Let me take these one at a time.
- The issue here is driving down the cost of health care, not forcing people that elect not to buy insurance to do so. Once you realize that, all I can say to the fact that the CBO thinks this will expand the ownership of insurances is, so fracking what?
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.
[*]Nice, but, once again, how will this make health care more affordable.
Again, the more people there are paying into the system, the more costs are kept down. Duh.
[*]Capping premiums will reduce the price of insurance for some people, but it won't help with the main issue, which is reducing the price of health care.
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.
[*]I guess he missed the news, it is a tax, not a penalty.
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 ******* 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.
[*]How does the fact that a company pays its employees more make it richer? Wouldn't paying them less actually help make the company richer by giving it more money? Once again, how will this reduce the price of health care?
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.
Again, for the fourth time I think, the more people in the system, the lower the cost. It's why YOUR ******* SIDE came up with the mandate in the first place, genius.
[*]I love the idiocy that says an insurance company cannot discriminate by practicing common sense. It is not discrimination to charge a person with MS, diabetes, and high blood pressure more for insurance than you charge an athlete.
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.
You're all sorts of fail on this.
[*]Any money on how long a tax on insurance is going to last once the unions get involved in lobbying for a tax cut?
I thought your side was going to kill unions anyway, yeah?
[*]Preventing insurance companies from spending money on preventing fraud, what a wonderful idea. Once again, how is this going to reduce costs for health care?
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.
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.
IN LAYTARDS TERMS: It means they were over-*******-charging! YAY! I Spelled it out like I was talking to a shoe!
[*]I guess that depends on which CBO estimate you look at. If you look at the one that assumes that the Medicare cuts apply only to Obamacare he has a point, If you look at the one that says you can't count the Medicare cuts as paying for Obamacare and count as savings to Medicare at the same time it gets a bit more complicated.
Hmm. Guess we have ourselves a "Who gives a ****" stand off. I say my shit's legit. So, yeah.
[*]Admitting that the current reduction of costs has nothing to do Obamacare and then claiming it does at the same time, amazing.
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.
Again,you lose so ******* hard because you butt up against FACTS.
[*]Finally he gets around to talking about the only issue that matters, attempts to reduce the cost of medical care. Why did it take so long, and why doesn't he point out anything that will work? Is it because he is trying to deflect from the fact that nobody actually thinks most of this crap will work?
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.
Tell me something, since all of this has been discussed ad infinitum on this board, and all over the internet, over the last 3 years, what makes you think no one knows about it buy progressives? How come all you presented was opinion when you claimed you have facts that were previously unknown?
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?
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 ******* start.
