For all this Administration's talk of decriminalizing minor drug offenses, they sure as hell are going to criminalize failure to pay for insurance.

Have you seen the penalties and fines for "failing to comply" for three years?

The DNC is all about conformity and compliance. Get the uneducated stooges in line, tattoo a number on their forehead, give them a few free trinkets, and march them all into the wood chipper. Soylent Green anyone?

For people who are supposedly all about personal choice and individual freedoms, lefties sure are excited about climbing headfirst into the big machine. Bunch of mouthbreathing cretins.

Burned me already $200 bucks a month and I get no help on meds,4 hospital visits a year .and the toping on the Aca cake 1 vision 1 dental a year

As someone who's self-employed (but also covered by an employer health plan), on paper, this SHOULD be a win-win for me.

...until I see that the premiums ALONE would cost me almost as much as I make at my current job.

See, when Brobama was flapping his gums about "can't be denied for pre-existing conditions," what he DIDN'T say was, "If you have a pre-existing condition, your rates will be so damn high that you may as well plan on dying from that condition, sucker."

Sounds an awful lot like a death panel to me.

Agreed

Ace2cool wrote:

AZhitman wrote:Howie - If you had to explain OC to someone who knew nothing about the program, how would you do so?

Actually, let's do this. Cause I don't know as much as the next guy about it, since I pay into employer coverage and don't see anything of the market or however it works. I wanna see the purely liberal side, so I know you're the best option for me to learn about it.

Still waiting on my "education", Howie.

He's searching Mother Jones, be patient.

Found this!

http://www.tedcruz.com/

telcoman wrote:Found this!

http://www.tedcruz.com/

Typical. Totally dodged the question. Two can play that game.

Do you ever provide relevant or constructive information? Because from where I sit, you just sit back and throw rocks at Republicans. You're the reason mud slinging campaigns work, I suppose.

Typical Obama nutswinger.

I'd be open to accepting that some of his point of view has merit, if he could actually engage in productive dialogue.

So far, no one I've asked has been able to provide me with any evidence that this failed experiment benefits America in any way, shape, or form. Not one. Even POTUS's strongest supporters are admitting it's a bit of a fiasco.

Like I said nearly 8 years ago, hiring someone with no experience, no backbone, and no vision is certain to lead to failure. That's the case in the private sector, and it holds true in government as well.

.... I like how they extended the deadline again. Gotta keep those ratings up.

Look who is signing up

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2160977

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ ... index.html

telcoman wrote:Look who is signing up

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2160977

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ ... index.html

You were asked to give a basic explanation of Obamacare, and instead post this drivel? Finding it hard to defend the indefensible?

Okay, lets look at who asked for an exemption to Obamacare.
Exemptions to Obamcare Doled Out to President's Supporters http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamac ... id/537720/ Democrat Nancy Pelosi's 12th Congressional district in San Francisco — with a median income of $69,000 — secured almost 20 percent of the waivers nationwide in the first year after the president signed the law.
List of Obamacare Exempt Companies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2900475/posts

America isn’t better with ObamaCare

“More than 16 million Americans have gained health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act. #BetterWithObamacare,” another tweet said.

First, it’s important to analyze this White House white lie. While more Americans do in fact have health insurance in the wake of ObamaCare, the administration fails to point out that citizens are required by law to do so or pay a fine.

Second, let’s review how ObamaCare was passed in 2010. It happened in the middle of the night through a change in Senate rules and without a single Republican vote. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is now infamous for saying, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

For example, having health insurance is not the same thing as having access to medical care or affordable coverage. The costs of health insurance premiums and deductibles have significantly increased, leaving families in even more dire financial situations. According to research from the Manhattan Institute, health insurance premiums for people living in a number of states across the country have gone up by more than 100 percent.

Overall, costs to the taxpayer have been enormous, with $2 billion spent on HealthCare.gov, which didn’t work properly for a year, and an estimated $2 trillion in addition to enforce ObamaCare over the next 10 years. Data from a Government Accountability Office report released in 2013 has been cited showing ObamaCare adds $6.2 trillion to the long-term U.S. deficit, a far cry from liberal claims that deficits would be reduced as a result of the law.

Here's a great example for everyone here who actually gives a damn about the topic and isn't busy choking on the Presidential schiong:

Under BummerCare, MY annual health insurance premiums would increase - wait for it - THIRTEEN HUNDRED PERCENT.

Consider the lunacy of a government that FINES its citizens for non-conformity. Why don't they FINE people for being gay? Hmmmm.

Your President sucks.

Some Republicans have a problem with math.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AA9XbTZ

Perhaps you may be one of them?

Telcoman

Again, answer the question. And again, I'm not a Republican. My state has an Independent Party, so I'm registered as unaffiliated.

It's funny that you try to throw math problems into this discussion.

Medicare cuts can’t be double-counted
In March of 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted that the law double-counts its reductions in Medicare spending, by claiming that the law both reduces the deficit and extends Medicare’s solvency.



The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, by coupling a multi-trillion-dollar expansion of federal health spending with cuts to Medicare and higher taxes. Now, a new study by a Medicare trustee suggests that the law will actually increase deficits, over the next ten years, by between $346 and $527 billion.


Read the full story here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... 7-billion/

Everyone's premiums will go down, with the average family saving $2,500.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We can debate and argue forever and it appears neither you or I will have our minds changed.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number ... rs-retire/

Whether it is 8k or 10k baby boomers retiring each day the impact on our health system is huge.
When President Obama was first elected in 2008 dealing with the nations healthcare problem became his #1 priority right after signing the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act.
The opposition decided they would oppose everything our newly elected president tried to do and tried hard to make President Obama a one term president.
Well we saw how well that worked out.
A simple fix for healthcare would be to raise the present wage base limit of $118k on social security deductions to unlimited.
Of course no one wants to see their taxes raised but continuing to stick it to the poor and our dwindling middle class is insuring another win for the Dems in 2016.

Telcoman

Why would I have a math deficiency? Those numbers came DIRECTLY from the Obamacare website. Why would you automatically default to blaming the messenger? What does that say about your character?

I don't necessarily disagree with your points on SS deductions, nor do I disagree with the taxation issue completely. That won't be a "simple fix for healthcare," by the way. But that's neither here nor there.

So, if we can see eye-to-eye on that, how is it that people stubbornly stick to supporting something that even the Congressional Budget Office has said is unsustainable?

Do you think my premium should increase 1300%? That's simple math, by the way. I took what I pay now (A), and compared it to what I would pay based on the calculator on the ACA website (B). If I divide B by A, I get 13. Or, put more simply, A = Bx13. 1300% increase. Simple math.

Do you think that's appropriate?

Your math is incorrect

http://www.ihealthcareupdates.com/tools ... alculator/

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industr ... ends.jhtml

"Many factors will affect health spending in 2015

Five years post-recession, more confident consumers – many newly insured – are revisiting doctors and driving up US health spending. Costly new cures today could result in long-term cost savings and improved quality of life. Even the large IT investments made now by merged health systems will eventually lead to savings through greater efficiency.

Other factors in the growth rate appear more durable, especially those that change behavior. Health systems and hospitals striving for “systemness,” for instance, are instilling a new philosophy about care delivery. More price savvy consumers shopping for value are also becoming affixed to the health culture."

Over time and the long run the ACA is going to reduce healthcare spending in the US which it was designed to do.
Had the GOP and the tea party not attempted to make our newly elected president a one term president and instead worked on making the ACA better we would be in a much better position.
Totally mucking up our democracy since 2008 is still having an effect today and will result in a welcome payback in 2016.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:Your math is incorrect

http://www.ihealthcareupdates.com/tools ... alculator/

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industr ... ends.jhtml

"Many factors will affect health spending in 2015

Five years post-recession, more confident consumers – many newly insured – are revisiting doctors and driving up US health spending. Costly new cures today could result in long-term cost savings and improved quality of life. Even the large IT investments made now by merged health systems will eventually lead to savings through greater efficiency.

Other factors in the growth rate appear more durable, especially those that change behavior. Health systems and hospitals striving for “systemness,” for instance, are instilling a new philosophy about care delivery. More price savvy consumers shopping for value are also becoming affixed to the health culture."

Over time and the long run the ACA is going to reduce healthcare spending in the US which it was designed to do.
Had the GOP and the tea party not attempted to make our newly elected president a one term president and instead worked on making the ACA better we would be in a much better position.
Totally mucking up our democracy since 2008 is still having an effect today and will result in a welcome payback in 2016.

Telcoman

Absolute total

Jon Gruber, the architect of ObamaCare said that writers of the law knowingly mislabeled items in the bill so they would gain approval from politicians and Americans.

Talking about heavily taxing people, Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act’s authors pretended that they were penalizing insurance plans, when in fact they knew they were costing normal Americans a tremendous amount of money.

At the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston, Gruber stated, “Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer-provider health insurance… It turns out politically it’s really hard to get rid of. And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."

It was written to hide the “mandate” as a tax because if they allowed congressional debate as a tax, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) result, outlining the cost, would have killed it. Avoiding transparency was a specific and intentional goal, not a mistake – a goal, because if the truth came out “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law. This video alone should be enough to destroy any support:



Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief.

"There's a real debate about what is affordable, and there's no right answer here," Gruber said in a talk that became a policy brief. "The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can't mandate insurance that's not affordable."

Cost controls, he said, could just come later, after everyone was covered. And one way to control costs, he explained, would be to tell patients "they can't have something they want."

So along with a lack of affordability, there isn't full patient protection under ObamaCare, either. Patients can still be denied care.

Okay, now I'm a little irritated. Any replies under this comment that aren't a direct reply to the question are going to be deleted. I ain't even afraid to snipe on Greg's posts.

Any more dodging of the question or senseless bickering about premiums and the like will be deleted, no questions asked.

Again, the question was not about premiums. It was not about Ted Cruz signing up for it. It wasn't about whose tax dollars are going where. The question for Howie is:

HOW DOES OBAMACARE WORK?

I won't take any government "sales pitch" websites as valid resources either. Nor will I take mother jones or anything else of the far-left nut swinging nature.

I want a direct answer. Period.

If you don't answer, we can all assume you have abandoned your ideals and forfeit the topic.

IF by some miracle of nature, Howie is able to string together a logical response that meets the requirements set forth, then I'll once again open the floor for discussion about Obamacare's terrible financial ideals.

Ace2cool wrote: The question for Howie is:

HOW DOES OBAMACARE WORK?

Ace2cool wrote: I want a direct answer. Period.

It works like any other insurance plan.

You increase the number of young healthy people to pay premiums so others with preexisting conditions an older people like me cannot be denied coverage. Children can remain on their parent health plan till age 26.
It also increases the number of those eligible for medicaid to reduce the costly use of hospital emergency rooms instead of going to doctors. The ACA runs 2600 pages.
Go read it!

Over 10 million Americans now have health insurance that did not have it before.
The percentage of Americans without healthcare coverage has gone down.
With some making sound bytes on Fox how they intend to repeal the ACA and wasting taxpayer money in congress over 40 times voting in a futile attempt to repeal the ACA, and not having a viable and detailed plan on what they will do if they were able to repeal it, they will receive their just reward in the 2016 elections.

telcoman

telcoman wrote:Your math is incorrect

How the hell can my math be incorrect when the ACA site does the calculations?

You're delusional.

BTW, my kids can remain on my health plan until 26. Want to know how I know? Because they're all still on my plan. 23, 19, 18 and 16. ALL still covered. So, that's nothing special. TONS of HMOs have that option.

No, you cannot be denied coverage. You can, however, be charged so much that it becomes cheaper to just pay the doctors out-of-pocket (or go without coverage).

"Over 10m" is an exaggeration. 8-9.5m is accurate.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... Access-ACA
http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/Number ... -Fall.html

Sure, the ACA is making sure more people have coverage. But at what cost? It relies on, as you said, young healthy people, who don't have employer coverage (typically the working poor and blue-collar folks) paying their premiums. It also screws entrepreneurs, independent business owners, and people in my age bracket. But no one gives a damn about us.

It's yet another mechanism by which the Left can create an entire generation of dependent, spoon-fed, unmotivated stooges/voters... on the backs of people who actually work hard and are motivated to succeed.

AZhitman wrote:[ It also screws entrepreneurs, independent business owners, and people in my age bracket. But no one gives a damn about us.

Perhaps because that group only cares about themselves and fvuck everyone else.Isn't this the same group that opposes minimum wage increases?

The idea of individual responsibility that everyone have health insurance originated with the Heritage
Foundation.

I am in favor of everyone having and paying for their own health insurance and stop using costly hospital emergency rooms that just pass the charges on to those that do have insurance. Like me!
I don't want to pay for anyone that does not have health insurance.

Telcoman

You really believe the hospitals will stop charging what they do? Have food prices gonna back down now that gas is half of what it was when they hiked prices? Didn't think so.

And I take issue with the burden falling on my generation to take care of people in your generation that don't care about us in the first place. Sorry, that's just the truth. You see me as an untapped market. That's just wrong. I am a person who is coming into a much more harsh environment from the gate than most in your generation ever experienced. With the cost of college now through the stratosphere, and the job market dwindling, now you want to force my generation to "pay up so people you don't know and who don't care about you have coverage or we will make you"? That's a crock of s*** and everyone here knows it.

And no, it doesn't work like any other health care plan. It's the government forcing me to buy a service. Literally threatening me and my wellbeing if I don't comply. If I told you that you had to buy milk, yet you've never drank milk nor do you plan on it, how does that make you feel? You still get the choice of what brand to buy, but now that it's mandatory that everyone buys milk, the suppliers can charge what they want, because if the people don't buy it, they are penalized. But wait, there's more. All these people buying milk are subsidizing the cost of giving milk to those who couldn't afford it. So, that's positive, right? But what about all those people who had to buy it and are letting it go to waste?

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Howie. At least you won't need embalming! The (un)Affordable Care Act is a Ponzi scheme, and not a very good one at that.

"Now remember what you have signing up here are the old, the sick and the uninsured. The plan is like a Ponzi scheme where the young and healthy were supposed to pay for the old, sick and uninsured. That's how the whole thing was gonna work. Problem is, young people figured it out and they don't want any part of it and now a majority are saying that they'd rather pay a fine. That blows up the whole system." Sean Hannity

telcoman wrote:Perhaps because that group only cares about themselves and fvuck everyone else. Isn't this the same group that opposes minimum wage increases?

Abraham Lincoln said: “You can’t make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak.” That is exactly what Obamacare does: It weakens those who take responsibility for their health, forcing them into a one-size-fits-all wealth redistribution scheme that restricts care to government-approved choices at a government-dictated price.

A recent Commonwealth Fund survey found that four in 10 working-age adults skipped some kind of care because of the cost, and other surveys have found much the same. The portion of workers with annual deductibles — what consumers must pay before insurance kicks in — rose from 55% eight years ago to 80% today, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And a Mercer study showed that 2014 saw the largest one-year increase in enrollment in "high-deductible plans" — from 18% to 23% of all covered employees.

Meanwhile the size of the average deductible more than doubled in eight years, from $584 to $1,217 for individual coverage. Add to this co-pays, co-insurance and the price of drugs or procedures not covered by plans — and it's all too much for many Americans.

The law cuts an estimated $716 billion from Medicare over ten years. However, these "savings" are not set aside to preserve Medicare's future, instead they are used to fund new spending created by the law.

The 2012 Medicare trustees report says that between 2012 and 2017, seniors’ standard Medicare Part B monthly premiums will jump from $99.90 to $128.20, while their Part B deductibles will rise from $140 to $180. Seniors’ Medicare hospital deductible will increase from $1,156 to $1,336, while their daily hospital co-insurance will climb from $289 to $334. For seniors who remain in the hospital beyond 90 days (lifetime reserve days), the per diem co-insurance costs are estimated to reach $668 by 2017.

Guys, there are aspects to Obamacare that are actually okay. For example, as a person with pre-existing conditions in my family pre-Obamacare, our options were very limited as Insurance companies would not insure us. Obamacare eliminated that big problem. It also does NOT require everyone to sign up for it. I ended up finding a better private plan to fit my family's needs. But since more businesses are converting to part time employees to get away from offering healthcare benefits, having an option like Obamacare, which offers many levels of coverage, makes sense as a general premise. Clearly there are plenty of bad things with it too. For example, charging for not getting any insurance is counterproductive if you're poor. But bottom line, insurance companies have always existed to make money, both before and after Obamacare began. My premiums jumped significantly since Obamacare began. Adding so many clients including some with pre-existing conditions costs money and insurance companies are gonna spread those costs around to everyone. I'm not happy about it, but anti-Obamacare folks seem to under the delusion that healthcare costs would not go up without Obamacare. BZZZT. Healthcare costs were rising out of control before it got implemented, and could possibly have risen faster without it. That's where it would be interesting to crunch numbers, though without political bias. And the misinformation that has been spread by the media on both sides of Obamacare has been shameful. C'mon FoxNews, "Death Panels"?

The toxic environment in Congress only makes a sad situation worse. Since neither party agrees on anything except pay raises and perks for themselves, Obamacare is not going to improve. Yes, Democrats snuck it thru while they had a super majority, and it's embarrassing how it got passed despite so few in Congress actually reading it. Makes your head spin. But you realize the Republicans would have tried the same thing for one of their pet issues had they enjoyed the same super majority. That's politics. But where the Republicans are looking a bit worse is that instead of trying to fix the bad parts of Obamacare, which involves actual discussion with the other party all they've done is try to repeal it, what 50 times?, That's despite knowing up front they did not have enough votes. Plus more importantly, they have yet to offer any kind of alternative plan. Children can point a finger at a complex mess and say "bad", but it requires adults to work together and fix it. And the saddest aspect is we keep electing the same people on both sides of the aisle that we know either won't fix it or are incapable of doing it. And that part is our fault as voters.

Ok, I've put on my Nomex. Flame away.

telcoman wrote:Perhaps because that group only cares about themselves

Yeah. We're so heartless.

Last I checked, this was America. Your nitwit POTUS can't force anyone to "care" about anyone else. Hypocrisy, maybe?

telcoman wrote:Isn't this the same group that opposes minimum wage increases?

No, you're thinking of a different group: Sane people.

telcoman wrote:The idea of individual responsibility that everyone have health insurance originated with the Heritage
Foundation.

Uh, no. Individualism and responsibility existed long before some silly partisan "foundation."

telcoman wrote:I am in favor of everyone having and paying for their own health insurance and stop using costly hospital emergency rooms that just pass the charges on to those that do have insurance. Like me!

Ditto. So, you're saying you only care about yourself? And F everyone else? (your words, not mine)

telcoman wrote:I don't want to pay for anyone that does not have health insurance.

And I don't want to pay for someone else's health insurance. Why are your "wants" more important than mine?

Maybe YOU'RE the selfish, uncaring jackass that you paint all non-lefties to be. Think about it.

Bubba1 wrote:My premiums jumped significantly since Obamacare began.

That alone is all I need to see.

When my premiums under the ACA are DOUBLE my mortgage payment, that's a broken plan that penalizes people for succeeding and rewards the inept. Period.

Don't mind me, I'll be over here working harder than 99% of the American population so that some lazy, unmotivated slob can have health insurance to cover their McDonald's-scarfing, TV-watching, smoking and drinking Democrat-voting a$$.

AZhitman wrote:

Bubba1 wrote:My premiums jumped significantly since Obamacare began.

That alone is all I need to see.

.

That's the problem. It's not that simple. My point is I think our premiums would increased a lot even without the ACA. How much more or less is a good question. That's why I'd be interested in seeing some unbiased non-partisan number crunching. I think you'll agree with me that most of the data for our consumption thus far has had political spin applied to it, which should make a reasonable person question its accuracy. Plus no one seems to be offering any better alternatives.