Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is the reality...you are misinformed....
How could a President/Congress double the national debt and this chart be an honest appraisal?
The same way....
is correct.
The two wars were KEPT OFF BUDGET AND HAVE NOT AS YOU CLAIM BEEN PAID FOR...the Prescription part d was opposed by Democrats and it took an extraordinary extension of voting into the wee hours by Tom Delay to get it passed by the skin of its teeth.
Now please look at this chart and describe what you see
This link may help you to understand the errors in your perspective..
Democrat and (Democrat lite) Republican sponsored social programs are sinking the country.
Blame for the national debt | Just Facts Daily
I certainly stand by my information and I suggest expanding beyond Right wing sources so you can correct errors in your perspective...
How could a President/Congress double the national debt and this chart be an honest appraisal?
The same way....
This is one of the most shifty graphs floating around the neighborhood.
The graph is not factual past FY2010. Wanna guess why [MENTION=19734]Lumpy 1[/MENTION]?
The same way....
This is one of the most shifty graphs floating around the neighborhood.
The graph is not factual past FY2010. Wanna guess why [MENTION=19734]Lumpy 1[/MENTION]?
No guesses other than more Democrat smoke and mirrors.
Iam wondering if you have a link or source for your assertions..
Here is some information regarding Canada's Health Care and it's decision to include private health insurance.
In 2011, health care spending consumed 50 percent of revenues in Canadas two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec.
By 2017, four more provinces Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and New Brunswick will spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the institute.
Total federal, provincial and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1 percent annually, while the national GDP in Canada rose by only 6.7 percent during the same period.
In response to the rapidly rising costs, provincial governments have raised taxes and rationed care, increasing patient wait times.
Report: Canadian health care spending unsustainable | The Daily Caller
The Daily Caller is a creation of Tucker Carlson.. I have no confidence in his editorial or intellectual integrity.
This is the reality...you are misinformed....
I don't believe the ACA planners every dreamed of anything near 100% compliance. Japan, requires everyone to carry health insurance but they do not impose penalties on individuals for not doing so. Their compliance rate is over 90%. I believe that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and will not violate the law and pay a penalty to avoid buying health insurance. As I said, by 2017, many Americans would face a penalty of about $2,000 or $166/mo. In most states the cost of a bronze plan for a young single is very close this cost and in some cases cheaper than the penalty. I would bet that insurance packets next year will contain a statement from insurer that not carry health insurance is a violation of federal law.You're not considering the fact that after the first year, insurance exchanges will be accepting application only between Oct and Dec. with a plan start date of Jan 1. For employer sponsored insurance, you can only sign up for insurance during open enrollment which is once a year for most companies buy can be less frequent. So if a person had a serious accident or illness, they will have to wait up to a year, sometimes longer before coverage begins. Also, by 2017 the penalty for most people for not carrying insurance with be about $2,000/yr for each year there is no coverage.first off....that 40 million number has yet to been proven and to the contrary, it has been largely disproved.....but putting that aside....
the "loophole" you see is just one issue...
Then there is the other issue....the bigger issue.....
Pre existing condition clauses were inserted into the insurance industry as a means to maintain the reason for insurance to begin with....people were not looking at it as insurance. They were looking at it as a "means to cut expenses". They refused to buy insurance until they NEEDED healthcare. They would break a leg....THEN buy insurance.
Dental insurance rectified the problem by not allowing the policy to go into affect for 6 months....eliminating those that bought the policy AFTER they broke a tooth.
Hurricane insurance rectified the problem by not allowing it to go into affect for 30 days....eliminating those that would try to buy it when they saw a hurricane coming.
But it was not so easy for health insurance for a variety of reasons.
So lets look at what we have now....
I am 30 years old (I wish). I don't want to pay the 5000 a year for a policy. I am healthy. I don't need it. I prefer paying the 700 tax/penalty.
But...if I find out I have a serious ailment? THEN I will buy a policy.
And I cant be denied because it is now against the law.
THAT is going to be the true reason why premiums will skyrocket....insurance companies will ultimately go under...and we will be in a single payer plan within one decade.
And whereas you may think that is a good thing, the majority of Americans don't want it.
But that is a debate for another day.
A strategy of waiting till you're ill to buy insurance, does not make sense when considering the risks and rewards. For a family, it would be a really dumb move.
There are a lot of dumb people out there unfortunately. But yeah. If the system were set up differently and you had 4 trillion years to get insurance, you'd still have people waiting until the deadline. Regardless of the system, there will be people gaming it. I don't think there ever has been a "game-proof" system
there are 2 good things in the ACA, companies must take people with pre-existing conditions, and no lifetime maximums. The rest of it is crap. Congress could have implemented those 2 things with a one paragraph bill.
Why the hell should a 26 year old adult still be on his/her parent's insurance??? thats fricken stupid.
Some people go to college and need to be on insurance a bit longer. Some, like my assistant, have special needs kids who benefit greatly by the extended insurance stay.
Either way, it doesn't cost you a penny so you're "fricken stupid" for letting it bother you.
Anyone who is still going to college when they are 23 is either in grad school, milking it or too stupid to be there. And you bet your ass it costs extra to have kids and young adults on your policy.
You're not considering the fact that after the first year, insurance exchanges will be accepting application only between Oct and Dec. with a plan start date of Jan 1. For employer sponsored insurance, you can only sign up for insurance during open enrollment which is once a year for most companies buy can be less frequent. So if a person had a serious accident or illness, they will have to wait up to a year, sometimes longer before coverage begins. Also, by 2017 the penalty for most people for not carrying insurance with be about $2,000/yr for each year there is no coverage.
A strategy of waiting till you're ill to buy insurance, does not make sense when considering the risks and rewards. For a family, it would be a really dumb move.
. As I said, by 2017, many Americans would face a penalty of about $2,000 or $166/mo.
Interesting, ACA has issued that fine to me as of Oct-1. My rates increased 76% =$160/month
-Geaux
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
Apparently some of the companies got around to reading all 2500 pages of the ACA and found out they were snookered by Obama.
Flopper answered your inquiry about buy-when-you-need.
I keep hearing "most Americans don't want it". Obama was re-elected; the Senate stayed in the hands of the Dems. Either the voters are catatonic or there isn't as much angst as is being advertised.
Additionally, it seems as though I recall the health insurance industry signing off on the deal. Are you saying the industry made a mis-calculation of this magnitude?
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
If they signed off then tell me why these MAJOR companies aren't participating???
Aetna (AET, Fortune 500) has actually pulled out of at least five exchanges after submitting proposals in 14 states. Its policies will not be found on the exchanges in Maryland, New York, Georgia, Ohio or its home state of Connecticut. The insurer recently bought Coventry Health Plans, which had also filed to be on several state exchanges, so Aetna is now reviewing both companies' remaining fillings.
"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate," the company said last month after withdrawing from the New York exchange. It will offer individual plans outside of Obamacare in the Empire State.
UnitedHealthcare (UNH, Fortune 500) is also planning limited participation in the new exchanges, at least for 2014. The company said it is taking its time to evaluate the exchanges, which it believes have the potential to be a growth market. It is only participating in about a dozen exchanges next year.
"[We] see 2014 as just the very start of the exchange markets," said spokesman Tyler Mason.
For Cigna (CI, Fortune 500), the decision came down to its customer base. A giant player in the employer market, Cigna is relatively new to the individual insurance side of the business. So it decided to join the exchanges in only the five states where it writes 80% of its individual policies, said spokesman Joseph Mondy. But Cigna will continue to offer plans outside the exchange in all 10 states where it is involved in the individual market.
"socialist takeover of the entire healthcare industry." is an empty phrase with no sense or meaning...its like scaring kids with "the Boogyman"...there is no Boogyman...yeah sure exactly like NazisWell that's interesting!
So Obamacare will supply 400,000 jobs?
Actually that figure should be supplying 800,000 jobs and here is why!
Obama said:"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program"
So if Obama WANTS a single payer, what happens to the current 1,300 health insurance payer companies and their 400,000 employees?
If Pelosi also wants single payer as Obama does.. THAT means 1,300 companies no longer in business.
1) $100 BILLION a year these companies pay in Federal/State/Local taxes and local property taxes... WHAT happens if Obama's preference becomes true?
2) 400,000 insurance companies' employees lose their jobs meaning no more federal/state/local taxes PLUS these 400,000 will need unemployment insurance!
Trust me - you're not far off. This is nothing more than the harbinger for a complete socialist takeover of the entire healthcare industry. It is coming.
And these piss ants on this forum will welcome it with open arms. It will be like the Nazis marching into Paris.
It's coming.
Then:
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
And now...
Apparently some of the companies got around to reading all 2500 pages of the ACA and found out they were snookered by Obama.
I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself if you ask nicely.
Then:
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
And now...
Apparently some of the companies got around to reading all 2500 pages of the ACA and found out they were snookered by Obama.
I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself if you ask nicely.
That won't be necessary since my conclusion is that the Insurance companies were LIED to by the Obama Administration and the Democrats that passed this tax law.
Apparently you don't understand what the word "snookered" means.
Then:
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
And now...
Apparently some of the companies got around to reading all 2500 pages of the ACA and found out they were snookered by Obama.
I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself if you ask nicely.
That won't be necessary since my conclusion is that the Insurance companies were LIED to by the Obama Administration and the Democrats that passed this tax law.
Apparently you don't understand what the word "snookered" means.
Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.
If they signed off then tell me why these MAJOR companies aren't participating???
Aetna (AET, Fortune 500) has actually pulled out of at least five exchanges after submitting proposals in 14 states. Its policies will not be found on the exchanges in Maryland, New York, Georgia, Ohio or its home state of Connecticut. The insurer recently bought Coventry Health Plans, which had also filed to be on several state exchanges, so Aetna is now reviewing both companies' remaining fillings.
"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate," the company said last month after withdrawing from the New York exchange. It will offer individual plans outside of Obamacare in the Empire State.
UnitedHealthcare (UNH, Fortune 500) is also planning limited participation in the new exchanges, at least for 2014. The company said it is taking its time to evaluate the exchanges, which it believes have the potential to be a growth market. It is only participating in about a dozen exchanges next year.
"[We] see 2014 as just the very start of the exchange markets," said spokesman Tyler Mason.
For Cigna (CI, Fortune 500), the decision came down to its customer base. A giant player in the employer market, Cigna is relatively new to the individual insurance side of the business. So it decided to join the exchanges in only the five states where it writes 80% of its individual policies, said spokesman Joseph Mondy. But Cigna will continue to offer plans outside the exchange in all 10 states where it is involved in the individual market.
Its early...Not all companies offered low/zero emission vehicles at the beginning. Now most do. New markets get some doubters.... Meanwhile, the Prius is dominating the market. Chevy wishes it had gotten there first. Nothing new there.
And to correct your own statement...from your quotes it seems that they are participating on a limited basis; it isn't a case of "not participating". I'd say that is smart business practice. When we start in a new market, we don't open 26 campuses like we have here; we start with a few and expand outward duplicating a winning business model.
If they signed off then tell me why these MAJOR companies aren't participating???
Aetna (AET, Fortune 500) has actually pulled out of at least five exchanges after submitting proposals in 14 states. Its policies will not be found on the exchanges in Maryland, New York, Georgia, Ohio or its home state of Connecticut. The insurer recently bought Coventry Health Plans, which had also filed to be on several state exchanges, so Aetna is now reviewing both companies' remaining fillings.
"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate," the company said last month after withdrawing from the New York exchange. It will offer individual plans outside of Obamacare in the Empire State.
UnitedHealthcare (UNH, Fortune 500) is also planning limited participation in the new exchanges, at least for 2014. The company said it is taking its time to evaluate the exchanges, which it believes have the potential to be a growth market. It is only participating in about a dozen exchanges next year.
"[We] see 2014 as just the very start of the exchange markets," said spokesman Tyler Mason.
For Cigna (CI, Fortune 500), the decision came down to its customer base. A giant player in the employer market, Cigna is relatively new to the individual insurance side of the business. So it decided to join the exchanges in only the five states where it writes 80% of its individual policies, said spokesman Joseph Mondy. But Cigna will continue to offer plans outside the exchange in all 10 states where it is involved in the individual market.
Its early...Not all companies offered low/zero emission vehicles at the beginning. Now most do. New markets get some doubters.... Meanwhile, the Prius is dominating the market. Chevy wishes it had gotten there first. Nothing new there.
And to correct your own statement...from your quotes it seems that they are participating on a limited basis; it isn't a case of "not participating". I'd say that is smart business practice. When we start in a new market, we don't open 26 campuses like we have here; we start with a few and expand outward duplicating a winning business model.
If your overall goal is to reduce healthcare costs and your looking to those government healthcare systems already in place in Canada and the NHS, you're not duplicating from a winning business model.
Its early...Not all companies offered low/zero emission vehicles at the beginning. Now most do. New markets get some doubters.... Meanwhile, the Prius is dominating the market. Chevy wishes it had gotten there first. Nothing new there.
And to correct your own statement...from your quotes it seems that they are participating on a limited basis; it isn't a case of "not participating". I'd say that is smart business practice. When we start in a new market, we don't open 26 campuses like we have here; we start with a few and expand outward duplicating a winning business model.
If your overall goal is to reduce healthcare costs and your looking to those government healthcare systems already in place in Canada and the NHS, you're not duplicating from a winning business model.
Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.
Okay.you just don't get it.
No....you are not paying anymore than yesterday.
How so?
The insurance companies are getting millions of more dollars because of this...8 more years of insurance premiums I otherwise wouldn't be paying.
Why would someone who may not be buying from the same company's policy go up or cost more to start with if the Insurance company has more policy holders?
If anything, it would seem as though the new policy you're talking about would go down which is why group insurance is more than individual policies--there are by definition more people in the group. I guess there could be some scenarios where you are buying from Humana and I'm buying from Aetna or Cigna, the prices will fluctuate depending on the overall size of the group.
and in time, as policies go up for renewal, so will everyone.
That I can see, every open enrollment period, the prices inch upward; sometimes 50 bucks per month as I recall, sometimes less.
Look at it this way.....
My 23 year old son had an option....buy his own insurance or risk it without buying insurance and hope he doesn't need it.
1)If he bought insurance, he would pay 2500 a year (arbitrary number)....he would likely benefit from about 500 after his deductible....for his annual visit and perhaps medication...so the insurance company profited 2000 off of him.
2)If he passed on insurance, the insurance company is a non factor.
Now?
3) He no longer pays the 2500.....and he is on my policy....and if he uses 500 as he did in example 1...that is a negative 500 to the insurance company for my policy premium has not changed yet for him being an addition
So when you compare 1 to 3....there is a total bottom line difference of 2500 to the insurance company.
[
Yep- And when the young healthy continue to avoid the stumbercluck ACA, and the takers flock to it like files at a picnic, the insurance companies will start to crash. x
[
Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.
