11 Facts About Obamacare That No Conservative Knows About, Cares About, Or Will Read

[blackhawk]

How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?

The Post Office. That's right, the one government run program that everyone shits on. But I dare you to walk into a law firm and tell them they have to use FedEx, UPS or a courier for EVERYTHING they mail. They'll tell you to fuck yourself. Why?

Because you can still send a letter buttfuck cheap and rely on it getting to where it needs to go as quickly or slowly as you need it to. I love the Post Office, and the Conservatives in this country that shit all over it perfectly epitomizes what's wrong with your side right now.

Short.fucking.sighted.

I didn't say one word about the post office I asked how many government programs work as they are advertised to and are cost effective and why would Obamacare be different. You were the one who brought the post office into the conversation and fyi nowhere in your little rant did you name any government program that works as advertised or is cost effective now maybe you and your side should take a deep breath and think about that before telling us how great and wonderful Obamacare will be.Who knows there is always a chance it will work as advertised and be cost effective but history is not on it's side.

 

[francoHFW]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

Oh, hey, Conservative: the above isn't whining. It's calling The T out for being a massive pussy and neg-repping me without actually debating the points of the post/linked article...kind of like what you did, you big fucking bitch of a puss.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?

The Post Office. That's right, the one government run program that everyone shits on. But I dare you to walk into a law firm and tell them they have to use FedEx, UPS or a courier for EVERYTHING they mail. They'll tell you to fuck yourself. Why?

Because you can still send a letter buttfuck cheap and rely on it getting to where it needs to go as quickly or slowly as you need it to. I love the Post Office, and the Conservatives in this country that shit all over it perfectly epitomizes what's wrong with your side right now.

Short.fucking.sighted.

The Post Office tries to do well, But now they are facing massive Deficits precisely because Government Refuses to let them Operate like a Business. Forcing them to keep 6 Day a week delivery, And not allowing them to lay people off, or Close Post offices. Which of course means they lose money.

Besides the Post office is a very poor Comparison. You would be better served comparing Obama Care to MC, or SS, Or Medicare Part B. All of which have proven to Cost Exponentially more than we were told they were, with ever shrinking Benefits for people Collecting.

Well, I kind of figured that any argument that included me telling you that medicare and social security were two examples of a government program working BETTER than expected, but hey, for some crazy reason I thought none of you Conservatives would believe me. Now where would I get that idea? I mean, besides every interaction with every Conservative here, I mean.

The Post Office kicks fucking ass. If we weren't giving them a shoestring budget every year (i.e. "keeping government small"), they'd be doing a lot better. But it's definitely more important to subsidize oil companies and not vital parts of your interstate communication infrastructure, right?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

negged for whining about being negged, bitch.

 

[SuMar]

11 facts about the Affordable Care Act

I love Ezra Klein (insert shouts of "hater," "hack" and "liar).

This list is brilliant and carries some very important facts with it. Some of which dispels the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA GET TAXED OUT OF EXISTENCE!" hysteria that the Right Wing Media and posters here are all falling victim to.

This bill is far from perfect, but the benefits far outstrip the negatives. In 10 years, all you crusty old fucks will be standing out on the steps of City Hall with signs that read, "DON'T TAKE MAH OBAMMACURE!"

"How will this help me afford health care, if I'm so broke already? I'll get taxed for not being to afford it in the first place!!"

2. Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line — that’s about $29,000 for a family of four — will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line — $88,000 for a family of four – families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance.

3.For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families won’t have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they won’t have to pay more than 9.5 percent. This calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation will let you see the subsidies and the caps for different families at different income levels.

"It's massive tax increase on the Middle Class!"

4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage — which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income — but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.

"It'll cripple small businesses!"


"All my money is going to get taken away from some medical insurance company's CEO bonus!"


"It'll bankrupt the country!!!"

The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The law’s spending cuts — many of which fall on Medicare — and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit. (There’s been some confusion on this point lately, but no, the CBO has not changed its mind about this.) As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade. Here’s its graph, which covers the period between 2012 and 2021:

"Health care costs are spiraling out of control and this law does NOTHING to prevent that!"

10. In recent years, health-care costs have slowed dramatically. Much of this is likely due to the recession. Some of it may just be chance. But there’s also evidence that the law has accelerated changes in the way the medical system delivers care, as providers prepare for the law’s efforts to move from fee-for-service to quality-based payments.

Hate site!
Haters!
Liars!
Hacks!
Kenya!
Socialism!


Those will be the responses. But now at least there's a CHANCE you ignorant fucks will educate yourself.

So...who is paying for Obamacare?

 

[Conservative]

How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?

The Post Office. That's right, the one government run program that everyone shits on. But I dare you to walk into a law firm and tell them they have to use FedEx, UPS or a courier for EVERYTHING they mail. They'll tell you to fuck yourself. Why?

Because you can still send a letter buttfuck cheap and rely on it getting to where it needs to go as quickly or slowly as you need it to. I love the Post Office, and the Conservatives in this country that shit all over it perfectly epitomizes what's wrong with your side right now.

Short.fucking.sighted.

dumb ass... he said cost effective.

Post office loses even more: $3.2 billion - Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Postal Service said its loss widened to $3.2 billion in the first three months of 2012 and repeated on Thursday its warning that it will likely default on payments to the federal government unless Congress passes legislation offering some relief.

The agency, which does not receive taxpayer funds and has been losing billions each year as Americans communicate online, said it lost $2.2 billion in the same period in 2011.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By forcing people that elect not to buy it to actually buy it, it drives down the cost of health insurance. That's sort of the whole point.

You don't understand the first thing about economics, do you? If the idea is to reduce the cost of health care the last thing you want to do is give people a way to avoid paying for health care. Buying insurance is a way to avoid paying for health by passing the cost of said care onto another party. This will increase the demand for health care, but not increase the supply of health care providers. That will drive costs up, not down.

Again, the more people there are paying into the system, the more costs are kept down. Duh.

Actually, it doesn't. What this will do is reduce the costs for the small group of people that use a high amount of health care. Insurance companies compensate for this by raising the price for everyone else. Most people actually end up paying more. I actually explained all of this a couple of years ago right here on this board, you should take the time to look it up and see where you are making your mistakes.

I'd really like to hear what your ideas to actually lower the cost of health care would be, exactly. Because I can think of one way to do it: single payer option, but we all know your asshole just puckered, so we can forget about that.

How would a single payer system reduce the cost of health care? Did a single payer system reduce the costs of wars at some point and I missed the memo?

The problem here is not that my asshole puckers when you mention stupid ideas, it doesn't. The problem is that the idea is stupid.

It's a penalty, assessed under the tax code, where government derives its power to penalize on things like this. Call it a tax, call it a penalty. The bottom line is that by the time it's fully implemented, it won't be the MASSIVE FUCKING TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES!!! But if you get your "facts" from Fox, well, that would explain you not getting this concept.

It is a tax, I have a Supreme Court decision that backs me up, all you have is capital letters and the claim that the Supreme Court is run by Fox.

Dude. Really? Small businesses can get up to a fifty percent tax credit. You don't see how that doesn't make them richer? And it's not about what you pay them as much as it is the number of employees you have and the money you pay them.

No, because it doesn't, it just means they pay a little but less money to the government.

Again, for the fourth time I think, the more people in the system, the lower the cost. It's why YOUR FUCKING SIDE came up with the mandate in the first place, genius.

I don't have a side, this is just me. That said, my fracking side opposed the mandate in the first place because we realized way back then that the mandate is not a way to reduce health care costs.

By the way, what the Heritage Foundation proposed was coverage for catastrophic illness or injury, not a requirement that everyone buy insurance that covers routine medical care. They also proposed that everyone would get a credit to purchase health insurance of some type, and that refusal to purchase said insurance would mean a loss of that credit. That is about as far from the mandate we have today as it is possible to get.

Not to mention that the mandate was not actually original to them, they just stole the idea.

It is discrimination, asshole. And you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one. It's a human decency component that apparently you've managed to outlive. Again, Mensa Man, the more people we have in the system, the less insurance companies have to charge, therefore no NEED to exclude coverage based on prior condition.

Is it discrimination to charge a person who has an accident every week more for his car insurance?

Of course not, it is common sense.

Having a bunch of people on your side doesn't make you right, it just makes them wrong.

You're all sorts of fail on this.

Not me.

I thought your side was going to kill unions anyway, yeah?

I generally ignore them, unlike your side.

The point, dipshit, is that they are supposed to spend it on YOU, the person they are covering. If they can't figure out how to use that remaining 15% to cover CEO bonuses and fraud protection, guess they'll have to make a sacrifice. I just love that you're such a Conservative that you think making a company that you pay SHITLOADS of money to actually gives you what you're paying them for.

The point, moonbat, is they have to make a profit to stay in business. If they can't do that by cutting fraud because the government doesn't let them spend money on cutting fraud they are going to do it by making money off the fraud.

How will it drive down the costs of health care? Well, considering that before Obamacare, companies could spend as much as they wanted on those extra administrative fees, executive bonuses and advertising, guess what, asshole? That's why over a billion dollars in rebates are going back to the consumers.

Wann bet?

IN LAYTARDS TERMS: It means they were over-fucking-charging! YAY! I Spelled it out like I was talking to a shoe!

It sounded like you were talking with a shoe in your mouth.

Hmm. Guess we have ourselves a "Who gives a fuck" stand off. I say my shit's legit. So, yeah.

Of course you do.

It's just called having integrity and conceding that it's not ALL DUE to Obamacare, but ask any health care professional and they will tell you that a lot of companies have been changing the way they do business in anticipation of it coming into effect.

Strange thing, since insurance companies are all evil, and for profit hospitals are all evil, and all either of them care about is making money, if these things actually worked in the real world companies would be using them to help make more of their evil profits. The government would not have to come in and tell evil companies that are only interested in cutting costs and overcharging people to cut costs in order to save money, would they?

Wanna think your position through again, or are you one of those people that is always right?

Again,you lose so fucking hard because you butt up against FACTS.

You haven't had a fact in your post yet.

Again, everything he talked about does actually pertain to keeping health care costs down, but you have to actually be perceptive enough to understand why having so many more people insured is so important to how well it works...Just ask Mitt Romney.

I have to be perceptive?

You mentioned Romney, I am glad you brought him up.

Here are a few facts, Massachusetts spends more of its budget on Medicare than any other state, they also have the fastest growing per capita health care cost in the country. I think that makes Romneycare a complete failure, but feel free to point ot it as an example of how Obamacare is going to cut costs.

You wrote what you wrote and you have no idea why anyone would think you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant to the facts? Really? You don't understand why getting the most amount of people covered is so vital to this thing but you don't know why we'd think you're ignoring the facts?

More facts for you, Ezra Klein has a BA in political science from UCLA. He doesn't have the education to understand complex subjects, and probably struggles with Algebra. Despite that, I would have a better chance of explaining what he got wrong to him than I have with you.

The idea behind expanding health insurance to more people is not to reduce the cost, everyone, including Klein, knows that. The mandate was a bone thrown to insurance companies so they wouldn't fight the requirement to cover pre existing conditions. The sole intent was for them to make money. That is reality, and denying that means you are the one ignoring facts.

It's not a massive tax hike; nor will it balloon health care costs. It's far from perfect, but until we get single payer, it's a great fucking start.

It is a tax, and a new one. How big it is is open to debate, but arguing that a new tax is not a tax hike is really stupid.

Romneycare ballooned costs, and still is almost a decade later. Yet, somehow, Obamacare is magically going to have the opposite effect. Believing that is not just a denial of facts, it is flat out delusional and should require an automatic psychiatric examination.

If this is your idea of a great start I would hate to be around anything you call an unmitigated failure.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

By forcing people that elect not to buy it to actually buy it, it drives down the cost of health insurance. That's sort of the whole point.

You don't understand the first thing about economics, do you? If the idea is to reduce the cost of health care the last thing you want to do is give people a way to avoid paying for health care. Buying insurance is a way to avoid paying for health by passing the cost of said care onto another party. This will increase the demand for health care, but not increase the supply of health care providers. That will drive costs up, not down.

Again, the more people there are paying into the system, the more costs are kept down. Duh.

Actually, it doesn't. What this will do is reduce the costs for the small group of people that use a high amount of health care. Insurance companies compensate for this by raising the price for everyone else. Most people actually end up paying more. I actually explained all of this a couple of years ago right here on this board, you should take the time to look it up and see where you are making your mistakes.



How would a single payer system reduce the cost of health care? Did a single payer system reduce the costs of wars at some point and I missed the memo?

The problem here is not that my asshole puckers when you mention stupid ideas, it doesn't. The problem is that the idea is stupid.



It is a tax, I have a Supreme Court decision that backs me up, all you have is capital letters and the claim that the Supreme Court is run by Fox.



No, because it doesn't, it just means they pay a little but less money to the government.



I don't have a side, this is just me. That said, my fracking side opposed the mandate in the first place because we realized way back then that the mandate is not a way to reduce health care costs.

By the way, what the Heritage Foundation proposed was coverage for catastrophic illness or injury, not a requirement that everyone buy insurance that covers routine medical care. They also proposed that everyone would get a credit to purchase health insurance of some type, and that refusal to purchase said insurance would mean a loss of that credit. That is about as far from the mandate we have today as it is possible to get.

Not to mention that the mandate was not actually original to them, they just stole the idea.



Is it discrimination to charge a person who has an accident every week more for his car insurance?

Of course not, it is common sense.

Having a bunch of people on your side doesn't make you right, it just makes them wrong.



Not me.



I generally ignore them, unlike your side.



The point, moonbat, is they have to make a profit to stay in business. If they can't do that by cutting fraud because the government doesn't let them spend money on cutting fraud they are going to do it by making money off the fraud.



Wann bet?



It sounded like you were talking with a shoe in your mouth.



Of course you do.



Strange thing, since insurance companies are all evil, and for profit hospitals are all evil, and all either of them care about is making money, if these things actually worked in the real world companies would be using them to help make more of their evil profits. The government would not have to come in and tell evil companies that are only interested in cutting costs and overcharging people to cut costs in order to save money, would they?

Wanna think your position through again, or are you one of those people that is always right?



You haven't had a fact in your post yet.



I have to be perceptive?

You mentioned Romney, I am glad you brought him up.

Here are a few facts, Massachusetts spends more of its budget on Medicare than any other state, they also have the fastest growing per capita health care cost in the country. I think that makes Romneycare a complete failure, but feel free to point ot it as an example of how Obamacare is going to cut costs.

You wrote what you wrote and you have no idea why anyone would think you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant to the facts? Really? You don't understand why getting the most amount of people covered is so vital to this thing but you don't know why we'd think you're ignoring the facts?

More facts for you, Ezra Klein has a BA in political science from UCLA. He doesn't have the education to understand complex subjects, and probably struggles with Algebra. Despite that, I would have a better chance of explaining what he got wrong to him than I have with you.

The idea behind expanding health insurance to more people is not to reduce the cost, everyone, including Klein, knows that. The mandate was a bone thrown to insurance companies so they wouldn't fight the requirement to cover pre existing conditions. The sole intent was for them to make money. That is reality, and denying that means you are the one ignoring facts.

It's not a massive tax hike; nor will it balloon health care costs. It's far from perfect, but until we get single payer, it's a great fucking start.

It is a tax, and a new one. How big it is is open to debate, but arguing that a new tax is not a tax hike is really stupid.

Romneycare ballooned costs, and still is almost a decade later. Yet, somehow, Obamacare is magically going to have the opposite effect. Believing that is not just a denial of facts, it is flat out delusional and should require an automatic psychiatric examination.

If this is your idea of a great start I would hate to be around anything you call an unmitigated failure.

Oh. I see. So we don't agree with facts. Okay. No need to continue, broseph.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

I'd love to have an honest discussion over health care. Last great one I had was with Vaard over at Hannity.
Two awesome, your bang for your buck systems out there are the French and the Swiss.

No one wants to talk on your side. It's your side or the highway. And the Obamacare bill is a dogs breakfast and completely unwieldy.

Excuse me? Those are two Liberal countries, and every time Liberals talk about wanting exactly that type of system, Rightwingers cry "Socialism"!!1!1!

You have a lot of nerve posting that.

 

[Synthaholic]

So what if I can't afford 6.3% of My income? I make over 29,000 and have a Family of 4. We currently have no Coverage and struggle to make payments on all our bills each month.

So tell me how Obama Care is going to help me come up with 6.3% of my income to pay for Insurance please.

This is where Conservatives would usually post a reply like:

.

"You're struggling to pay bills and have no insurance for your family, but you can afford an internet connection to post on message boards? I bet you have a flat-screen TV, too. And you probably drive a gas-guzzler"
​

.


I know, because I've seen them do that countless times.

Funny how they are quiet when it's someone on their side. If TruthMatters had posted that, wingnuts would be lining up to tell her how irresponsible she is.

 

[Truthmatters]

No doubt

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

I'd love to have an honest discussion over health care. Last great one I had was with Vaard over at Hannity.
Two awesome, your bang for your buck systems out there are the French and the Swiss.

No one wants to talk on your side. It's your side or the highway. And the Obamacare bill is a dogs breakfast and completely unwieldy.

Exactly, they just want to pretend the other side has no ideas, and have everything there way, even though they know their bill is flawed.

Oh, so your idea is the European model for healthcare?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[Synthaholic]

All tax credits mean is someone else is going to foot your bills which is what I thought you liberals were against?

Well... I guess if we are footing the bills for a douche canoe like you, we should for everyone. Oh, I forgot, you don't give a shit if other people are footing YOUR bills, it's everyone else you hats.

Actually it bothers me very much that I can not afford to Provide Insurance for my kids, and would pain me to get help.

Still nobody has explained to me how I am going to end up with insurance for only 6.3% of my Income when currently they want about 15% for a good Policy. Who is going to pay for the Difference? How can I expect that to be sustainable.

Costs need to go down, that is the only real Solution.

The ACA is going to help you tremendously if you actually open your mind and look at what it offers.

 

[Synthaholic]

How many Government run programs work as advertised or in a cost effective manner and what makes you think Obamacare will be different?

You live in Texas, which has the largest number of uninsured citizens in the country, per capita.

So leaving this up to the states is not an option.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

Oh, hey, Conservative: the above isn't whining. It's calling The T out for being a massive pussy and neg-repping me without actually debating the points of the post/linked article...kind of like what you did, you big fucking bitch of a puss.

He's constantly butthurt because he never wins an argument around here.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Hey The T, instead of neg-repping me with "WRONG" as the comment, why don't you come at it like a man and actually debate all these facts. Are you telling me these facts aren't facts? Or do they just completely fly in the face of all the propaganda you swallowed like a chicken shit?

Oh, hey, Conservative: the above isn't whining. It's calling The T out for being a massive pussy and neg-repping me without actually debating the points of the post/linked article...kind of like what you did, you big fucking bitch of a puss.

He's constantly butthurt because he never wins an argument around here.

Who, Conservative or The T? They both seem to be suffering from the same hyper-inflated ego coupled with complete intellectual vacancy.

 

[Dot Com]

Good thread I agree, those haters screaming the loudest seem to know the least.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Good thread I agree, those haters screaming the loudest seem to know the least.

I honestly just wish they'd fucking READ the ACA before they listened to Right Wing media about it. They should be creaming their jeans since it was mostly a massive shot in the arm for the PRIVATE health care industry. Yes, there are great, great Progressive reforms in it, but it's not like it's single payer...yet.

 

[Zander]