Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare

[Antares]

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

"BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference."
Really? Difference with no distinction.
The cost of health care IS the cost of the premium....
Look, ACA is nonsense. The Obama admin sold this thing as a way to control 'costs'...That's impossible.
What ACA will attempt to do is control 'price'...
With that in mind, ACA simply takes control of the medical care marketplace with the goal of manipulating the marketplace. This will be done by slashing reimbursements to medical professionals, placing new taxes on pharmaceutical firms and those companies that manufacture and market medical equipment and machinery.
All of which is 100% unnecessary. ACA creates an illusion that healthcare will be free to those voters the democrat party is most heavily invested. Those would be voters on public assistance those with an entitlement mentality.

Barak Hussein Obama promised repeatedly, you are dismissed.

That’s not the way it was supposed to be. President Obama repeatedly promised that health insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 a year lower by the end of his first term. They were actually $3,000 higher, but what’s $5,500 among comrades

PolicyBytes: Here come the health insurance price control police - Your Houston News: Opinion

We have previously dinged Republicans for claiming that premiums have already gone up because of the law. And we have noted the president made what we called a “foolish, dubious” campaign promise with a huge asterisk — that premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been without the law.

President Obama?s claim that insurance premiums ?will go down? - The Washington Post

 

[Greenbeard]

Link? What link?

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

There aren't?....No chance you looked at the link provided in the Forbes article.
Heck, I even posted a link from the White House website. Yet you throw out some other link that counters the government's own information.
We're done.

You quoted a chain above but don't appear to actually be responding to it. Someone claimed the cost of a plan for a family of four in California's exchange will be $16,000. I pointed out (correctly) that California's prices are now available and the statewide average for the cheapest bronze plan for a family of four next year will be $7,884. That's the price before they get any affordability tax credit, meaning the cost to them could even end up being substantially lower than the posted price.

That's based on the published prices (i.e. insurers' submissions of the rates they want to charge). There's no counterargument or "counter number" to be had here.

If I tell you that you can get one of the specialty pizzas from the place across the street from me for $13.29 (you can and they're worth it), that's a statement of fact. There's no "count number" for the price they charge for their pizzas.

So whatever strange obfuscation you're attempting here, it doesn't even make enough sense to work.

But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because it’s based on a misleading comparison: next year’s individual market rates with this year’s small-employer plans.

What comparison? This a menu of prices. No comparison is being made, it's just a list of how much things cost.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

There aren't?....No chance you looked at the link provided in the Forbes article.
Heck, I even posted a link from the White House website. Yet you throw out some other link that counters the government's own information.
We're done.

You quoted a chain above but don't appear to actually be responding to it. Someone claimed the cost of a plan for a family of four in California's exchange will be $16,000. I pointed out (correctly) that California's prices are now available and the statewide average for the cheapest bronze plan for a family of four next year will be $7,884. That's the price before they get any affordability tax credit, meaning the cost to them could even end up being substantially lower than the posted price.

That's based on the published prices (i.e. insurers' submissions of the rates they want to charge). There's no counterargument or "counter number" to be had here.

If I tell you that you can get one of the specialty pizzas from the place across the street from me for $13.29 (you can and they're worth it), that's a statement of fact. There's no "count number" for the price they charge for their pizzas.

So whatever strange obfuscation you're attempting here, it doesn't even make enough sense to work.

But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because it’s based on a misleading comparison: next year’s individual market rates with this year’s small-employer plans.

What comparison? This a menu of prices. No comparison is being made, it's just a list of how much things cost.

A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..
Then we will see who is correct when the bill is delivered.
Actually, this is being done in a very sneaky manner. As a payroll deduction and when one files their tax return. The charge is "hidden"...
When worker's net pay shrinks dramatically and refunds disappear, those in Congress had better acquire a thick skin real quick.
You have no clue what you are posting about.
ACA is going to be VERY expensive!

 

[Redfish]

There aren't?....No chance you looked at the link provided in the Forbes article.
Heck, I even posted a link from the White House website. Yet you throw out some other link that counters the government's own information.
We're done.

You quoted a chain above but don't appear to actually be responding to it. Someone claimed the cost of a plan for a family of four in California's exchange will be $16,000. I pointed out (correctly) that California's prices are now available and the statewide average for the cheapest bronze plan for a family of four next year will be $7,884. That's the price before they get any affordability tax credit, meaning the cost to them could even end up being substantially lower than the posted price.

That's based on the published prices (i.e. insurers' submissions of the rates they want to charge). There's no counterargument or "counter number" to be had here.

If I tell you that you can get one of the specialty pizzas from the place across the street from me for $13.29 (you can and they're worth it), that's a statement of fact. There's no "count number" for the price they charge for their pizzas.

So whatever strange obfuscation you're attempting here, it doesn't even make enough sense to work.

But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because it’s based on a misleading comparison: next year’s individual market rates with this year’s small-employer plans.

What comparison? This a menu of prices. No comparison is being made, it's just a list of how much things cost.

A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..
Then we will see who is correct when the bill is delivered.
Actually, this is being done in a very sneaky manner. As a payroll deduction and when one files their tax return. The charge is "hidden"...
When worker's net pay shrinks dramatically and refunds disappear, those in Congress had better acquire a thick skin real quick.
You have no clue what you are posting about.
ACA is going to be VERY expensive!

yes it will, and the dumb shits that are on here defending it will be the most seriously hurt by it.

I will never understand how supporting obama causes a person to completely lose his/her ability to think retionally.

 

[Greenbeard]

A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..

"Free shit" wouldn't have premiums (and cost-sharing), genius. Which is what we've been talking about the entire time. Save the stock insults for occasions in which they make sense.

 

[Redfish]

A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..

"Free shit" wouldn't have premiums (and cost-sharing), genius. Which is what we've been talking about the entire time. Save the stock insults for occasions in which they make sense.

true, but the vast majority of obama supporters think that obamacare will be free for THEM. it won't but they have sold their votes to that lie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..

"Free shit" wouldn't have premiums (and cost-sharing), genius. Which is what we've been talking about the entire time. Save the stock insults for occasions in which they make sense.

For a family of 4 making $1 under 400% of poverty it will be 'free shit'..
Nice try at deliberately missing the point.
Low info voters, the uninformed and Obamabots such as yourself believe ACA will relieve them of ALL out of pocket expense for medical care.

 

[lynn63]

Here are the facts regarding those that are eligible for "free shit":

Only the states that agreed to the medicaid expansion will those people in low paying jobs earning under 138% PPL will be eligible. Most of those states pay a higher minimum wage so many will not be eligible. Those people will not be responsible for any premiums but they will have to pay a small copay if they require care.

Most of the low income population with no insurance are in the Southern States that is Republican dominate, refused the expansion and have the federal minimum wage or below. None of these people will be able to enroll in Medicaid.

They project that only 7 million people will be added to Medicaid in 2014.

 

[Greenbeard]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

California's exchange has a great new tool out today in anticipation of open enrollment in October. Lets you see exactly how much each plan in your local market will cost a household of your size.

Let's imagine you're a family of 5 in LA county: two 40-year-old parents, three kids. How much is the cheapest plan available to you? $20,000?

No, it's an L.A. Care bronze plan available to your family for $393/month or $4,716/year.

Now let's say your household makes $60,000/year so that you qualify for an affordability tax credit. Your premium for that plan falls to $216/month or $2,592/year. Wow! Glad there wasn't some idiot telling me it would cost $20,000/year for a family of five!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

California's exchange has a great new tool out today in anticipation of open enrollment in October. Lets you see exactly how much each plan in your local market will cost a household of your size.

Let's imagine you're a family of 5 in LA county: two 40-year-old parents, three kids. How much is the cheapest plan available to you? $20,000?

No, it's an L.A. Care bronze plan available to your family for $393/month or $4,716/year.

Now let's say your household makes $60,000/year so that you qualify for an affordability tax credit. Your premium for that plan falls to $216/month or $2,592/year. Wow! Glad there wasn't some idiot telling me it would cost $20,000/year for a family of five!

First..A family of 5 in LA County with a household income of $60k is not even middle class. Not even close.
Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.
That's like having very little coverage at all.
Suppose these people have $10k in medical bills for one year...That works out to them paying $4,000..PLUS the $4716...
That kind of insurance coverage is for people who PRAY they don't get sick or injured.
And the reimbursements are so paltry, many health care providers will more than likely not take Obamacare patients. They will be sent to public hospitals.
Either that or a lot of medical facilities are going to close because they just will not be able to afford staying in business.
This law is a piece of shit.
Oh, today..The Transport Workers Union and The Longshoreman's union have split form the AFL/CIO over the AFL CIO's support for Obama care.
The rats are jumping ship.

 

[dblack]

Insurance, uber alles.

 

[Flopper]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

California's exchange has a great new tool out today in anticipation of open enrollment in October. Lets you see exactly how much each plan in your local market will cost a household of your size.

Let's imagine you're a family of 5 in LA county: two 40-year-old parents, three kids. How much is the cheapest plan available to you? $20,000?

No, it's an L.A. Care bronze plan available to your family for $393/month or $4,716/year.

Now let's say your household makes $60,000/year so that you qualify for an affordability tax credit. Your premium for that plan falls to $216/month or $2,592/year. Wow! Glad there wasn't some idiot telling me it would cost $20,000/year for a family of five!

Q: Did the IRS say that the cheapest health insurance plan under the federal health care law would cost $20,000 per family?
A: No. The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”

Just one of a number of myths created by the right, like the healthcare law which grew from 906 pages to 3000 after passage. Repeat a lie often enough and there are always fools that will believe it.

?Obamacare? to cost $20,000 a Family?

 

[Greenbeard]

Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.

The conceit of the thread is that the cheapest bronze plan would cost a family of 5 $20,000/year in premiums. That was a lie, told by idiots to idiots. The point of looking up actual numbers is to expose the absurdity of that claim. The actual cheapest bronze plan for a family that large is actually less than $5,000, with families potentially being asked to pay substantially less than that.

That's not a recommendation that this family actually choose to buy catastrophic coverage, the point is that catastrophic coverage doesn't cost $20,000, as the more impressionable minds in the rightwing herd were led to believe.

Derp.

 

[Flopper]

Here are the facts regarding those that are eligible for "free shit":

Only the states that agreed to the medicaid expansion will those people in low paying jobs earning under 138% PPL will be eligible. Most of those states pay a higher minimum wage so many will not be eligible. Those people will not be responsible for any premiums but they will have to pay a small copay if they require care.

Most of the low income population with no insurance are in the Southern States that is Republican dominate, refused the expansion and have the federal minimum wage or below. None of these people will be able to enroll in Medicaid.

They project that only 7 million people will be added to Medicaid in 2014.

As a part of the Medicaid Expansion, eligibility expanded from 133 to 138% of FPL. Medicaid Expansion was required in the healthcare law but the Supreme Court gave states the right to say no. Currently 16 states, mostly red states have done so.

These state will be denying Medicaid coverage to millions of the working poor, not because of a shortage of funds but for ideology reasons. The cost to states will not start till 2017 and is modest with the federal government picking up most of the cost.


APHA: Medicaid Expansion

 

[jgarden]

Cybercast News Service

CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org. According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."

..... CNSNews.com's motto is "The Right News. Right now."

CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle.

Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007. Jeffrey was and remains an editor-at-large for the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events ..... was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign.

Under editor David Thibault, CNSNews.com questioned the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to Murtha's criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service

Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare

- originally the "C" in CNSNews.com, the OP's source, stood for "conservativenews.org."

- Scott Hogenson, CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005, took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee

- Terence P. Jeffrey, editor-in-chief in September 2007, was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992 and his national campaign manager in 1996

- CNSNews.com questioned the validity of Democratic Rep. John Murtha's purple hearts (after Murtha's criticized the U.S. War in Iraq)

When it comes to accusations emanating from "news" sources with such obvious conservative biases, "lie" is the operative word!

 

[Claudette]

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

 

[Flopper]

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for the first time in four decades and according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

 

[The Rabbi]

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for first time in four decades and the according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right? And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent. Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.

 

[Flopper]

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for first time in four decades and the according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right? And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent. Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.

Since the law is not fully enacted there is no way to know what the actually costs will be, just projections which I've sighted. Yes, there are many explanations of why healthcare cost is falling, one being that the health insurance companies and healthcare providers have been cleaning up their act for some years knowing that healthcare reform was coming.

 

[Greenbeard]

You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right? And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent. Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.

Lowering of amounts spent? Are we now in an unprecedented era of slowing health care cost growth and record low health care price inflation (not to mention the lowest per capita Medicare cost growth ever recorded)? Has slowing health care cost growth chopped 15% off the combined price tags of Medicare and Medicaid by 2020?

I hadn't heard anything about that! Not from the right, anyway. Pray, tell me more. Don't forget to reiterate how it certainly has nothing (certainly not!) to do with the unprecedented reforms of the health care system that started three and a half years ago. That's key.