Thanks Democrats! In 47 Of 50 Cities, Obamacare Will Be Unaffordable In 2018 By Law's Definition

Discussion in 'ObamaCare' started by Steve_McGarrett, Sep 29, 2017.

  1. Steve_McGarrett
    Offline

    Steve_McGarrett BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,276
    Thanks Received:
    4,336
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +20,771
    This was the inevitable plan the whole time, to eventually bankrupt the middle class and force them into single payer socialized healthcare. America is paying the price for electing a non-natural born citizen unconstitutional ineligible president. The founders warned about the dangers of having a non-natural born citizen as president prompting them to create Article 2 Section 1, the natural born citizen presidential clause when framing the Constitution.


    In 47 of 50 cities, ObamaCare coverage will be 'unaffordable' in 2018 by law's definition

    families would need to incur an extra $28,939 before the plan became affordable. On average, a family of three would have to earn a six-figure salary—or $110,823.32—for coverage to be affordable.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Theowl32
    Offline

    Theowl32 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    12,640
    Thanks Received:
    5,864
    Trophy Points:
    1,055
    Location:
    Jupiter, Fl
    Ratings:
    +18,263
    All by design.

    Trump will get the blame.

    Republicans deserve the blame. Not Trump though. Specifically Judge Roberts and whatever he did that enabled the democrats to blackmail him to vote their way.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,620
    Thanks Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,205
    Key sentence in your link:

    "Government subsidies are available to people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, but middle-income households earning 401 percent or more of the federal poverty level are not eligible for subsidy assistance," eHealth explains.
    So the obvious question is, why not then extend the cap on subsidies to more than 400% of the poverty level? In fact, why not just do away with private insurance altogether and have a single payor to administrate reimbursement? After all, the larger the premium pool, the lower the individual premium costs and deductibles. So if everyone was on the same insurance plan, that would be the biggest insurance pool possible and thus, result in the lowest costs possible. Because that's how insurance works.
     
  4. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    55,028
    Thanks Received:
    8,106
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +54,510
    Govt has more blame than anything in this healthcare bullshit and retarded statists want to hand them the entire industry. WTF
     
  5. Theowl32
    Offline

    Theowl32 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    12,640
    Thanks Received:
    5,864
    Trophy Points:
    1,055
    Location:
    Jupiter, Fl
    Ratings:
    +18,263
    Blackmailed life long establishment RINOS along with the entire American hating marxist democrats behind the new world order globalists.

    I know I am missing something, but there it is.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,620
    Thanks Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,205
    Yes, government run by those who suck up to the health insurance lobbyists to preserve what everyone recognizes is a shitty, extraneous, unnecessary part of health care; administration.

    And why not have a single, government-run insurance plan that sets a standard rate for all providers? That way, the playing field is leveled for providers who then must improve outcomes to attract patients. Right now, our system doesn't force competition. The "competition" that exists is between providers and insurers at who can reimburse at the better rate. That's got nothing to do with your health care and is entirely profit-focused, not health-focused. What's more important to you? Who reimburses your provider, or that your provider is reimbursed?
     
  7. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    55,028
    Thanks Received:
    8,106
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +54,510
    Why not? Really? Did you read my previous post?
     
  8. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,620
    Thanks Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,205
    So then, what kind of health care system do you want? How do you want it to work?
     
  9. JGalt
    Offline

    JGalt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    10,365
    Thanks Received:
    2,169
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    North
    Ratings:
    +14,402
    So the cities will sink further into socialism, decay, and anarchy, while we middle-American country folks sit back counting our ammunition stockpiles and maintaining our equipment.

    Soon. Real soon. <insert maniacal laugh here>

    :biggrin:
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
  10. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,620
    Thanks Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,205
    Other than your very simplistic "government is bad" dogma you picked up from your parents, who picked it up from Reagan, what does it matter who reimburses your provider? Shouldn't all that matter is that your provider is reimbursed?

    Your doctors don't compete for your care. In fact, your doctor doesn't compete at all...who competes are the insurers who try to contract with your doctor for the lowest possible reimbursement rate (that's how insurance companies maximize profits). But the insurer isn't forcing the doctor to improve outcomes. The doctor gets reimbursed regardless of the job they do...except when it comes to Medicare, which is outcome-focused now thanks to Obama.
     

Share This Page