BassNBrew
Footballguy
COSTCO is not cheaper than what the average person on food stamps pays.
James Madison University is not cheaper than what the average person at the US Naval Academy pays.
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)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
James Madison University is not cheaper than what the average person at the US Naval Academy pays.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Doesn't matter - when these rate increase requests are drastically reduced, the same folks will be in here suggesting I'm an idiot, and that there is another ACA disaster just around the corner that is going to be devastating.
Rinse and repeat.
The Commish
Footballguy
Ramping up the spin zone again...love it. Complete with partial post censoring and everything.
shadrap
Footballguy
Kind of, but I get the feeling that capitalism to you, is regardless of your work ethic we all make basically the same.
Am I wrong? If so I apologize.
matttyl
Footballguy
While true that the requested increase may not be the final outcome, but even in Maryland last year they increased by about half what was requested which still ended up being double digits. That can easily happen again this year (50% of request) and be a 15% increase. If that's the case, this won't be sustainable.
And what do you mean "more subsidies", where is that money coming from? Roughly half of people with an individual ACA plan don't even qualify for subsidies anyway.
matttyl
Footballguy
They likely aren't big enough for the influx of older/sicker policy holders that even a far larger BCBS couldn't handle without requesting a 30% increase in premiums in back to back years. They take on all that business and they will be the next Assurant.
matttyl
Footballguy
That same carrier did in fact get approval for 9.8% (HMO) and 16.2% (PPO) increases last year. They are asking for similar increases again this year because they weren't granted last time. If they were again reduced to (roughly) 10% and 16%, would that mean that the ACA is working? Wasn't the ACA suppose to lower costs?
matttyl
Footballguy
The bolded part.
By phrasing it that way you either mean that I didn't understand COBRA, but you now believe I do (and I don't believe you'd grant me that much credit) - or that you feel the problems with COBRA are now gone. Otherwise you would have said "you're the only person I've ever met who doesn't understand the problems with COBRA." So which is it?
Bear in mind that you still haven't stated what you feel the problems with COBRA are. I've now asked 4 times and haven't gotten an answer from you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
This is my favorite part. Tim gives Tommy a good stroking and then Tommy ignores the bulk of his post and dismisses the other part.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The request rates "may" not be the final outcome?
Would you care to make a wager? I'll put $1000 on the rates being lower than requested, and offer you 2-1 odds.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Want to wager $1000 that the typical family doesn't see a $2500 reduction in premiums? I'll give you 2-1 odds.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Here's link regarding the $2500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so
Not sure if youtube is a TGunz approved media source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so
Not sure if youtube is a TGunz approved media source
snogger
Footballguy
Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.
Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..
and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..
Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??
Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do...
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Tommy, they will very likely be lower. I stated, as did the article, that these are only requests. Last year they obtained about half of what was requested, and because they didn't get what they requested they had to again ask for a huge increase the following year. As you said "rinse and repeat". If they do continue to get 16% increases year after year, will you consider that a "success"?
The Commish
Footballguy
Something we agree on. That's exactly what will happen. And because it's tax driven, guess who gets to shoulder that extra burden.
The Commish
Footballguy
[TGunz]
"That was just campaign rhetoric you fool. I can't believe you fell for that lolololol"
[/TGunz]
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
And the backtracking begins.
And LOL at "they had to ask for a big increase because they didn't get what they asked for last year".
The Commish
Footballguy
All matttyl's posts had the word "projections" clearly in the link. Me thinks Tommy doesn't understand what the word "backtrack" means.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Are you that guy in Fort Mill getting bailed out of your own stupidity by liberals?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..
and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..
Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??
Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do...
snogger
Footballguy
Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..
and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..
Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??
Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do...
Just off the top of my head....
Democrats and Republicans are working together(
) to get rid of the Medical Device tax and the "Cadillac Tax" with no plans to replace that expected revenue to pay for the ACA.The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I have no idea what that means. You're not even trying anymore....rather sad. But, by all means, deflect, deflect away.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Why are you blaming the ACA for Democrats and Republicans trying to change it? Seems your ire should be directed at those who are attempting to undermine the tax, not those who were responsible and enacted that provision in order to pay for the ACA in the first place.Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..Just off the top of my head....Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..
and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..
Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??
Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do...
Democrats and Republicans are working together(
The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..
Blind Tiger
Footballguy
Even if they are reduced, keeping premium rates artificially low to appease public outcry is bad for the market long term and will lead to an ultimately higher premium rate in years to come.
The Commish
Footballguy
"Blame the people not the laws they have written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Captain Quinoa
Footballguy
snogger
Footballguy
Why are you blaming the ACA for Democrats and Republicans trying to change it? Seems your ire should be directed at those who are attempting to undermine the tax, not those who were responsible and enacted that provision in order to pay for the ACA in the first place.Many of us, including myself, have provided links many times from many different sites, not one was from your boggeyman Foxnews.Tommy..Just off the top of my head....Any data to back this up, or just more "OMG I don't understand how the ACA is funded but I read a scary article on FoxForbesNews.com and we're all ####ed!!!!!"Don't forget that in order to cover those subsides we need money going into the ACA.Now Tommy's biggest talking point has always been "This is paid for".. But as time goes on, certain items that were added to pay for this are either being delayed or canceled..
and those items that were meant to pay for this, like a tax on Health insurers, is being passed onto to States to cover it..
Wow, imagine that.. You add taxes to a company and they pass that onto the consumers.. Who could have seen that coming??
Those writing this bill in their "pie in the sky" view believed Insurance companies would just eat the new tax because they were making money hand over fist.. Because, you know, that is what companies do...
Democrats and Republicans are working together(
The Tax that was added to Insurance companies for being lucky enough to be part of the ACA is being passed down to states.. Again, link has already been provided by many..
Because the Bill was was passed knowing dam well that most of the expected "Revenue" would never stay..
They needed to pass it and sell it as "It is Paid for!!!" so that their minions could have a talking point..
No one that thought about this logically could have believed that the "Cadillac" tax was something companies were just going to pay..
Same goes with believing that the tax added to insurance companies would just get paid without the Insurance companies finding a way to get it back..
and BTW.. If you look at those that are trying to get rid of some this revenue.. some of the those on the Left are ones that voted for it.. Just from Minnesota alone Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are doing their best to remove the Medical device tax as well as the "Cadillac" tax..
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
What backtracking? I said in the original post that they were "rate proposals". The first 4 words of the post, which is where I embedded the link said "Maryland's 2016 rate proposals", read much?
And why are you LOL'ing at me when it's exactly what was said in the article? Again from my first post about the topic - "CareFirst said it needs its request to be approved in full because it did not get the increases it sought the previous two years, Redmer said."
matttyl
Footballguy
Yup, liberals are happy to bail anyone out of their own stupidity.Are you that guy in Fort Mill getting bailed out of your own stupidity by liberals?
matttyl
Footballguy
At this point, I'm getting more concerned with the cost side of it rather than the revenue side of it. Revenues can be adjusted by future taxes and such, but costs (when it comes to entitlements) are rarely if ever removed. Illinois, for instance, estimated and budgeted for 199,000 medicaid enrollees. They have more than 634,000 enrollees at this point, more than 3x the initial estimate. I understand that money for these Medicaid enrollees is being provided by the feds for now (federal taxpayers) and will slowly shift to 90-10 with the states fitting some of the bill. Where is the money needed to provide all these benefits (3x what was initially projected) coming from?
matttyl
Footballguy
I don't think that Obama meant to say that the "average American family of 4 will save $2,500 a year," I think what he meant was that the "average American family will end up paying $25,000 a year in total health costs."
Yeah, it's Forbes, so not "Gunzapproved"
Yeah, it's Forbes, so not "Gunzapproved"
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Why even post the article and highlight the scary numbers if you weren't insinuating that they were real?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You guys are more than welcome to continue reading, linking, and whining about horror stories that will inevitably prove to be untrue. Myself, I lose patience with a source when they mislead me in a systemic way. It's clear that you and a few others are fine with misleading sources as long as they are spouting your talking bout points.
matttyl
Footballguy
They are real. They are real rate proposals. I said that in the first 4 words. Did you not see that?
matttyl
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
You guys aren't playing nice with TGunz.....STAY IN YOUR PRECONCEIVED, TGUNZ APPROVED BOXES!!!!!!.....tia.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Oh my gosh. This is rich.tommyGunZ said:
Is this really coming from the same guy that constantly spouts WH Talking Points all day long as if they were handed down by Jesus himself?
Last edited by a moderator:
shadrap
Footballguy
Sad part is I really don't think the ACA was passed to get more people on health insurance. Initially yes. Long term, I don't believe that is the end game.
Government controls your health care, they control a lot of your life.
IRS going after the tea party is chump change compared to what they can do, or not do for you & your family. I'm mainly speaking medically & health wise here.
Hopefully not as bad as I surmise, but I'm very jaded when the Feds say they know better than me, what is good for me. It's usually the opposite.
Call me unusually suspicious when the president has to tell numerous, huge, bald face lies to get a law passed.
Government controls your health care, they control a lot of your life.
IRS going after the tea party is chump change compared to what they can do, or not do for you & your family. I'm mainly speaking medically & health wise here.
Hopefully not as bad as I surmise, but I'm very jaded when the Feds say they know better than me, what is good for me. It's usually the opposite.
Call me unusually suspicious when the president has to tell numerous, huge, bald face lies to get a law passed.
snogger
Footballguy
Not sure where the Huffington post lies in the realm of "approved sources" but they have an article today in regards to the Raising deductibles and how it is adding to the underinsured..
) talks about the report and added this gem:
and a story on Yahoo finance page ( Again, not sure if that is a trusted source or not
) talks about the report and added this gem:
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Rate proposals for South Dakota are in - 42.9% increase.
Here's a good read about how the pieces are coming together, or aren't.
Here's a good read about how the pieces are coming together, or aren't.
matttyl
Footballguy
Yeah, I feel the same about the guy who kept telling me and my clients that if they liked their health care they could keep it, and that their premiums would go down, and that these new policies would be even better than the "junk plans" they would replace.
timschochet
Footballguy
We're getting closer to the Supreme Court decision. If they rule to overturn this part of Obamacare, will the repercussions be immediate?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
You guys will need to fight amongst yourselves for a while. However, once again someone is talking about "teaser rates"...
The Commish
Footballguy
Is there an inherent problem in doing this? I'd understand pointing this out if he were not clearly saying they are proposed numbers, but he's not so I'm not sure why it's an issue
matttyl
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
So the rates the first two years (which unsubsidized were drastically higher than the pre ACA rates) were still artificially low to what they should have been? You don't say....
matttyl
Footballguy
I think he means that the first two year of the ACA exchanges carriers purposefully had lower than needed rates in an effort to obtain market share. They knew they were just "teasers" to get the customers and that they would have to increase the rates later.Is there an inherent problem in doing this? I'd understand pointing this out if he were not clearly saying they are proposed numbers, but he's not so I'm not sure why it's an issue
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
