If the supremes axe the federal exchange, what will the gop do?

[Stephanie]

A much better question would be ,what will the Dems say and do when their legislation is proven to be a huge waste of our time and the result of incompetence?

It's the Republicans' fault for not contributing to it.
We didnt spend enough money on it.

I'm sure they'll use that one next. don't give them any IDEAS

 

[hortysir]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

If by muttering you mean telling the truth I have no problem with that at all. I'll take note that you didn't dismiss a single factual point I made.

You never link any source supporting your claim that the ACA was designed to make health care spending decrease.....that is just a made up myth you'd like to believe is true. Every expert on the ACA stated that health care spending was going to keep going up no matter what, which is fricking brain dead easy to figure since the baby boomer generation is just starting to retire.

Everyone knew the best possible outcome of the ACA was to slow down healthcare spending, and EVERY SINGLE CRITIC was constantly spewing garbage about how the ACA would make healthcare spending sky rocket....it didn't.

We were right, conservanuts were wrong, yet again.

Obama still says health care cost will go down 10…:

yup, and you were saying a year or so ago that they would go up? or did you side with sanity over hannity?

Just because THE Obama said costs will go down doesn't mean they are.

My UHC plan went from $500 deductible with 80/20 copay with $25 Dr visits to $4000 deductible with70/30 copay with no Dr visit discounts

 

[Stephanie]

Here's some more wonderful news for you PEOPLE who gets to PAY for all this.
tingles

SNIP
HHS Announces An Additional $201 Million To Pay For Obamacare Navigators…

Ughhh…

Via TWS:

The system of federal and state “exchanges” or “marketplaces” that offer health insurance through the Affordable Care Act lean heavily on “navigators” to guide consumers in their choices. Organizations such as community health centers, legal aid societies, social service groups, church groups and even Planned Parenthood chapters have received grants in the past to serve in this capacity. Now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced $201 million in grants to be made available for navigators over the next three years.

Until now, grants have been awarded on an annual basis. This time around, HHS is planning to change the “project period” from 12 to 36 months. Tricia Brooks of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families is enthusiastic about this change. Writing at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms blog (CHIRblog), Brooks says:

But what really excited me about the notice – drumroll please – is that, in the supporting statement, CMS signaled its intent to provide three years of funding in the next round of navigator grants. Extending the length of the funding period is important to build stability in enrollment assistance programs. No longer will individual navigators have to put their resume on the street at the end of the grant year, just in case. (how special is that)

ALL OF IT HERE
HHS Announces An Additional 201 Million To Pay For Obamacare Navigators Weasel Zippers

 

[Zander]

Obamacare is a gift for Republicans. It's gave them the house in 2010 and the senate in 2014.

Will it win them the WH in 2016??

 

[Stephanie]

Obamacare is a gift for Republicans. It's gave them the house in 2010 and the senate in 2014.

Will it win them the WH in 2016??

I don't know. lets hope so. we cant take anymore of these frikken lying bastards in the progressive party that put OscamCare on our backs

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Court takes the subsidies away from the federal exchange,

just carry on without them.

The states with their own exchanges will continue to benefit, and the states without will get fucked.

What you'd likely see is a stampede of the states on the federal exchange to create their own at the state level.

 

[HenryBHough]

If the Court takes the subsidies away from the federal exchange,

just carry on without them.

The states with their own exchanges will continue to benefit, and the states without will get fucked.

What you'd likely see is a stampede of the states on the federal exchange to create their own at the state level.

A stampede all right.

A stampede of those unwilling to take care of themselves to the states where they can get more free stuff.

Oh, right, a LARGER stampede!

 

[zeke]

An interesting look at Health care reform from PBS

In Obama's Deal, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (Bush's War, Dreams of Obama) takes viewers behind the headlines to reveal the political maneuvering behind Barack Obama's effort to remake the American health system and transform the way Washington works. Through interviews with administration officials, senators and Washington lobbyists, Obama's Deal reveals the dramatic details of how an idealistic president pursued the health care fight -- despite the warnings of many of his closest advisers -- and how he ended up making deals with many of the powerful special interests he had campaigned against.


I have watched it. So much better (for consumers) could have been accomplished. But for the health insurance companies, it couldn't have gotten much better than it is now.

If you don't believe me when I say health insurance companies love Omamacare, look at the stock prices of the companies in health care.

Consumers could of had it better and Democrats are the ones who fucked it up. Guess paybacks to someone was in order.

 

[Greenbeard]

The reduction in health care spending was a trend that predated Obamacare. So Obamacare is not responsible for it.

I can't for the life of me remember a single conservative five years ago who said "guys, health care cost growth is falling so clearly the CBO estimates of the cost of the ACA are vastly overstated since they don't price that in." That would certainly be prescient, since it turns out the CBO's price tag for the ACA was inflated by ~30%. And in fact this hypothetical conservative probably also would've predicted that the Medicare savings assumed in the ACA were vastly understated and Medicare spending would in fact fall way, way below pre-ACA trends.

Was there a conservative back in 2010 who predicted that by 2015 the ranks of the uninsured would've fallen by 16 million (and counting) and the lowest health care cost growth ever recorded would be achieved concurrently?

Because here I've been saying the GOP was wrong in their predictions, but if you've got somebody who accurately forecasted what's been happening I'll eat some crow! I was fairly optimistic back in 2010 and I'll admit even I didn't see this stuff coming.

 

[Stephanie]

Well I guess we won't guess anymore. how lovely

SNIP;

Hey, that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare
posted at 10:31 am on April 20, 2015 by Noah Rothman




Republicans have a plan if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare this summer by stripping the government of the ability to provide to the states that declined to set up insurance exchanges with federal subsidies… and it looks quite a bit like Obamacare.

If the Court does interpret the Affordable Care Act literally, then it will compel the federal government to withdraw subsidies from millions of Obamacare beneficiaries. That will make the health coverage those individuals obtained through the ACA in recent years prohibitively expensive, and many will find themselves once again uninsured.

This is a double-edged sword for Republicans. In this scenario, the ACA would be functionally repelled, and it would fall on Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress to pick up the pieces. There would also be immense political pressure on those GOP-led states that declined to set up their own exchanges to do so immediately in order to receive federal insurance subsidies. Congressional Republicans would find themselves equally compelled to restore those subsidies immediately amid a deluge of press reports that focus on the lamentable plight of those who lost their health coverage with the stroke of a pen.

The Congressional GOP seems aware of this condition, and they are preemptively addressing it by creating a backstop in the event that the Court strips the ACA of some federal subsidies. Conservatives will be disappointed, however, by the fact that this backstop looks quite a bit like the current incarnation of the ACA.

“Republicans deny that their ideas are tantamount to ‘Obamacare Lite’ but acknowledge they will need bipartisan support for their plans to stand any chance of avoiding an Obama veto,” Reuters journalist Susan Cornwall reported on Monday.

ALL of it here:
Hey that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare Hot Air

 

[hortysir]

Well I guess we won't guess anymore. how lovely

SNIP;

Hey, that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare
posted at 10:31 am on April 20, 2015 by Noah Rothman




Republicans have a plan if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare this summer by stripping the government of the ability to provide to the states that declined to set up insurance exchanges with federal subsidies… and it looks quite a bit like Obamacare.

If the Court does interpret the Affordable Care Act literally, then it will compel the federal government to withdraw subsidies from millions of Obamacare beneficiaries. That will make the health coverage those individuals obtained through the ACA in recent years prohibitively expensive, and many will find themselves once again uninsured.

This is a double-edged sword for Republicans. In this scenario, the ACA would be functionally repelled, and it would fall on Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress to pick up the pieces. There would also be immense political pressure on those GOP-led states that declined to set up their own exchanges to do so immediately in order to receive federal insurance subsidies. Congressional Republicans would find themselves equally compelled to restore those subsidies immediately amid a deluge of press reports that focus on the lamentable plight of those who lost their health coverage with the stroke of a pen.

The Congressional GOP seems aware of this condition, and they are preemptively addressing it by creating a backstop in the event that the Court strips the ACA of some federal subsidies. Conservatives will be disappointed, however, by the fact that this backstop looks quite a bit like the current incarnation of the ACA.

“Republicans deny that their ideas are tantamount to ‘Obamacare Lite’ but acknowledge they will need bipartisan support for their plans to stand any chance of avoiding an Obama veto,” Reuters journalist Susan Cornwall reported on Monday.

ALL of it here:
Hey that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare Hot Air

I replied to Dante with a link to a .pdf file of what, exactly, the GOP is promoting
Deaf ears

 

[Stephanie]

Well I guess we won't guess anymore. how lovely

SNIP;

Hey, that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare
posted at 10:31 am on April 20, 2015 by Noah Rothman




Republicans have a plan if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare this summer by stripping the government of the ability to provide to the states that declined to set up insurance exchanges with federal subsidies… and it looks quite a bit like Obamacare.

If the Court does interpret the Affordable Care Act literally, then it will compel the federal government to withdraw subsidies from millions of Obamacare beneficiaries. That will make the health coverage those individuals obtained through the ACA in recent years prohibitively expensive, and many will find themselves once again uninsured.

This is a double-edged sword for Republicans. In this scenario, the ACA would be functionally repelled, and it would fall on Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress to pick up the pieces. There would also be immense political pressure on those GOP-led states that declined to set up their own exchanges to do so immediately in order to receive federal insurance subsidies. Congressional Republicans would find themselves equally compelled to restore those subsidies immediately amid a deluge of press reports that focus on the lamentable plight of those who lost their health coverage with the stroke of a pen.

The Congressional GOP seems aware of this condition, and they are preemptively addressing it by creating a backstop in the event that the Court strips the ACA of some federal subsidies. Conservatives will be disappointed, however, by the fact that this backstop looks quite a bit like the current incarnation of the ACA.

“Republicans deny that their ideas are tantamount to ‘Obamacare Lite’ but acknowledge they will need bipartisan support for their plans to stand any chance of avoiding an Obama veto,” Reuters journalist Susan Cornwall reported on Monday.

ALL of it here:
Hey that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare Hot Air

I replied to Dante with a link to a .pdf file of what, exactly, the GOP is promoting
Deaf ears

I didn't see it dear. I have him on ignore

 

[Nyvin]

You never link any source supporting your claim that the ACA was designed to make health care spending decrease.....that is just a made up myth you'd like to believe is true. Every expert on the ACA stated that health care spending was going to keep going up no matter what, which is fricking brain dead easy to figure since the baby boomer generation is just starting to retire.

God, you people have no shame at all. You just flat out lie and think nothing of it.

Everyone knew the best possible outcome of the ACA was to slow down healthcare spending, and EVERY SINGLE CRITIC was constantly spewing garbage about how the ACA would make healthcare spending sky rocket....it didn't.

We were right, conservanuts were wrong, yet again.

"Healthcare spending" is not the same thing as "the cost of insurance premiums".

That should've been obvious. Besides you really shouldn't take campaign promises at face value anyway.

 

[hortysir]

Well I guess we won't guess anymore. how lovely

SNIP;

Hey, that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare
posted at 10:31 am on April 20, 2015 by Noah Rothman




Republicans have a plan if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare this summer by stripping the government of the ability to provide to the states that declined to set up insurance exchanges with federal subsidies… and it looks quite a bit like Obamacare.

If the Court does interpret the Affordable Care Act literally, then it will compel the federal government to withdraw subsidies from millions of Obamacare beneficiaries. That will make the health coverage those individuals obtained through the ACA in recent years prohibitively expensive, and many will find themselves once again uninsured.

This is a double-edged sword for Republicans. In this scenario, the ACA would be functionally repelled, and it would fall on Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress to pick up the pieces. There would also be immense political pressure on those GOP-led states that declined to set up their own exchanges to do so immediately in order to receive federal insurance subsidies. Congressional Republicans would find themselves equally compelled to restore those subsidies immediately amid a deluge of press reports that focus on the lamentable plight of those who lost their health coverage with the stroke of a pen.

The Congressional GOP seems aware of this condition, and they are preemptively addressing it by creating a backstop in the event that the Court strips the ACA of some federal subsidies. Conservatives will be disappointed, however, by the fact that this backstop looks quite a bit like the current incarnation of the ACA.

“Republicans deny that their ideas are tantamount to ‘Obamacare Lite’ but acknowledge they will need bipartisan support for their plans to stand any chance of avoiding an Obama veto,” Reuters journalist Susan Cornwall reported on Monday.

ALL of it here:
Hey that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare Hot Air

I replied to Dante with a link to a .pdf file of what, exactly, the GOP is promoting
Deaf ears

I didn't see it dear. I have him on ignore

No prob


http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...1709.pdf/RK=0/RS=KbtYEEJJu31AV0ZGGdgYi1NwNnM-

 

[Nyvin]

"...by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year"

2015: ObamaCare Premiums 2015: No Rate Shock, Just Modest Increases

Okay, so now healthcare spending is wrapped up as the cost of insurance premiums. That's not very intelligent you know right? You're usually one of the brighter ones on this board.

 

[Dante]

We kept hearing all during the ObamaCare debates about how the US spent the most per capita on healthcare. The implication was very plain that ObamaCare would reduce per capita spending.

This was a classic bait-and-switch con job.

The implication was(Huh??????)...

More than implication:

"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment."

Barack Obama Remarks in Hartford Connecticut A Politics of Conscience

the cost of a typical family's premium?

wtf is that, campaign rhetoric?

well Dante thought Obama was full of shit in 2008. so, what's our point?

 

[Dante]

Here we are in Obama's SECOND term and the typical family's premium has not been cut by $2500 a year.

Wow!

Presidents' campaign promises have not come to be! Call the Wingnut PC Police.



btw, What did Reagan fail to deliver on?

 

[Dante]

You never link any source supporting your claim that the ACA was designed to make health care spending decrease.....that is just a made up myth you'd like to believe is true. Every expert on the ACA stated that health care spending was going to keep going up no matter what, which is fricking brain dead easy to figure since the baby boomer generation is just starting to retire.

God, you people have no shame at all. You just flat out lie and think nothing of it.

Everyone knew the best possible outcome of the ACA was to slow down healthcare spending, and EVERY SINGLE CRITIC was constantly spewing garbage about how the ACA would make healthcare spending sky rocket....it didn't.

We were right, conservanuts were wrong, yet again.

again, wow!

a failed campaign promise. what did Reagan fail to deliver on?

 

[BluesLegend]

Not even Democrat politicians can sell Obamacare, its like touching the third rail in politics. Naturally its hilarious watching you libs try.

 

[Nyvin]

Not even Democrat politicians can sell Obamacare, its like touching the third rail in politics. Naturally its hilarious watching you libs try.

The lowest percentage of people uninsured since polling began as of right now....how's that?