that nearly half of Americans will qualify for a subsidy?!

17M =/= half of Americans. Yet another lie. We've got ~50 million uninsured (~60M if you ask the CBO), with another ~28M covered by an individual policy currently. So we're talking about ~80M people, and less than a quarter of them are going to be eligible for a subsidy. How many lies are we up to at this point?

17M is only 5% of the population. I guess some Dems. just wanted to add a zero on the end of that.
How much total will be spent on premium tax credits in 2014 and who will be paying for them?

Also, if people are already buying their health insurance why are we helping pay for them to do so? Also, isn't that an incentive to insurers to raise rates since they know that insureds can now afford higher rates (with government help) and shouldn't health providers now charge more since they know that insurers are now taking in more?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?

 
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?
One notion I find faulty is that corporations don't profit from social welfare.

 
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?
One notion I find faulty is that corporations don't profit from social welfare.
Much of our corporate welfare is sold as social welfare. Look at the ACA creating exchanges for insurance companies to find more customers. ;) All the while the very same insurance companies are busy looking at the gift horse in the mouth.

 
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?
One notion I find faulty is that corporations don't profit from social welfare.
Much of our corporate welfare is sold as social welfare. Look at the ACA creating exchanges for insurance companies to find more customers. ;) All the while the very same insurance companies are busy looking at the gift horse in the mouth.
This is as confusing as the Democratic counterargument that the mandate and exchange ideas were cooked up by Republicans, Heritage and Romney, who they then go on to tell us are horrible.

 
I'm sure that the same government that can't manage to properly build a website front-end will have no problem actually administering the giant machinery that is the national health care industry. After all, any failure there could sink a giant portion of the American economy, so I'm sure they'll get that part right.
And point.

 
This is as confusing as the Democratic counterargument that the mandate and exchange ideas were cooked up by Republicans, Heritage and Romney, who they then go on to tell us are horrible.
They were.

The exchanges used to be the GOP talking point of everyone being able to buy the same insurance offered federal employees. Of course that isn't exactly the way it was implemented. At least not yet....

The individual mandate was the GOP response to democrats calling for an employer mandate.

Oh, and once you have the exchanges working then you turn Ryan's Medicare vouchers into subsidies on the exchange and kill of Medicare the program.

How far behind before the Medicaid "block grants" to the state exchanges for the states to figure out how best to manage that population?

 
Uhm...NO solution is better than the massively expensive turd called the Affordable Care Act.
Single payer would be better. But other than that you are correct that it is probably way too late for any other solution at this point - including some I offered up three years ago.
I believe this.

This country has been wrapped up in this #### politically since 2007-08. Years more of it to look forward to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is as confusing as the Democratic counterargument that the mandate and exchange ideas were cooked up by Republicans, Heritage and Romney, who they then go on to tell us are horrible.
They were.

The exchanges used to be the GOP talking point of everyone being able to buy the same insurance offered federal employees. Of course that isn't exactly the way it was implemented. At least not yet....

The individual mandate was the GOP response to democrats calling for an employer mandate.

Oh, and once you have the exchanges working then you turn Ryan's Medicare vouchers into subsidies on the exchange and kill of Medicare the program.

How far behind before the Medicaid "block grants" to the state exchanges for the states to figure out how best to manage that population?
See, sorry to use a football analogy here, but instead of being Barry Sanders and picking a hole and blasting through it to daylight, we're more like Mark Ingram, tap dancing around behind the line until we're tackled for a six yard loss.

GOP think tank dream machine ideas as executed by Democrats. So bad.

 
See, sorry to use a football analogy here, but instead of being Barry Sanders and picking a hole and blasting through it to daylight, we're more like Mark Ingram, tap dancing around behind the line until we're tackled for a six yard loss.

GOP think tank dream machine ideas as executed by Democrats. So bad.
Democrats wanted a platform to reform healthcare such that they could continue the safety net programs they believe in. While the liberal in me hates this particular approach re-visioning these center right ideas of the recent past is what they had the political capital to get put into place. They now need to make this work, to really bend the curve or there is no way we can afford Medicare and Medicaid in the near future.

 
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?
I had a hard time believing they were handing out free cell phones to anyone that qualified for food stamps... But that ended up being true....

 
While volunteering at the local Christmas Bureau, an event where the department of social services collects donations, and puts together thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, and provides money and gifts so that needy families can have Christmas, there were people working there who were alleged to have been giving more benefits, easier to other people of the same skin color, and denying or giving less to some who had all the same circumstances that were not the same color. Once their applications where inspected, one person was fired as it was evident that she had indeed done exactly that...

An anecdotal story, but a true story... It surprises me that you find it hard to believe that people would do this....
I know the Christmas bureau actually....and to be clear....you are suggesting our local Christmas bureau is similar enough to our gas stations that you felt they were a good example to support your assertion?
I'm saying that the people that are placed in the position to dole out these benefits are part of the same pool of people every other biased and discriminating nut-job is a part of, it's not hard to believe that some of them may have biases, and that some of those with biases may let their biases get in the way of an otherwise fair and impartial distribution of said benefits. Regardless of what that benefit would be...
You're either babbling or realized what you did and changing the discussion's direction. WIth that said, yes, there are biased people in this world. We all have biases. No one was arguing otherwise. As a matter of fact, in my initial response to this I suggested that the ONLY people who would entertain this as anything other than satire are those who WANT it to be true. They want it to be true to feed their bias. Is this your way of agreeing or something?? :oldunsure:

 
Or the people that think there is free healthcare, housing, phones, food, legal representation, child care, etc... O, wait... nevermind...
Like you?

Is it really that hard to believe it could happen? There are already free homes, phones, food, weekly checks, healthcare, rides to work/doctors.. free gas would be a drop in the bucket...
I believe the blue bolded, because it's true...
I for one oppose to expanding our system of corporate welfare to include subsidizing the sellers of gasoline, I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that any politician in the recent past would be bold enough to try to funnel more tax payer money into the coffers of Exxon among others with such a scheme would be among the possibilities requiring a second thought. Well maybe "bold enough" is believable, but "stealth enough"?
One notion I find faulty is that corporations don't profit from social welfare.
Much of our corporate welfare is sold as social welfare. Look at the ACA creating exchanges for insurance companies to find more customers. ;) All the while the very same insurance companies are busy looking at the gift horse in the mouth.
This is as confusing as the Democratic counterargument that the mandate and exchange ideas were cooked up by Republicans, Heritage and Romney, who they then go on to tell us are horrible.
When it all comes crumbling down "This is Romney's plan".. I've already heard at least 1 liberal priming me with that excuse (my brother)...

 
While volunteering at the local Christmas Bureau, an event where the department of social services collects donations, and puts together thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, and provides money and gifts so that needy families can have Christmas, there were people working there who were alleged to have been giving more benefits, easier to other people of the same skin color, and denying or giving less to some who had all the same circumstances that were not the same color. Once their applications where inspected, one person was fired as it was evident that she had indeed done exactly that...

An anecdotal story, but a true story... It surprises me that you find it hard to believe that people would do this....
I know the Christmas bureau actually....and to be clear....you are suggesting our local Christmas bureau is similar enough to our gas stations that you felt they were a good example to support your assertion?
I'm saying that the people that are placed in the position to dole out these benefits are part of the same pool of people every other biased and discriminating nut-job is a part of, it's not hard to believe that some of them may have biases, and that some of those with biases may let their biases get in the way of an otherwise fair and impartial distribution of said benefits. Regardless of what that benefit would be...
You're either babbling or realized what you did and changing the discussion's direction. WIth that said, yes, there are biased people in this world. We all have biases. No one was arguing otherwise. As a matter of fact, in my initial response to this I suggested that the ONLY people who would entertain this as anything other than satire are those who WANT it to be true. They want it to be true to feed their bias. Is this your way of agreeing or something?? :oldunsure:
My position hasn't changed... Anywhere there is something given to the needy, it should be on a fair and equitable bases, blind to color of skin. There are situations where that doesn't happen, usually people don't admit it. But if you're from the Charlotte area, you'll know that isn't always the case. There was an open position, for I think city manager? I can't remember exactly what the position was, but the lady in charge of doing the hiring was recorded during an interview saying that they didn't need applications from Caucasians. She wanted to hire a black woman, or black man. It was all over the news for about a week, and then the story disappeared.. Now she wasn't giving anything to the needy, but she was open about her bias, which usually isn't the case.. Imagine what would have happened if the color scheme was reversed..

 
Carolina Hustler, when I wrote that you were a believer in the undeserving black poor, that was not a personal insult. You responded by calling me a scumbag and a POS, both of which ARE personal insults. I'd like you to stop insulting me, please.

Now you have challenged me to give some evidence of my claim. Earlier this morning, you posted what turned out to be a fake article which included the following quote:

"Supposedly access to the station is determined by income," says Ebony Jackson, manager of the first Obamastation. "But it's pretty unrealistic to do an income check on each and every driver. So what we do is basically let all the black people pump for free, and charge all the white people the market rate."

You then wrote: I hope this is not true.

When I mocked you for believing that such a story might be true, your response was:

So you gonna tell me that this type of prejudice doesn't happen?

I will leave it up to others reading this to decide if I am correct for labeling you as a believer in the undeserving black poor. I stand by what I wrote.
:lol:

 
Carolina Hustler said:
I had a hard time believing they were handing out free cell phones to anyone that qualified for food stamps... But that ended up being true....
I'm not sure what the requirement is for foodstamps/cellphones(I assume it's some formula involving income and members of a household) but I do know the free cell phones are something from the 90's that has something like 200 minutes a month on them. I believe it's because one of the barriers for the truly poor to finding a job is having a reliable contact number. If that's the case I'm all for "free cell phones".

Believe me, nobody is getting free iphones. These are those bare minimum phones that you can barely type a text message on because it just has a numeric pad on it. I set up a google voice account for someone so they could receive voice messages from potential employers that would be translated to text and they could receive those in their google mail account on the computers at the public library. That person ended up receiving a "free cell phone" and it made getting a job much easier because he was able to respond much more quickly than checking email at the library once or twice a day.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top