Do they hear themselves?

[RDD_1210]

Peace of mind does not come from a compulsive federal program, unless of course you are a progressive statist such as yourself, then big daddy government is JUST FUCKING GREAT.

Thanks for the input Marty. I'll be sure to note your valued opinion in my progressive statist handbook.

Its a simple handbook. 1) go to government 2) yell GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE 3) government uses its force to get stuff 4) whiny bitch in step 1 gets paid.

Ahh good, I've seen you read it. Don't forget step 5 - Watch QVC on 60" Plasma while collecting unemployment.

 

[RDD_1210]

how far will you go?

I mean....how "equal" in wealth Is appropriate?

If the income you are allowed to keep is X....how much less than X should someone who is in need have? If it were X as well....and the result is you live with your needs but nothing more so others can live with their needs and nothing more....would you be OK with that?

I'm certainly not advocating a system that puts everyone at the exact same income level. That's ridiculous and also, we're as far away as you can get from that type of structure in this country. Our rich are getting richer and our middle class is at best staying stagnant. So to guarantee something like healthcare and remove the fear of losing everything because of medical bills is to me a worthwhile endeavor. The method we've chosen to achieve that may be far from ideal...but it's something and we needed to do something.

you missed my point.

You say it is the "human" thing to do....I understand and agree.

So where does it end?

IF....big if....but IF the only way that all were able to meet their needs included YOU having your "take home" equal to that of those "getting"....

Would you be OK with it?

Nope. I wouldn't. And I can't imagine a scenario where that comes to reality.

 

[martybegan]

Thanks for the input Marty. I'll be sure to note your valued opinion in my progressive statist handbook.

Its a simple handbook. 1) go to government 2) yell GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE 3) government uses its force to get stuff 4) whiny bitch in step 1 gets paid.

Ahh good, I've seen you read it. Don't forget step 5 - Watch QVC on 60" Plasma while collecting unemployment.

QVC??? 1996 called RDD, it wants its home shopping reference back.

 

[RDD_1210]

Its a simple handbook. 1) go to government 2) yell GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE 3) government uses its force to get stuff 4) whiny bitch in step 1 gets paid.

Ahh good, I've seen you read it. Don't forget step 5 - Watch QVC on 60" Plasma while collecting unemployment.

QVC??? 1996 called RDD, it wants its home shopping reference back.

I must have been looking in an old handbook.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm certainly not advocating a system that puts everyone at the exact same income level. That's ridiculous and also, we're as far away as you can get from that type of structure in this country. Our rich are getting richer and our middle class is at best staying stagnant. So to guarantee something like healthcare and remove the fear of losing everything because of medical bills is to me a worthwhile endeavor. The method we've chosen to achieve that may be far from ideal...but it's something and we needed to do something.

you missed my point.

You say it is the "human" thing to do....I understand and agree.

So where does it end?

IF....big if....but IF the only way that all were able to meet their needs included YOU having your "take home" equal to that of those "getting"....

Would you be OK with it?

Nope. I wouldn't. And I can't imagine a scenario where that comes to reality.

at a risk of sounding like I don't admire your integrity...for I do....

But if you say "nope" to my question, then you are willing to be "humane" as long as it doesn't drag you down.

I will not get into what my income is....

But if you take my 10% charity and what I pay in taxes on my taxable income....

I give a hell of a lot to my fellow Americans.

To now pay more for my heath care so I can give MORE to charity?

Not thrilled with it.

Especially when I see my government spend a half a billion dollars on a web site that doesn't work.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jarhead

It is not about people thinking they were immune.

but the ACA had an alternative.

The ER.

But you (as a collective of healthcare supporters) decided ER is not a worthy alternative and they should be forced to take healthcare as their entitlement.

EMTALA gave free health care to illegals and lazy ass rw's.

ACA - you PAY for your own and illegals cannot get it.
Why can't rw's understand these SIMPLE facts??????????????????????????

LOL.

You are really bone head.

So illegals not getting obamacare is "good" - exactly HOW? is EMTALA revoked? so what is preventing them to use ER as they have been before?

You still pay for THEM and much more for the insurance.

a "perfect" deal.

to fulfill leftard dream - to rob every American for the benefit of the big business

You think changing the subject helps?

Note to Jarhead: You still haven't answered my post that was directed to you. And, please note that rw's are nasty, rude and name callers. Bet that doesn't count, huh?

 

[Claudette]

Well sounds like RD feels its our DUTY to pay for those that can't pay for themselves.

In fact, we should be overjoyed to do so.

Just sayin.

See what I mean?

Here's another one who STILL doesn't know that Reagan's Socialist EMTALA gives away free care while ACA makes you pay your own way.

Oh so everyone in the ACA pays their own way huh?

Seems your kinda sorta forgetting all the subsidizing in the ACA. You know. Using other peoples money.

You also seem to be forgetting those whopping deductables and higher premiums that folks will be paying. Yeah the ACA is gonna be affordable all right. But only for those we subsidize.

Carry on.

 

[RDD_1210]

you missed my point.

You say it is the "human" thing to do....I understand and agree.

So where does it end?

IF....big if....but IF the only way that all were able to meet their needs included YOU having your "take home" equal to that of those "getting"....

Would you be OK with it?

Nope. I wouldn't. And I can't imagine a scenario where that comes to reality.

at a risk of sounding like I don't admire your integrity...for I do....

But if you say "nope" to my question, then you are willing to be "humane" as long as it doesn't drag you down.

I will not get into what my income is....

But if you take my 10% charity and what I pay in taxes on my taxable income....

I give a hell of a lot to my fellow Americans.

To now pay more for my heath care so I can give MORE to charity?

Not thrilled with it.

Especially when I see my government spend a half a billion dollars on a web site that doesn't work.

The reason I said no, is that I can't imagine how basic life necessities would ever require me to give over half of what I have and at the same time elevating the poor to have the same amount of income as I have. The scenario just doesn't make sense to me.

And yes, you're right. The government is horribly inefficient but what's the better alternative? Let private business ensure every American gets health insurance? That obviously can't work. If there were examples of other nations running successful healthcare systems without government involvement whatsoever, I'd be more than happy to look at that sort of model. But that doesn't exist which has to tell you something.

And that's great that you give 10% to charity. I wish more people did that. But our society unfortunately can't rely on those that give to charity, especially with more people living pay check to paycheck.

 

[Ame®icano]

when I pay muni tax for police and fire it is for me as well as my community.

When I pay school tax, even without a kid in school, I am paying for me as well as my community as it helps with the value of my property.

Healthcare is different. I am going to pay more and get nothing out of it except the satisfaction of knowing I am helping other people.

But I donate 10% of my income to charity and I pay a heck of a lot in taxes that support many entitlement programs.

Where does it end?

Are you upset when you pay for the fire department and then your house doesn't catch on fire? You're not getting anything out of that either.

You are getting something, you're getting peace of mind knowing that if you ever fall on hard times, you won't have to worry that you'll have to choose between food and healthcare. You'll always be able to get healthcare in this country and that to me is a good thing.

I pay for the fire department as an insurance....you know...."just in case"

I do the same for my OWN healthcare.

How would you feel if you had to pay for the fire and police department for a town on the other side of the nation because they couldn't?

Look...you make a great "humanity" argument......but the fire department analogy is filled with holes.

Or worse, they couldn't but chose not to.

 

[Flopper]

Kathy Castor (D) of Florida, during the hearings just touted how a constituent of hers has greatly benefited form the ACA.

She told of a young man who works for a small business who did not have insurance but was thrilled when he found out that he will receive a $2800 tax credit and his premium will be only $28.

Uh...hello?????

No one said it is not a great thing that people can get healthcare for next to nothing. That would be great for anyone.

But what her constituent doesn't realize is that it is not for nothing. Someone...or a group of people he does not know are the ones paying for him to get it for free...

Yep...he thanks Obama.

But he doesn't even realize that it is someone else paying for his stuff...and he cant thank that person (or group of people) for he doesn't even know who they are.

Bottom line....

I have yet to hear about a wonderful ACA story from a person who is paying INTO the system.

Has anyone?

The additional benefits of the ACA in the individual healthcare market are paid for by higher income workers via premiums. Most of the government funds go to pay subsidies in the individual insurance market and expanded Medicaid for those with lower income. Higher premiums paid by higher income workers provide the additional benefits. So, I don't think you're going find many upper middle class workers who buy individual plans praising the ACA.

For about 85% of the population who get their insurance through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or VA, the ACA will have only a minor impact with expected premium increases of about 3% to 5%. This is because most of the essential benefits are already included in most plans and the pre-existing conditions exclusion has either been eliminated or limited.

However, the effect on the costs for lower income workers can be dramatic. For example in Florida, one of the states that has had above average premium increases:

A single parent age 42 with 3 kids and a family income of $36,000 can purchase a silver plan priced at $7000/yr for $124/mo with a maximum out of pocket cost of $4500 for the family. As income falls from the $36,000/yr, the subsidies increase. At about $26,000, under the expanded Medicaid and $19,000 for those who live in states that rejected it, Medical care is free through Medicaid.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Kathy Castor (D) of Florida, during the hearings just touted how a constituent of hers has greatly benefited form the ACA.



She told of a young man who works for a small business who did not have insurance but was thrilled when he found out that he will receive a $2800 tax credit and his premium will be only $28.



Uh...hello?????



No one said it is not a great thing that people can get healthcare for next to nothing. That would be great for anyone.



But what her constituent doesn't realize is that it is not for nothing. Someone...or a group of people he does not know are the ones paying for him to get it for free...



Yep...he thanks Obama.



But he doesn't even realize that it is someone else paying for his stuff...and he cant thank that person (or group of people) for he doesn't even know who they are.



Bottom line....



I have yet to hear about a wonderful ACA story from a person who is paying INTO the system.



Has anyone?

The people who are going to give out great stories of this mandate and unconstitutional law amended by SCOTUS, are the same people that at times almost blindly follow their leaders. Time will show this law for what it is.

I'm still waiting for congressman to get on stage and show examples of people who have had great experiences having their privacy invaded because of the Patriot Act. Or the people having a great time being indefinitely detained by the NDAA. You know why nobody raises examples of those laws in arguments? Because they're 'bipartisan'. Which means Democrats AND Republicans care so much about the bill of rights that they're wasting time arguing about health insurance. Yes please, go vote for them again so that our rising health care costs can help support the poverty line.

 

[Claudette]

Nothing is free.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Kathy Castor (D) of Florida, during the hearings just touted how a constituent of hers has greatly benefited form the ACA.

She told of a young man who works for a small business who did not have insurance but was thrilled when he found out that he will receive a $2800 tax credit and his premium will be only $28.

Uh...hello?????

No one said it is not a great thing that people can get healthcare for next to nothing. That would be great for anyone.

But what her constituent doesn't realize is that it is not for nothing. Someone...or a group of people he does not know are the ones paying for him to get it for free...

Yep...he thanks Obama.

But he doesn't even realize that it is someone else paying for his stuff...and he cant thank that person (or group of people) for he doesn't even know who they are.

Bottom line....

I have yet to hear about a wonderful ACA story from a person who is paying INTO the system.

Has anyone?

The additional benefits of the ACA in the individual healthcare market are paid for by higher income workers via premiums. Most of the government funds go to pay subsidies in the individual insurance market and expanded Medicaid for those with lower income. Higher premiums paid by higher income workers provide the additional benefits. So, I don't think you're going find many upper middle class workers who buy individual plans praising the ACA.

For about 85% of the population who get their insurance through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or VA, the ACA will have only a minor impact with expected premium increases of about 3% to 5%. This is because most of the essential benefits are already included in most plans and the pre-existing conditions exclusion has either been eliminated or limited.

However, the effect on the costs for lower income workers can be dramatic. For example in Florida, one of the states that has had above average premium increases:

A single parent age 42 with 3 kids and a family income of $36,000 can purchase a silver plan priced at $7000/yr for $124/mo with a maximum out of pocket cost of $4500 for the family. As income falls from the $36,000/yr, the subsidies increase. At about $26,000, under the expanded Medicaid and $19,000 for those who live in states that rejected it, Medical care is free through Medicaid.

Higher premiums from higher wage earners? So with loan interest rates and mortgages and cars and almost all other forms of purchasing power higher wage earners are granted lower costs because of dependable income. You think they're going to enroll in an exchange and get charged higher prices instead of going into the real market and get a deal based on their health? Ok. Income doesn't mean you pay more for insurance, it means you can afford more. Your first paragraph is ludicrous.

 

[Flopper]

The involuntarily uninsured cost about $52 billion in unpaid emergency care. That's far, far, far, far less than what ObamaCare is going to cost us.

ObamaCare does not address all of the actual core causes of rising health care costs. It addressed some, but also more deeply embedded many of the causes of rising health care costs.

Obamacare will make a big dent in the 52 billion dollar write off but it certainly won't eliminate it for several reasons. A number of states rejected Expanded Medicaid, low income workers still have deductibles to be met, and there will still be undocumented immigrants without insurance.

I agree Obamacare does not address the core causes for healthcare cost increases. It has a few programs aimed at improving quality that may help. Fee for service has to be eliminated. Managed care networks are helping. Also the the expansion of hospitals into clinics and other healthcare business can certainly reduce costs.

 

[Listening]

unfortunately ,I am afraid, many of our youth have been taught that money appears from a magic tree into our treasury. Either that or that aren't teaching them anything.

To their credit, they are not flocking to the disaster.

 

[Flopper]

Kathy Castor (D) of Florida, during the hearings just touted how a constituent of hers has greatly benefited form the ACA.

She told of a young man who works for a small business who did not have insurance but was thrilled when he found out that he will receive a $2800 tax credit and his premium will be only $28.

Uh...hello?????

No one said it is not a great thing that people can get healthcare for next to nothing. That would be great for anyone.

But what her constituent doesn't realize is that it is not for nothing. Someone...or a group of people he does not know are the ones paying for him to get it for free...

Yep...he thanks Obama.

But he doesn't even realize that it is someone else paying for his stuff...and he cant thank that person (or group of people) for he doesn't even know who they are.

Bottom line....

I have yet to hear about a wonderful ACA story from a person who is paying INTO the system.

Has anyone?

The additional benefits of the ACA in the individual healthcare market are paid for by higher income workers via premiums. Most of the government funds go to pay subsidies in the individual insurance market and expanded Medicaid for those with lower income. Higher premiums paid by higher income workers provide the additional benefits. So, I don't think you're going find many upper middle class workers who buy individual plans praising the ACA.

For about 85% of the population who get their insurance through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or VA, the ACA will have only a minor impact with expected premium increases of about 3% to 5%. This is because most of the essential benefits are already included in most plans and the pre-existing conditions exclusion has either been eliminated or limited.

However, the effect on the costs for lower income workers can be dramatic. For example in Florida, one of the states that has had above average premium increases:

A single parent age 42 with 3 kids and a family income of $36,000 can purchase a silver plan priced at $7000/yr for $124/mo with a maximum out of pocket cost of $4500 for the family. As income falls from the $36,000/yr, the subsidies increase. At about $26,000, under the expanded Medicaid and $19,000 for those who live in states that rejected it, Medical care is free through Medicaid.

Higher premiums from higher wage earners? So with loan interest rates and mortgages and cars and almost all other forms of purchasing power higher wage earners are granted lower costs because of dependable income. You think they're going to enroll in an exchange and get charged higher prices instead of going into the real market and get a deal based on their health? Ok. Income doesn't mean you pay more for insurance, it means you can afford more. Your first paragraph is ludicrous.

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. The cost increase that health insurance companies in the individual market will experience is due primarily to adding the essential benefits and eliminating the pre-existing condition. It doesn't matter whether the plans are bought on the exchanges or directly from the insurance company; the requirements are the same. The costs for the added benefits have to be covered. For lower income workers, those increased costs are cover by the government through subsidies. Those with higher income will absorb the full amount of those increased costs through higher premiums and indirectly through taxes.

ACA planners believe any increase in the cost of insurance will be covered by additional volume of business and additional competition. That of course remains to be seen because volume will grow slowly over several years. Also competition which is spotty in the individual market needs to increase.