Game Over For Obama

[Uncensored2008]

Given the current polling the GOP isn't looking all that great either. If ever there was a time to run as a 3rd party candidate this would be it.

The dims are going to get slaughtered next year.

I won't make any predictions about 16' because the GOP are the masters of shooting off their own foot - but Fascist Care has sunk the dims for this election.

 

[Redfish]

Given the current polling the GOP isn't looking all that great either. If ever there was a time to run as a 3rd party candidate this would be it.

The dims are going to get slaughtered next year.

I won't make any predictions about 16' because the GOP are the masters of shooting off their own foot - but Fascist Care has sunk the dims for this election.

when the late night comedians are making fun of obozocare, its over. Obama has destroyed the democrat party.

 

[Indeependent]

Not adhering to a Schedule?
Ever work on Wall Street?
Ever work for ANY private firm?
Speaking of Health Care, ever hear of ICD9s and the fact that ICD10s were postponed for about 10 years ONE YEAR AT A TIME?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why don't you nutters just qualify every thread title with the words "Wishfull Thinking"?

Man.....you idiots dish on the world as you want it to be and are oblivious to the world as it is. It doesn't matter how often you are wrong. You keep making those predictions.

 

[Redfish]

Obamacare has what to do with Medicaid?

obamacaid

he means the folks on the subsidies

He means the 396,000 who have found out they should be in Medicaid (qualified but unaware of that fact) instead of ACA.

if they ever had to go to a hospital they would quickly find out that they are eligible for medicaid. If they stay well, why would they care?

ACA solves nothing, it just makes things worse and drives the costs up even higher.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Given the current polling the GOP isn't looking all that great either. If ever there was a time to run as a 3rd party candidate this would be it.

The dims are going to get slaughtered next year.

I won't make any predictions about 16' because the GOP are the masters of shooting off their own foot - but Fascist Care has sunk the dims for this election.

You are staking way too much on a single roll of the dice. Been through far too many rocky software rollouts to be worried about this one. The state systems are up and running fine so that part is working already. No amount of bad press is going to keep the federal one from joining them. The campaign to tell college kids not to buy ACA policies is misdirected because they aren't in the market for them anyway. By the time 2014 rolls around the ACA website will be running like clockwork and everyone who signed up will be happy that they did.

 

[Indeependent]

Given the current polling the GOP isn't looking all that great either. If ever there was a time to run as a 3rd party candidate this would be it.

The dims are going to get slaughtered next year.

I won't make any predictions about 16' because the GOP are the masters of shooting off their own foot - but Fascist Care has sunk the dims for this election.

You are staking way too much on a single roll of the dice. Been through far too many rocky software rollouts to be worried about this one. The state systems are up and running fine so that part is working already. No amount of bad press is going to keep the federal one from joining them. The campaign to tell college kids not to buy ACA policies is misdirected because they aren't in the market for them anyway. By the time 2014 rolls around the ACA website will be running like clockwork and everyone who signed up will be happy that they did.

NYS is not only up, 9 more Providers have come to make some money.

 

[Redfish]

The dims are going to get slaughtered next year.

I won't make any predictions about 16' because the GOP are the masters of shooting off their own foot - but Fascist Care has sunk the dims for this election.

You are staking way too much on a single roll of the dice. Been through far too many rocky software rollouts to be worried about this one. The state systems are up and running fine so that part is working already. No amount of bad press is going to keep the federal one from joining them. The campaign to tell college kids not to buy ACA policies is misdirected because they aren't in the market for them anyway. By the time 2014 rolls around the ACA website will be running like clockwork and everyone who signed up will be happy that they did.

NYS is not only up, 9 more Providers have come to make some money.

great, and only old and sick people are getting into it. how many 25 year olds have signed up to pay high premiums? got any stats? or are you just hurling bull turds?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You are staking way too much on a single roll of the dice. Been through far too many rocky software rollouts to be worried about this one. The state systems are up and running fine so that part is working already. No amount of bad press is going to keep the federal one from joining them. The campaign to tell college kids not to buy ACA policies is misdirected because they aren't in the market for them anyway. By the time 2014 rolls around the ACA website will be running like clockwork and everyone who signed up will be happy that they did.

NYS is not only up, 9 more Providers have come to make some money.

great, and only old and sick people are getting into it. how many 25 year olds have signed up to pay high premiums? got any stats? or are you just hurling bull turds?

27 year olds. "Adult children" can stay on their parents plans through their 26th year. Then they can buy a catastrophic plan but only for three years (available to under 30 year olds).

 

[Trajan]

you can post from whomever you like, if its not from THE Bill, I cannot help you....and it appears to me you're not even reading, and trying to answer what I am asking either.

example in that cut and paste of yours , a) it doesn't address the section of the bill I posted , b) theres 2 contradictions right there in your cut and paste in relation to what I posted in my last post to you........

Since you never bothered to identify what you were alleging it wasn't worth the time to try and guess what that might be. However the evidence that was provided to you clearly shows that the implementation of the ACA takes place over an 8 year timeline. Therefore it is undeniable that there is a schedule and that is controlled by the Executive Branch who is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the legislation. Now if you can produce a relevant aspect of the bill that specifically states that it is illegal to adjust the timeline and link that directly to what Obama is doing then you will have a point.

Relevant....humm, I did that.



I posted the passage for the grassely (coburn) amendment, which obama had changed, so? whats the mystery?

and the employer mandate? what does the bill as passed say and what doesn't kaiser say? see? here- employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?

and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

 

[Trajan]

NYS is not only up, 9 more Providers have come to make some money.

great, and only old and sick people are getting into it. how many 25 year olds have signed up to pay high premiums? got any stats? or are you just hurling bull turds?

27 year olds. "Adult children" can stay on their parents plans through their 26th year. Then they can buy a catastrophic plan but only for three years (available to under 30 year olds).

its common knowledge that a lot of college kids right now are being moved off the plans offered by the schools they are in...heres an example


Officials at one one of the nation's oldest and most elite historically black colleges are citing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the reason they have cancelled a school-wide affordable health care plan they had offered students.

The official website for Bowie State, a Maryland public school less than an hour's drive from Washington D.C., explains that Obamacare's new regulations would force the cost of the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester.

That works out to approximately $900 per semester. The student health insurance plan had cost students $50 per semester for the 2012-13 school year, according to a cached page of the university's description of the plan. The original link to the description has been deleted.

According to an article in The Bulldog Collegian, Bowie State's student newspaper, the Director of the Bowie State University Wellness Center said that the university decided it would not be worth it to provide student health insurance at all given how expensive it would be to do so under the new regulations.



more at-

Public college cites high cost of Obamacare in canceling students' health plans


I am flummoxed that this comes as news.....

 

[Trajan]

and I''ll throw out 2 freebies, as forewarnings-1) the reinsurance clause ( I don't see obama giving unions an out right now but...hes done crazier shit) and, 2) what will come sooner telling folks to sign up via insurance co's.....but theres a BIG caveat;

get ready when the site isn't ready-

Obama Breaks the Health Law to Save It - Bloomberg

The ACA subsidies are technically tax credits, but consumers can’t apply for them later when they file their income tax returns. The subsidies are only available when consumers purchase coverage through the exchanges, according to CMS. “As far as retroactive premium tax credits for a plan outside the exchange, you can’t do that under the statute,” says Timothy S. Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University and an expert on provisions of the new law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

you can post from whomever you like, if its not from THE Bill, I cannot help you....and it appears to me you're not even reading, and trying to answer what I am asking either.

example in that cut and paste of yours , a) it doesn't address the section of the bill I posted , b) theres 2 contradictions right there in your cut and paste in relation to what I posted in my last post to you........

Since you never bothered to identify what you were alleging it wasn't worth the time to try and guess what that might be. However the evidence that was provided to you clearly shows that the implementation of the ACA takes place over an 8 year timeline. Therefore it is undeniable that there is a schedule and that is controlled by the Executive Branch who is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the legislation. Now if you can produce a relevant aspect of the bill that specifically states that it is illegal to adjust the timeline and link that directly to what Obama is doing then you will have a point.

Relevant....humm, I did that.



I posted the passage for the grassely (coburn) amendment, which obama had changed, so? whats the mystery?

and the employer mandate? what does the bill as passed say and what doesn't kaiser say? see? here- employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?

and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

More cryptic allegations. You failed to show what Obama allegedly changed in that amendment. You also failed to provide a link to the employer mandate and the cap on the out of pocket expense. If you expect a meaningful response provide a link with the relevant text quoted and highlighted and make your point as to how there is a variance between the actual law and what Obama is doing. Otherwise it is just a guessing game from my perspective and that doesn't get either of us anywhere.

 

[Trajan]

Since you never bothered to identify what you were alleging it wasn't worth the time to try and guess what that might be. However the evidence that was provided to you clearly shows that the implementation of the ACA takes place over an 8 year timeline. Therefore it is undeniable that there is a schedule and that is controlled by the Executive Branch who is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the legislation. Now if you can produce a relevant aspect of the bill that specifically states that it is illegal to adjust the timeline and link that directly to what Obama is doing then you will have a point.

Relevant....humm, I did that.



I posted the passage for the grassely (coburn) amendment, which obama had changed, so? whats the mystery?

and the employer mandate? what does the bill as passed say and what doesn't kaiser say? see? here- employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?

and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

More cryptic allegations. You failed to show what Obama allegedly changed in that amendment. You also failed to provide a link to the employer mandate and the cap on the out of pocket expense. If you expect a meaningful response provide a link with the relevant text quoted and highlighted and make your point as to how there is a variance between the actual law and what Obama is doing. Otherwise it is just a guessing game from my perspective and that doesn't get either of us anywhere.

cryptic...

I'll ask you again, did you read the amendment yes, or no? are you being obtuse on purpose?

its right there in front of you....what does it say? It doesn't say that federal employees ala congress and staffers can keep their employer subsidies..now does it?


I need to give you a link to the aca bill as passed? seriously? you should have it bookmarked as you apparently think you know enough about it to debate it, for gods sake.


again-


Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..

whats the first sentence say? below the title verbiage;


___________________________________________


so go ahead....take minute. google it, at this point it would be better coming from you anyway..........I'll be back...

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are staking way too much on a single roll of the dice. Been through far too many rocky software rollouts to be worried about this one. The state systems are up and running fine so that part is working already. No amount of bad press is going to keep the federal one from joining them. The campaign to tell college kids not to buy ACA policies is misdirected because they aren't in the market for them anyway. By the time 2014 rolls around the ACA website will be running like clockwork and everyone who signed up will be happy that they did.

NYS is not only up, 9 more Providers have come to make some money.

great, and only old and sick people are getting into it. how many 25 year olds have signed up to pay high premiums? got any stats? or are you just hurling bull turds?

Are you aware that there is a lower priced catastrophic policy available for people under 30?

 

[TRFjr]

There's an undertone of panic in the words of the conservatives here.

"Obama is doomed! HE'S DOOMED I TELL YOU! DOOMED! DOOMED! DOOOOOOMED! MOMMY, MAKE THE MEAN MEAN OBAMA BE DOOMED! WAAAAAAAH!"

So, Obama is doomed yet another time? Golly, we've never heard that before. Must be true this time, because things are totally different from all the other times he was doomed.

this time the polls confirm he is doomed he is down to 37% and that is with 5 mil losing their insurance wait till the 50 to 100 mil lose theirs. only one left then to give him any approval will be the Obama Kool-Aid drunk sycophants like your self

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. THIS TIME it's fo realz!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Relevant....humm, I did that.



I posted the passage for the grassely (coburn) amendment, which obama had changed, so? whats the mystery?

and the employer mandate? what does the bill as passed say and what doesn't kaiser say? see? here- employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?

and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

More cryptic allegations. You failed to show what Obama allegedly changed in that amendment. You also failed to provide a link to the employer mandate and the cap on the out of pocket expense. If you expect a meaningful response provide a link with the relevant text quoted and highlighted and make your point as to how there is a variance between the actual law and what Obama is doing. Otherwise it is just a guessing game from my perspective and that doesn't get either of us anywhere.

cryptic...

I'll ask you again, did you read the amendment yes, or no? are you being obtuse on purpose?

its right there in front of you....what does it say? It doesn't say that federal employees ala congress and staffers can keep their employer subsidies..now does it?


I need to give you a link to the aca bill as passed? seriously? you should have it bookmarked as you apparently think you know enough about it to debate it, for gods sake.


again-


Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..

whats the first sentence say? below the title verbiage;


___________________________________________


so go ahead....take minute. google it, at this point it would be better coming from you anyway..........I'll be back...

You insist upon deflecting with an irrelevancy. So what if they can keep their subsidies? They were already getting subsidized healthcare. Nothing effectively changed. But since you refuse to deal with the timeline it means that you are conceding that the Executive Branch has the right to amend the implementation of various aspects as it deems appropriate.

 

[Trajan]

More cryptic allegations. You failed to show what Obama allegedly changed in that amendment. You also failed to provide a link to the employer mandate and the cap on the out of pocket expense. If you expect a meaningful response provide a link with the relevant text quoted and highlighted and make your point as to how there is a variance between the actual law and what Obama is doing. Otherwise it is just a guessing game from my perspective and that doesn't get either of us anywhere.

cryptic...

I'll ask you again, did you read the amendment yes, or no? are you being obtuse on purpose?

its right there in front of you....what does it say? It doesn't say that federal employees ala congress and staffers can keep their employer subsidies..now does it?


I need to give you a link to the aca bill as passed? seriously? you should have it bookmarked as you apparently think you know enough about it to debate it, for gods sake.


again-


Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..

whats the first sentence say? below the title verbiage;


___________________________________________


so go ahead....take minute. google it, at this point it would be better coming from you anyway..........I'll be back...

You insist upon deflecting with an irrelevancy. So what if they can keep their subsidies? They were already getting subsidized healthcare.

that is an intellectually dishonest statement, or you are suffering a reading comprehension fail.


thats not what the bills says, your ‘explanation’ ( in mitigation btw ) pretends the amendment does not exist…..



The Grassley amendment ends eligibility of members of the pres., VP, Congress and staff for the pre-existing federal health-care program, pre- Obamacare exchange, as stipulated………


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/pdf/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartG-chap89.pdf


now , go read the amendment, to wit;
(i) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, or any provision of this title--

`(I) the President, the Vice President, each political appointee, each Member of Congress, and each Congressional employee shall be treated as a qualified individual entitled to the right under this paragraph to enroll in a qualified health plan in the individual market offered through an Exchange in the State in which the individual resides; and

`(II) any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.



In short- members of Congress and their staffs are required to procure their health-care coverage on the Obamacare exchange, and- they are no longer entitled to get employer subsidies ( via chapter 89 , fed health ins. plan) to contribute to the cost of their exchange policy, the only subsidy they qualify for is the very same you or I in similar positions would qualify for, via whatever subsidy ( if any) the Obamacare exchange calculates for them.…….

Nothing effectively changed.
Yes something has changed big time, Obama abrogated the employer subsidy by allowing them to keep it, in contravention of the amendment.

But since you refuse to deal with the timeline it means that you are conceding that the Executive Branch has the right to amend the implementation of various aspects as it deems appropriate.

I don’t even know what you are trying to say here, I never said any such thing.

So again as to timelines and those encoded there in Obamacare-

employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?



and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

 

[Derideo_Te]

cryptic...

I'll ask you again, did you read the amendment yes, or no? are you being obtuse on purpose?

its right there in front of you....what does it say? It doesn't say that federal employees ala congress and staffers can keep their employer subsidies..now does it?


I need to give you a link to the aca bill as passed? seriously? you should have it bookmarked as you apparently think you know enough about it to debate it, for gods sake.


again-


Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..

whats the first sentence say? below the title verbiage;


___________________________________________


so go ahead....take minute. google it, at this point it would be better coming from you anyway..........I'll be back...

that is an intellectually dishonest statement, or you are suffering a reading comprehension fail.

How ironic!

thats not what the bills says, your ‘explanation’ ( in mitigation btw ) pretends the amendment does not exist…..



The Grassley amendment ends eligibility of members of the pres., VP, Congress and staff for the pre-existing federal health-care program, pre- Obamacare exchange, as stipulated………


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/pdf/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartG-chap89.pdf


now , go read the amendment, to wit;
(i) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, or any provision of this title--

`(I) the President, the Vice President, each political appointee, each Member of Congress, and each Congressional employee shall be treated as a qualified individual entitled to the right under this paragraph to enroll in a qualified health plan in the individual market offered through an Exchange in the State in which the individual resides; and

`(II) any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.



In short- members of Congress and their staffs are required to procure their health-care coverage on the Obamacare exchange, and- they are no longer entitled to get employer subsidies ( via chapter 89 , fed health ins. plan) to contribute to the cost of their exchange policy, the only subsidy they qualify for is the very same you or I in similar positions would qualify for, via whatever subsidy ( if any) the Obamacare exchange calculates for them.…….

Utterly false!

But since you refuse to deal with the timeline it means that you are conceding that the Executive Branch has the right to amend the implementation of various aspects as it deems appropriate.

I don’t even know what you are trying to say here, I never said any such thing.

So again as to timelines and those encoded there in Obamacare-

employer mandate- Shared Responsibility for Employers (ACA §1513 and §10106)..whats the first sentence say?



and the cap on out of pocket expenses?

Post the link and the 1st sentence and then everyone can see what you are alleging!