# How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?



## Dante (Oct 23, 2013)

> How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> 
> From: Is Obamacare In Effect? Is Obamacare in effect?





> Tamara Holmes Jul 8 2013 10:20 AM
> 
> If youre unsure whether Obamacare is the law of the land, youre not alone. An April 2013 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 42 percent of Americans dont know that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  the official name for Obamacare  is already impacting health care for millions of Americans.



What is it with people and the website thingie?  What is it with people and the multi-part roll out of Obamacare that is so difficult for them to grasp?

Is it the rightwing noise machine, or Obama's shitty public relations team? Why are people so ignorant and confused?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

Dude, I hate to break this to you but the web site is the "easy" part of ObamaCare!  They had three years and 600 million to create that and they failed EPICALLY!!!

If you think *this* is a fiasco...wait until the IRS tries to figure out who's eligible for subsidies and who's scamming the system!  FUBAR is the term that comes to mind...


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dude, I hate to break this to you but the web site is the "easy" part of ObamaCare!  They had three years and 600 million to create that and they failed EPICALLY!!!
> 
> If you think *this* is a fiasco...wait until the IRS tries to figure out who's eligible for subsidies and who's scamming the system!  FUBAR is the term that comes to mind...



The website issues are far more complex than tools like you imagine. 

That said, the IRS has people's tax filings in their own system. It's apples and oranges. 

And there will always be cheaters and deadbeats, like now...those who refuse to get health insurance and leave it up to society to py for their trauma and emergency visits


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2013)

> &#8220;Rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,&#8221; Christine Eibner, a Rand senior economist and the study&#8217;s lead author, said in a statement. &#8220;But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.&#8221;
> 
> Starting Oct. 1, people without health insurance may sign up for coverage through online insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, in each state. The health law requires that most Americans obtain insurance by next year or pay a fine. About 7 million people are expected to gain coverage through the exchanges next year, the Congressional Budget Office has said.
> 
> The Rand study was conducted on behalf of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department and looked at insurance rates in Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.


  - Premium Increases Under Obamacare Are Exaggerated, Rand Says


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dude, I hate to break this to you but the web site is the "easy" part of ObamaCare!  They had three years and 600 million to create that and they failed EPICALLY!!!
> 
> If you think *this* is a fiasco...wait until the IRS tries to figure out who's eligible for subsidies and who's scamming the system!  FUBAR is the term that comes to mind...



Easy? Really?  

Obamacare website cost $394 mil, programmers saw red flags months ahead of launch

(As questions mount over the website's failure, insider interviews and a review of technical specifications by The Associated Press* found a mind-numbingly complex system *put together by harried programmers who pushed out a final product that congressional investigators said was tested by the government and not private developers with more expertise.) - Obamacare exchange website cost $394 mil, programmers saw red flags months ahead of launch

At least be honest


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

USASpending.gov

That would be the contract for the website with Group Cgi, Dante.  You can look up Government contracts at this site rather easily.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

Dante said:


> > &#8220;Rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost,&#8221; Christine Eibner, a Rand senior economist and the study&#8217;s lead author, said in a statement. &#8220;But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.&#8221;
> >
> > Starting Oct. 1, people without health insurance may sign up for coverage through online insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, in each state. sharplThe health law requires that most Americans obtain insurance by next year or pay a fine. About 7 million people are expected to gain coverage through the exchanges next year, the Congressional Budget Office has said.
> >
> ...



So now all we're being promised is that there won't be a "widespread trend toward *sharply higher* prices"?  What happened to Barry's assertion that the cost for healthcare for Americans would be going down?  I believe he used the figure of $2,500 savings for families?  Gee, Dante...did Obama LIE to the American people to get ObamaCare passed?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

Flashback: Obama Promised Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums For Everyone


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

Dante said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, I hate to break this to you but the web site is the "easy" part of ObamaCare!  They had three years and 600 million to create that and they failed EPICALLY!!!
> ...



That's my point, Dante...there will be cheaters and deadbeats...and the IRS is in no way prepared to catch them.  If you think the web site roll out is a debacle?  Wait until you see what an utter cluster fuck the IRS handling enforcement of eligibility is going to be!  My prediction is that starting next Spring there will be calls for a doubling or even tripling of the IRS agents dedicated solely to ACA compliance because they are going to be BURIED with applications.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 23, 2013)

That cost of course was something that was *obvious* but it was one more thing that Progressives deliberately underestimated the cost of because they wanted the ACA to "seem" affordable.  The American people have consistently been misled by this Administration as to both what the costs of ObamaCare will be and how it will effect their overall health care experience.


----------



## Rozman (Oct 23, 2013)

I am just going to enjoy Obama squirm every time something bad comes up about his pride and joy.
And remember folks...those that voted for him.It's all yours.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Dante prediction keeper post


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > > Rates for policies in the individual market are likely to vary from state to state, with some experiencing increases and some experiencing decreases in cost, Christine Eibner, a Rand senior economist and the studys lead author, said in a statement. But our analysis found no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.
> ...




The people don't enact laws and tbe PPACA/Obamacare was passed in what year?  

Take a break, loser


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2013)

Rozman said:


> I am just going to enjoy Obama squirm every time something bad comes up about his pride and joy.
> And remember folks...those that voted for him.It's all yours.



Only in your wet drrams does the President pay attention to rightwingnut complaints.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 2, 2013)

Obama is as thin skinned as they come.
I'm sure that he doesn't care for the fact that his lies
are being exposed.


----------



## Politico (Nov 2, 2013)

Dante I wish you would ever be honest about anything. You might actually be interesting.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

The Premiums have sky rocketed, it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.

Dante and the rest choose ignorance over fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> The Premiums have sky rocketed, it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.
> 
> Dante and the rest choose ignorance over fact.



Since as far back as 1999, insurance premiums have outpaced wages.  







2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Employer Health Insurance Survey 2012


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 2, 2013)

Dante said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I have no idea what the above even meant, Dante.  I ask you again...did Obama LIE to the American people to get ObamaCare passed?


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > The Premiums have sky rocketed, it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.
> ...




(sigh) The premiums have sky rocketed BECAUSE of the ACA I won't let you spin it....Health Care is what I do so don't even try.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Obama said that Obamacare,  the context of his speech,  would not require people to give up health care insurance that they were happy with. 

Why would anyone assume that he was talking for insurance companies?  Thats a pretty bizarre assumption.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Why Ike, you are more stupid than you look.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > The Premiums have sky rocketed, it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.
> ...



just give it a couple of years, until the entire bill is implemented.  Come back and shw us how that line has skyrocketed.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



It's the regulations IN ObamaCare that are REQUIRING insurance companies to drop these people's policies because they don't meet the stipulations of the ACA.  How can you not blame ObamaCare for that?  

So I ask again...did President Obama LIE repeatedly to get the ACA passed?  Yes or no?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 2, 2013)

When someone makes the claim "If you like your insurance...you can keep you insurance...period!" there isn't much wiggle room.  Obama stated something that anyone who ever *READ* the ACA knew wasn't the case.  He looked into the cameras repeatedly and told a lie.  He knew it was a lie but he told it over and over again because the main stream media didn't do their JOBS and call him on it.  So now we end up with millions of Americans who "like" their insurance who will not be able to keep it because of the ACA.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You really thought that Obama was asked to represent the insurance business?  

Wanna buy a bridge?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> When someone makes the claim "If you like your insurance...you can keep you insurance...period!" there isn't much wiggle room.  Obama stated something that anyone who ever *READ* the ACA knew wasn't the case.  He looked into the cameras repeatedly and told a lie.  He knew it was a lie but he told it over and over again because the main stream media didn't do their JOBS and call him on it.  So now we end up with millions of Americans who "like" their insurance who will not be able to keep it because of the ACA.



Another who wants to blame his lack of cognitive resources on other people.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You think that outlawing inadequate coverage was bad?  

I think that insurance companies flimflaming their customers into buying inadequate coverage is infinitely worse. 

The answer to your question is no.  You not understanding that his context was Obamacare is,  well,  pretty....... Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say unthinking.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You poor kid, you aren't up for this.....


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



ACA grandfather inadequate coverage policies if they dont otherwise change.  Call your insurance company and ask why they chose not to do that.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



For one year kid......try and be honest.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Did you  ask your insurance company why they denied you that, grandpa?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Certainly one of us isn't.  

I at least don't ignore context.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You poor abused young man...all insurance companies had the choice to grandfather in for one year, MOST did not do it, they chose to become compliant Jan 1....


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Poor PMZ...HC is what I do everyday 

Why don't you show us his "context"?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I think that they screwed you then, grandpa,  not Obamacare.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Deflect away, I eat people like you for lunch on this topic kid.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



This will be fun than grandpa.  

Flail away.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like you healthcare plan, youll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away from you, no matter what.*

Show us the context, you won't fare well with the nuts and bolts of the ACA.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2013)

Dante said:


> > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> >
> > From: Is Obamacare In Effect? Is Obamacare in effect?
> 
> ...



The highly exaggerated cost estimates, the floating numbers of sign ups, and tbe "Obama lies!"  Is getting so boring so fast. Darrell Issa better hurry up and invent another crisis before the wet noodlers lose their steam.


----------



## Antares (Nov 2, 2013)

Poor Dante....pay no attention to the truth......


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> Poor Dante....pay no attention to the truth......



You are entitled to your own whack-a-doodle 'truth'  but not your own facts.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The context is Obamacare numbnuts,  not the private insurance business.  

One thing that conservatives have taught us is to never assume that things can be sufficiently dumbed down or simplified.  That no matter how carefully government is explained the party of irresponsibility will be confused and hostile,  and will go to ridiculous extremes to denigrate the country,  the President,  our people,  our government,  and all progress. 

Pretty un-American.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So we're just NOW discovering that "inadequate coverage" (as defined by the Obama Administration) won't be allowed?  Funny how THAT wasn't mentioned while this law was being sold to the American public!

What the ACA does is eliminate *choices* for consumers.  Don't think you need a plan that covers prenatal and maternity costs because you're 50 years old and had your tubes tied ten years ago?  TOUGH!  You're getting it whether you need it or not because someone in the GOVERNMENT has decided that's the way it's going to be!

The real "flim flam" took place when Barry, Harry and Nancy sold this crap to the American people in the first place.  They knew it was awful legislation.  They knew there was ZERO chance of it costing what they SAID it was going to cost.  They knew that telling people they could keep their insurance if they liked it, wasn't going to happen.  They knew that telling people if they liked their doctor they could keep them was a promise they couldn't deliver on.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> ...



I hate to break this to you, Dante but the cost increases on ObamaCare are going to be STAGGERING!  You can see it happening now with this small roll out sample.  The people that are signing up on the State exchanges (because those are the only ones that work!) are not buying the private insurance policies...by an 80-20 ratio they are signing up for medicaid because they are low income and qualify for subsidized premiums.  The ones that ARE buying the private insurance policies are almost all seriously ill from pre-existing conditions.  So you've got the people who are counting on Uncle Sam to pay most of their bill and you've got the people that are really sick and are going to cost an arm and a leg to care for.  So where does the money come from to pay for all this?  Quite simply?  It's going to have to be picked up by the government and part of that cost will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher premiums.

If you're a "Middle Class" person get ready to be hit with some SERIOUS increases to your health care premiums.  Also get ready to see our already bloated National debt go into hyper-drive as the REAL costs of the ACA rear their ugly heads.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

What kind of society do we want to live in. That is the deciding factor and increasingly people like [MENTION=31215]Oldstyle[/MENTION] are on the wrong side of society and history. 

I may be a Luddite at heart, but some of these fools take themselves way too seriously


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 3, 2013)

We already pay the bills for those people with our taxes with Medicaid (MediCal in California). Makes more sense to put the money out up front that to chase after the problem with money. Also, since the ACA emphasizes preventative care, which is non existent in Medicaid, that alone will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> What kind of society do we want to live in. That is the deciding factor and increasingly people like [MENTION=31215]Oldstyle[/MENTION] are on the wrong side of society and history.
> 
> I may be a Luddite at heart, but some of these fools take themselves way too seriously



I'd like to live in a society where a Big Brother Government doesn't make decisions for me on *HOW* I live my life!  I'd like to live in a society where people who don't work can't vote to take away the possessions of those who do.  I'd like to live in a society where those who build profitable businesses that employ others aren't treated like criminals or ATM's.  I'd like to live in a society where the media simply reports what's happened in an unbiased fashion and let's ME decide how I feel about it!  I'd like to live in a society where politicians care more about the country's well being than they do about their own personal agendas and pensions!


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Barbarap said:


> We already pay the bills for those people with our taxes with Medicaid (MediCal in California). Makes more sense to put the money out up front that to chase after the problem with money. Also, since the ACA emphasizes preventative care, which is non existent in Medicaid, that alone will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.



Stop making sense!  It unnerves the natives


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

Barbarap said:


> We already pay the bills for those people with our taxes with Medicaid (MediCal in California). Makes more sense to put the money out up front that to chase after the problem with money. Also, since the ACA emphasizes preventative care, which is non existent in Medicaid, that alone will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.



If you think that ObamaCare is going to save money...then you've obviously not studied what it consists of.  This was not "health care reform" designed to lower costs...this was health care reform designed to give subsidized health care to the poor and have the Middle Class pick up the tab for it.  When you blow away all the smoke and break all the mirrors...that's what is left.  It's wealth redistribution.  Always was...always will be.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Not even a nice try, you are just as ignorant as the rest of these lemmings...PMZ.....poor PMZ.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Dante....pay no attention to the truth......
> ...



You are projecting Dante....premiums have gone through the roof...only you, franco and PMZ seem to still have your blinders on.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Never mind that it is the ACA itself that is causing all of these plans to go away.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If you want the best of inadequate coverage,  and the cheapest of health insurance,  send me $500 monthly.  Don't call me,  I'll call you when you have a covered and reimbursable expense.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> > We already pay the bills for those people with our taxes with Medicaid (MediCal in California). Makes more sense to put the money out up front that to chase after the problem with money. Also, since the ACA emphasizes preventative care, which is non existent in Medicaid, that alone will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.
> ...



It was never sold as health care reform.  It was sold as health care insurance regulation.  

Requiring everyone to be responsible for their own health care costs.  And bringing the cost of those that business chooses not to pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  from under the table to on top.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

[MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]





Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



"The truth, the whole truth and..."

Ever wonder why the 'truth' line is used in the courts? It is an implicit acknowledgement that people lie through omission.

What premiums are going up, on what policies?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Can't wait for you to quote where I said that health care insurance rates haven't followed health care delivery costs up and up and up.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Never mind that it is the ACA itself that is causing all of these plans to go away.



"The truth, the whole truth and..."

Ever wonder why the 'truth' line is used in the courts? It is an implicit acknowledgement that people lie through omission.

What plans are going away, what kind of coverage did they actually give, if any at all?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Never mind that it is the ACA itself that is causing all of these plans to go away.



ACA isn't in the health care insurance business.  It is regulation to insure that your insurance really covers your responsibility to cover the cost of your own health care.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Barbarap said:
> ...



"
It was never sold as health care reform.  It was sold as health care insurance regulation."

To be fair, it was sold as both.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind that it is the ACA itself that is causing all of these plans to go away.
> ...



The PPACA/Obamacare is much more than that, much more...

You are referrencing the penalty/mandate, an enforcement mechanism of a broad law/policy.

I know it's often difficult to not get caught up in the style and tactis of tge wingnuts here.  No offense intended. :


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I don't understand.  It has nothing at all to do with health care delivery and never did.  

I think that the confusion about that,  in the minds of the confused people, came from Republican obfuscation building their Obamacare boogeyman.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Funny thing is the Rightwing Noise Machine has distorted the discourse so successfully that even the responses in defense of the PPACA/Obamacare come out of tbe distorted narrative  of the right.

"It was never sold as health care reform. It was sold as health care insurance regulation."

Your quote is contrary to subtitles and sections within the bill as passed and enacted and judged constitutional:  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Barbarap said:
> ...



With all due respect, PMZ?  It was "sold" as the *AFFORDABLE* Care Act.  It was sold to Americans by claiming that it would miraculously add coverage for millions who couldn't afford it while at the same time lowering the health care costs of middle class Americans by some $2,500 a year and also lowering the deficit!  

The misrepresentation of what this bill was...would land anyone who tried to "sell" it in the private sector in court for fraud.  If you tried to sell appliances or cars with the same outright lies that progressives used to sell ObamaCare you would find yourself in court being sued by the people you scammed.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



With all due respect [MENTION=31215]Oldstyle[/MENTION] you are prematurely judging things.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The representation that you speak of was how the Republican's misrepresented ACA in their propaganda. 

The vast,  vast majority of Americans 'buy' their health care through insurance.  The cost of their health care,  to them, appears as insurance premiums.  

Those premiums have and will always reflect the cost of health care delivery. Plus insurance company overhead and profit. That have never stopped growing. 

As I said about two pages ago the goal of ACA is to hold everyone responsible for their own health care costs.  For wealthy and those with responsible employers,  ACA only has one impact.  To make sure that you really are protected from imposing your costs on others with adequate coverage. 

For those that business refuses to pay a living wage to,  it does allow them to AFFORD health care by supplements on the table rather than health care under the table.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I can't wait for you to be able to read and comprehend who is being spoken to when 

Oh yes.....and the premiums shot up BECAUSE of your "regulations"....you just aren't very good at this kid.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind that it is the ACA itself that is causing all of these plans to go away.
> ...



Semantics are and always have been the refuge of the intellectually weak.

The ACA IS the regulatory vehicle being used to shove ALL non compliant plans out the window..the ALL end at the end of 2015 becuase the ACA, sorry kid Prez Cracka lied when he said EVERYONE could keep their plan "period".

The old plans END and the new plans replace them...and I am replacing them every day.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Semantics are and always have been the refuge of the intellectually weak.



...and lying through omission has always been a refuge for the intellectually dishonest and the integrity challenged.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

*ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage*

*The projections, prepared by the Society of Actuaries in March, 2013 predicted some pretty outrageous premium increases for people with individual coverage in the likes of California, 62%, Alabama, 60%, Texas, 34% and Arizona 41%. Only  in  New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey  would the premiums decline slightly for people with individual coverage, a segment of the market that is expected to increase from 11.9 million people at present to 25.6 million as more Americans sign up for insurance coverage under ObamaCare.*

ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage - Forbes

I truly am sorry kids, the Cracka lied to you.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I thought that you said that you were good at this grandpa. 

For comparison.  How much would the Republican plan have lowered health care insurance premiums?


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

ObamaCare Facts: Facts on the Affordable Care Act

Just the facts ma'm

.&#8226; Coverage purchased through the marketplace before December 15th doesn't start until January 1st, 2014. This is because many of ObamaCare's benefits, rights and protections don't kick in until 2014. Apply for coverage now to see what your options are. You can enroll at anytime after filling out an application. Even if you plan to buy insurance some other way, it is still smart to know your options.

Find Out What the Affordable Care Act Means for You:

...
&#8226; 1 in 2 Americans have a "pre-existing" condition that they could be denied health insurance for. ObamaCare chips Away at pre-existing conditions until 2014 when there are no more pre-existing conditions for anyone, including high-risk customers. This means you can no longer be denied coverage or treatment or charged more for health status. Find out more about pre-existing conditions.

&#8226; 54 million Americans with private health insurance now have access to preventive services with no cost sharing due to the new minimum standards of ObamaCare.

&#8226; ObamaCare doesn't ration health care; it protects consumers from the health care rationing that insurance companies have been doing for ages.

&#8226; ObamaCare reduces the growth in healthcare spending. The current $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system costs almost $9k a year for every man, woman, and child.

&#8226; The new law affects everyone differently. Find out, "How the Affordable Care Act Will Affect Me?:


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> *ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage*
> 
> *The projections, prepared by the Society of Actuaries in March, 2013 predicted some pretty outrageous premium increases for people with individual coverage in the likes of California, 62%, Alabama, 60%, Texas, 34% and Arizona 41%. Only  in  New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey  would the premiums decline slightly for people with individual coverage, a segment of the market that is expected to increase from 11.9 million people at present to 25.6 million as more Americans sign up for insurance coverage under ObamaCare.*
> 
> ...



Looky here dumbass,  from your reference. 

"the fact that premiums are driven primarily by the underlying cost of medical care and not health plans administrative costs and profits. 

Thanks for the demonstration of how easy conservatives are to fool.  Glad that I can think for myself.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No deflection, sorry.

The ACA raised premiums dramatically and compliance with it cause insurance companies to HAVE to cancel the non compliant plans...Prez Cracka led to you.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage*
> ...



Do try and understand, the ACA raised premiums dramatically....it caused the old plans to end in order to become compliant......now here is the tough part for you....when you take those ten "basic" coverages and add them to the new plans premiums SKY Rocket...is that elementary enough for you.....

Here is your dilemma....you are screaming that the ACA wasn't about health care reform, it was about regulatory reform...and the new regualtions have CAUSED the prmiums to go up AND the old plans to die.

You are quite dense for a self proclaimed intellectual.

Cracka lied...insurance plans died.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> *ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage*
> 
> *The projections, prepared by the Society of Actuaries in March, 2013 predicted some pretty outrageous premium increases for people with individual coverage in the likes of California, 62%, Alabama, 60%, Texas, 34% and Arizona 41%. Only  in  New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey  would the premiums decline slightly for people with individual coverage, a segment of the market that is expected to increase from 11.9 million people at present to 25.6 million as more Americans sign up for insurance coverage under ObamaCare.*
> 
> ...



"Cracka"? 


Sorry? Yes you truly are.
*
Myth:*
One of the most wide spread ObamaCare myths is that ObamaCare increases insurance premiums. While many Americans have seen their health insurance premiums rise since the passing of the new health care law, blaming "ObamaCare" is an over simplification of the truth.

The truth is insurance premiums have been growing faster than the rate of growth in income for well over a decade. Today there are more rules and regulations aimed at reducing the growth in premium rates like the rate review provision that stops insurance companies from unjustified rate hikes and the medical loss ratio provision that stops insurance companies from spending your premium dollars on non-health care related expenses. This isn't to say that the Affordable Care Act hasn't indirectly affected some premium increases.

ObamaCare stops insurance companies from raising premiums due to health status and gender or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Every plan must offer more essential health benefits and preventive services at no out-of-pocket costs and much more. In some cases insurance companies have raised rates on existing plans in response to your new health care benefits, rights and protections.

Luckily ObamaCare does a lot to mitigate this affect, aside from the consumer protections mentioned above, ObamaCare creates a Health Insurance Exchange Pool known as the Health Insurance Marketplace. Today low-to-middle income Americans (and small businesses) can shop for subsidized, regulated health insurance from competing health care providers using their State's online marketplace.

Cost assistance offered through the marketplace greatly reduces premium costs of those making less than 400% of the Federal poverty level. (400% of the Federal Poverty level equates to individuals making less than $46,021	or a family of four making less than $93,700 a year). Learn more about the Health Insurance Marketplace.
ObamaCare: Myths About Health Care Reform


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

This is funny 

I spend 5 1/2 days a week helping people get through this...I replace the plans they want to keep with the plans they do not want and the plans that are costing them as much 100% more.

PMZ wants to use both sides of his mouth to try and plant one foot on each side of the fence and Dante simply screams "nuh-uh".

I work for a non profit Heath Care Insurance Company and I do not want the ACA repealed, I want it fixed...it is quite fucked up right now but it can be saved.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *ObamaCare Will Raise Average Premiums By 32% For Individual Coverage*
> ...



Classic 

I post a study done by actuaries and Dante posts posts Obama's own website.....and Dante actually thinks that because there are subsidies availiable that "proves" that "premiums" aren't going up.

Um....dante...I have arranged subsidies ranging from $34 to $1200....and guess what?

The subsudies are there to offset the high premiums.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Your kneejerk reaction to attack from behind your supposed expertise...btw, how busy can you actually be spending 24/7 @usmb?  -- reading and comprehension is not one of your strong suits is it?  

"...blaming "ObamaCare" is an over simplification of the truth. The truth is insurance premiums have been growing faster than the rate of growth in income for well over a decade."


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> This is funny
> 
> I spend 5 1/2 days a week helping people get through this...I replace the plans they want to keep with the plans they do not want and the plans that are costing them as much 100% more.
> 
> ...



Actually,  I think that it's right about where a start up normally is this far in. Some of the problems are inexperienced users,  some are window shoppers,  some are exaggerations,  and some are real hardware and real software.  

And,  if you don't like it,  don't  use  it.  Do your shopping yourself.  Take advantage of help.  

Republican whining has been going on for many years.  Is they weren't whining about this it would be something else.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



LOL.

You are ignorant of the truth and the Law Dante...and yo Cracka Prez has lied to you.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > This is funny
> ...



You ain't my first Rodeo kid, deflection won't work with me 

I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield  are we a "start up" company ? 

I know....it frustrates you that a "simpleton" like myself stonewalls you at every turn...but even us "cro magnon" knuckle dragging Conservtaives have our days


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > This is funny
> ...



No Dante, despite what Obama's website says the truth is that the regulaions imposed by the ACA  have caused all of this, it is just that simple.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



That's like saying a woman wearing a shirt skirt causes a man to become a rapist


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Of course, never mind that the ACA imposed all of the new regulations upon insurance companies requiring them to comply with its dictates...causing the dropping of all of the old plans because those plans had become illegal through non compliance....I know that all of this is beyond you...but you really look silly here kid.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's laughable, PMZ!  The goal of the ACA is NOT to hold everyone responsible for their own health care costs!  The goal of the ACA is to provide heavily subsidized health care to part of the population while passing the cost of that subsidized health care to another part of the population.

The ACA was sold to the American people with a series of falsehoods to obscure what it really is and how much it will cost.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The purpose was and is wealth redistribution.


----------



## Mertex (Nov 3, 2013)

Rozman said:


> I am just going to enjoy Obama squirm every time something bad comes up about his pride and joy.
> And remember folks...those that voted for him.It's all yours.




No, you remember it, when it's up and running and everyone likes it, don't try and take credit for it like your party so blatantly tried to take credit for the killing of OBL!


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



George Bush would disagree with you.

".... For all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care.... "

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 15, 2006






Kaiser and other studies say otherwise.


This is the average cost of insurance premiums.






and





Here is one with 2011






And with 2012






The fact of the matter is that health care costs and insurance premiums have continued to rise for better than a decade.  Attributing the rise simply PPACA is pure folly.

This is the facts about the rate of increase;

"Kaiser crunched the numbers and says yes, but only modestly:

The two provisions in the Affordable Care Act likely to have the greatest effect on the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage in 2011 are allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents plans and requiring plans that are not grandfathered to provide preventive services with no patient cost-sharing. Our analysis, based in part on estimates provided by federal agencies when regulations implementing these provisions were issued, suggests that these provisions are responsible for 1-2 percentage points of the 9% increase in family premiums in 2011. (emphasis added)

Stripping out those two specific ACA effects, premiums would still have increased by 7-8% according to Kaisers estimates."

A more compact view is






This is the PPACA law.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

-

2012 - The Year In Healthcare Charts - Forbes

Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Let me know when you post something germaine to the conversation actually taking place in this thred i.e. Obama's lie about keeping any plan you liked.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dude, I hate to break this to you but the web site is the "easy" part of ObamaCare!  They had three years and 600 million to create that and they failed EPICALLY!!!
> 
> If you think *this* is a fiasco...wait until the IRS tries to figure out who's eligible for subsidies and who's scamming the system!  FUBAR is the term that comes to mind...



bot


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> >
> > From: Is Obamacare In Effect? Is Obamacare in effect?
> 
> ...



bot


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I take note of the fact that you have picked the latest Obama line.
I have lied about nothing, I have omitted nothing and have not decieved anyone.
I have engaged in zero spin, I am citing truths, and proving every aseertion you make wrong.
You cite nothing but Obama's own website as truth...and post nothing else but your own opinions.

Sorry Dante.
Antares<---- has no dog in this hunt, I have group insurance and I sell ndividual insurance...all for Blue Cross Blue Shield...a non-profit company...I have no need of deceit.

I am sorry the truth bothers you like it does, but Obama lied to you.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

...



Antares said:


> The purpose was and is wealth redistribution.


Clue: The USA was built and achieved greatness upon the concept and principle of wealth redistribution. 

Try US History 101

The idea that wealth redistribution is a new and foreign concept alien to American Capitalism is nothing but bullshit


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

...
...



Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



"All of the old plans?" Only plans that were shit to begin with. 

The PPACA/Obamacare has legitimate flaws to criticize, so why do you insist on conflating, drawing correlations as proof of cause and effect; why lie through omission; why engage in deceipt?  Or worse, are you unaware of doing this?

Taking facts and spinning them is an ideological tactic. It is not reasonable and honest discussion in search of truth


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> ...
> ...
> 
> 
> ...



*I take note of the fact that you have picked the latest Obama line.
I have lied about nothing, I have omitted nothing and have not decieved anyone.
I have engaged in zero spin, I am citing truths, and proving every aseertion you make wrong.
You cite nothing but Obama's own website as truth...and post nothing else but your own opinions.

Sorry Dante.
Antares<---- has no dog in this hunt, I have group insurance and I sell ndividual insurance...all for Blue Cross Blue Shield...a non-profit company...I have no need of deceit.

I am sorry the truth bothers you like it does, but Obama lied to you. 
*


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(shrugs)Prove it.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Start with the financing and resolution of debt for the War of Independence...

then let us know what you think of disbursement of tax dollars throughout America's growth as a great nation


Sux 2 B U


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



It will be easy, all you have to do is get an actual clue as to reality.  Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

To begin, health care premiums have been increasing since before 2009 and PPACA had nothing to do with it.

Second, prior to PPACA, states regulated insurance companies, requiring them to comply with state standards.  By agreement, health insurance companies were not subject to federal anti-trust laws.  This resulted in varying standards from state to state and natural oligopolies in the health insurance markets of states.

There is simply nothing about PPACA that is responsible for any effects that you would so like to claim except that there is now a common standard across the country so, as someone else pointed out, you now get at least as much as before and likely more.  That isn't "not getting to keep the plan you had." That is getting to keep the plan you had with additional coverage.

The fact of the matter is, you don't suddenly pay attention then attribute all that you were previously ignorant about to what you just noticed.  That isn't how causality works.

Perhaps the problem you are having is that there is nothing in your concept of PPACA, health insurance, and the health care markets that is germane to reality. 

At the very foundation, the issues with regard to the healthcare markets are so far beyond your over-simplistic view of reality that your very perception isn't germane to the thread. 

If you have family coverage, then the fact of the matter is that now that insurance must cover your dependent children up to the age of 26.  So, by that standard, you don't get to "keep the coverage you had".   And there is no provision in the law that forces insurance companies to keep supplying a plan, just because you like it.   

And, if you had bothered to read PPACA, like the rest of us, you would have known this back in 2009. 

Your ignorance isn't anyone else's problem.

So, like I said, here is the link to PPACA

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Try reading the table of contents.  It's the place to start and you won't be caught off guard next time you decide to open your eyes and look around.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

]





Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...




The economics is the study of the distribution (and redistribution) of scarce resources.  Money is one of those resources.

If you don't believe this, I challenge you to keep all the money that you make this year.  I can guarantee that you will redistribute most, if not, all of it.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

@ifitfitzme

If you think.normal healthy people actually read your incredibly long boring posts....


...please go.spam another thread with your HUGE images and nomsense.


Geesh


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Dante please, no more of your opinions.

Just go get srces from the Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers to support your claim.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Keep up, economics?

Whatever planet ou parachuted in from....please....stfu. my head is hurting


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Facts you dislike now become opinions?  Huh?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Honey please, first, we are talking about the indivdual market, not employer group.

Employer Group gets hit next year.

Just thank me.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Meant to trim your response out.  Antares is way behind.  My bad.

The "redistribution of wealth" concept is flawed and completely devoid of reality from the outset.  The very nature of the economy is to distribute and redistribute wealth and resources.  The question is whether that distribution and redistribution is appropriately balanced to maximize growth and standard of living.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Dante please, things are not "facts" just because we say they are, I am asking you to source your assertions.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



(smile) Antares is runnng the show, you don't even know what the conversation is about


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Oops!

You got in Dante's crosshairs.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



It started with the website thingy.

Antares is, though, so completely out of touch with reality in terms of understanding what the nature of the healthcare markets, healthcare insurance system, healthcare costs, and PPACA, that anything of real significance will seem to be not germane to him.  The only approach, in this general forum, is to start with the basics, the basics of prices, the basics of micro and macro econ, the basics of PPACA.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> >
> > From: Is Obamacare In Effect? Is Obamacare in effect?
> 
> ...



Folks are "ignorant" of the official start date of ObumblerCare because it was drafted in an incomprehensible gibberish jargon laden version of legislative-ese.  Just the way the inept President and the asshole lolberal Democratics in Congress wanted it.

And it has multiple "start" dates, anyway.

And they rely on morons like you to "explain" it so, clearly, there's no chance of it ever being explained intelligently, intelligibly or honestly.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Your ignorance is surpassed only by your delusions of sentiency.  Look up how the War of Independence was financed and how the newly created USA paid the debt accrued...by all colonies and the Continental Congress, as well as individuals. 

Then look up (again) how taxes collected by the  federal government have been disbursed to the states.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL.

Antares works in all of those areas 5 1/2 days a week.

NOBODY has been talkining about how the website isn't working for awhile 

We are discussing the fact that Cracka Prez lied about being able to keep your plan if you liked it 

You don't get to redefine the conversation, sorry.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



^ Yup.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



LOL, deflection.

Just cite your assertions


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> ...



" it was drafted in an incomprehensible gibberish jargon laden version of legislative-ese."

That would be a subjective opinion based on your reading skills and comprehension of the law.  It is not a "fact".

Of course it has multiple start dates for different provisions.  The health care system includes everything from student loans and university curriculums to the corner pharmacy.  It would be fundamentally stupid to not have multiple start dates to implement different parts of the law.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



No no.

It IS a fact.

Even the idiot former Mumbler of the House (the moron, Pelousy) acknowledged BEFORE it got "passed" that it would have to BE passed in order to know what was in it.

Even then, not much help.  It's fucking convoluted gibberish.  And if you had any sense of honesty, even a hack like you would admit it.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



There, some truth, was that s hard?

But that is not what the thread has evolved/devolved into.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





Antares said:


> *The Premiums have sky rocketed,* it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.
> 
> Dante and the rest choose ignorance over fact..



Someone assumes their lack of memory means things didn't happen.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> ...



Dearest USMB House Simpleton, the PPACA/Obamacare does NOT have "multiple start dates" as you claim. It became started the day it was signed into law. Portions of the law are rolled out as it was listed it would be...in the law...in plain and simple language.

Just because the Rightwing Noise Machine has you confused and running in circles is not the fault of Obamacare, but what you suffer from IS covered as a pre-existing condition


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



You might want to try and remember what you say.



Antares said:


> *The Premiums have sky rocketed*, it isn't funny and it isn't helping MANY of the people it was supposed to help.
> 
> Dante and the rest choose ignorance over fact..



And your inability to focus isn't my problem.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


 What is this, a trial or a term paper? 

If you are as ignorant of US History as you appear to be...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

Dainty is talking to himself, now?

Sad.



Dante said:


> the PPACA/Obamacare does NOT have "multiple start dates" as you claim.



Yes, it does, you dishonest stupid hack.

Now go smarten up.  Take all the time you need.  Come back in a decade or two.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



She came into to see me yesterday, her premiums had gone from 289 a month to 549....
You see, you don't know anything of what you speak.

When we done she knew she qualified for enough subsidy to take her  premiu aount down to 97 dollars.

She suffers from congestive heart failure. Her premium went up because of the vaunted 10 basic coverages coupled with the pre existing clause.

She was crying when we were done, she hugged me and kept saying thank you.


You don't anything of what you speak..and your first entry into the conversation had nothing to do with anything being spoken of.

You live in a theoretical world.

I live with the people that all of this affecting.

Any questions?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



It's an honest request, you made unsubstantiated assertions.
Prove them.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Sure there are multiple start dates for different parts of the law..

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Sec. 1105. Effective date.
Sec. 1253. Effective dates.
Sec. 6508. General effective date.


"The numerous new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, have various effective dates, many of which were changed during the legislative process.  A few of these provisions are effective immediately, the majority are effective in 2011 and 2014, and the effective date for the "Cadillac Tax" has been delayed to 2018. The attached chart sets forth the effective dates for key provisions that impact employers, insurers, administrators and individuals. "

Effective Date Chart: Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Groom Law Group

http://www.groom.com/media/publication/680_GLG Effective Date Timeline Final.pdf

Key Features of the Affordable Care Act | HHS.gov/healthcare

OVERVIEW OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW

2010: A new Patient's Bill of Rights goes into effect, protecting consumers from the worst abuses of the insurance industry. Cost-free preventive services begin for many Americans.
See More 2010 Changes.

2011: People with Medicare can get key preventive services for free, and also receive a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the Medicare donut hole.
See More 2011 Changes.

2012: Accountable Care Organizations and other programs help doctors and health care providers work together to deliver better care.
See More 2012 Changes.

2013: Open enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace begins on October 1st.
See More 2013 Changes.

2014: All Americans will have access to affordable health insurance options. The Marketplace allows individuals and small businesses to compare health plans on a level playing field. Middle and low-income families will get tax credits that cover a significant portion of the cost of coverage. And the Medicaid program will be expanded to cover more low-income Americans. All together, these reforms mean that millions of people who were previously uninsured will gain coverage, thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
See More 2014 Changes.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Son deflection doesn't work with me


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Sure there are multiple start dates for different parts of the law..
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
> 
> ...



You are intelligent, Dante isn't, he is purely an ideologue.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Dude, you are a control freak.  I respond to whatever happens to catch my fancy at the time it catches my fancy.  This isn't a chat room. It is a forum.  I might drop in three days after the thread is created and comment on something that is two days old. So? What is your point, that it isn't all about you?

The only thing I can't comment of is future posts. It is a flow of time reality thing.

You are just an asshole, that's all.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there are multiple start dates for different parts of the law..
> ...



Don't really care.  PPACA isn't about me or Dante.  It is a thing in and of itself.  

For whatever reason, he wasn't aware of it.  Now he knows.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you are trying to dedefine the conversation, I will not let you do that.

I live everyday with the folks that this is affecting...I knw of what I speak.

If I am an asshole becuase I will not allow you to derail what we are talking about so be it.

If there is something else you wish to discuss start another thread.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Taking quotes completely out of context in order to change the meaning is a violation of tge rules "you dishonest stupid hack"

[ Dearest USMB House Simpleton, the PPACA/Obamacare does NOT have "multiple start dates" as you claim. It became started the day it was signed into law. Portions of the law are rolled out as it was listed it would be...in the law...in plain and simple language.

Just because the Rightwing Noise Machine has you confused and running in circles is not the fault of Obamacare, but what you suffer from IS covered as a pre-existing condition. ]

Portions of the law have different start dates as the law proscribes. The law itself does NOT have multiple start dates


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

ObumblerCare.  It's the LAW.

Ergo, it cannot be questioned or challenged and no threat of defunding can be made.  

It is the law.

It is a "thing" unto itself.

It has more GRAVITY that Jupiter.

No.  Not really,  It just seems that way because it SUCKS so massively.

It will fail.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



*"When we done she knew she qualified for enough subsidy to take her premiu aount down to 97 dollars."*

So her insurance cost went from 289 a month to 97 dollars.  So the PPACA did it's job, she did her job, and you did your's.

Saying, "her premiums had gone from 289 a month to 549" is to report only part of the complete facts.

It is unfortunate that she "freaked out".  I would have too.  It is a problem with change.  Unfortunately, this kind of problem has never been a solvable problem.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 3, 2013)

Dear Dainty, you hack simpleton numbnuts motherfucker whining pussy:

I didn't take anything out of context.

Your allusion to some House simpleton sure SEEMED to be self-referential.  You are in the house and you are the epitome of being a simpleton.  

Furthermore, ObumblerCare DOES have multiple start dates, you lying hack moron.  So go suck another bag of dicks, you pathetic fail.  

With all due respect,

your pal,

Ilar.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



List what you consider an unsubstantied assertion


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> ObumblerCare.  It's the LAW.
> 
> Ergo, it cannot be questioned or challenged and no threat of defunding can be made.
> 
> ...



Uhm,  How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



No, you are an asshole because you use the second person pronoun followed by some subjective assessment of other people, completely oblivious to the fact that you change the subject of your conversation from the object of consideration to the person conversing. And you do so in an insulting and derogatory fashion. 



			
				Antares said:
			
		

> *You* don't anything of what *you* speak..and *your* first entry into the conversation had nothing to do with anything being spoken of.
> 
> *You* live in a theoretical world.



That is actually what makes you an asshole.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Junior you are dismissed until you can be honest.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I take it back, you aren't intelligent at all 

Run along and start your own thread, if I deem it worthy I'll join in.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> ObumblerCare.  It's the LAW.
> 
> Ergo, it cannot be questioned or challenged and no threat of defunding can be made.
> 
> ...



No.  The Republicans have already failed to impose their lack of any solutions on America.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Is this acceptable in this zone?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Another classic representation of conservatism.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > ObumblerCare.  It's the LAW.
> ...



When were all plans required to cover wellness at first dollar100%?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Ahhhh, and now you will whine like a bitch because you have been shown to ill informed on this subject.

Cry to mommy Dante, bt substantiate your claims


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Bullring challenge?  Care to wager...say....a month vacancy on usmb?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



LOL...

*When were all plans required to cover wellness at first dollar 100%? *


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Not to mention, 



			
				Antares said:
			
		

> You are ignorant of the truth



Where, in fact, you are ignorant of what you actually post.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Please do not interfer here.  Did you know that increasingly suicide is considered a viable option for some people?


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Dude, your only hope is to feign ignorance.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Don't do it Dante....this is just the internet....you have so much to give the world.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the height of nonsense, Dante!  The US was NOT built upon the concept of taking wealth from those who worked for it and giving it to those that hadn't.  If you had even *proposed* that to the Founding Fathers they would have tarred and feathered you right before running you out of town on a rail!  What made the US great was that we were a country where people had property rights that couldn't be arbitrarily taken from them by a monarch.  It WASN'T that we took property away from those who worked hard to obtain it.  That's a concept that's been foisted upon Americans in the past fifty years and to be quite blunt...it's turning us into a "has been" nation.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So...Obama didn't lie when he said we could keep our plans?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



LOL, Dante is trying to distance himself from this with deflection


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Not being aware of it it not having multiple start dates hardly qualifies as "ill informed".  It is just one fact among many things.

What does become apparent is that you are no longer able to stick to the subject, PPACA.

The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet.  It doesn't start until 2014.  Open enrollment began already.  

And, while there are key start dates to parts of it, there are also effects that won't become apparent until 2018 or beyond.  Affecting the supply side is not something that can happen within a year.  

For instance, 

"SEC. 1322. FEDERAL PROGRAM TO ASSIST ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION
OF NONPROFIT, MEMBER-RUN HEALTH INSURANCE
ISSUERS."

"SEC. 5202. NURSING STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM."

"SEC. 775. INVESTMENT IN TOMORROW&#8217;S PEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE"
WORKFORCE."

"the Secretary agrees to make payments on the principal
and interest of undergraduate, graduate, or graduate medical
education loans of professionals described in paragraph (1)
of not more than $35,000 a year for each year of agreed upon
service under such paragraph for a period of not more than
3 years during the qualified health professional&#8217;s&#8212;"

The supply side is, perhaps, the most significant aspect of PPACA.  Whether anyone experiences any significant shortage for the short time period of the next half decade will be interesting to see.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Kid, did Obama lie when he said we could keep our plans?


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

*The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet. It doesn't start until 2014. Open enrollment began already. 

And, while there are key start dates to parts of it, there are also effects that won't become apparent until 2018 or beyond. Affecting the supply side is not something that can happen within a year. *

Don't make me laugh.

What we are dealling with today is the fall out from Dec 31....what happens on Dec 31 kid?


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Trying to divert from the fact that you have lied repeatedly in this thread.  Nice.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not a single lie kid, not one.

What happens on Dec 31?


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> *The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet. It doesn't start until 2014. Open enrollment began already.
> 
> And, while there are key start dates to parts of it, there are also effects that won't become apparent until 2018 or beyond. Affecting the supply side is not something that can happen within a year. *
> 
> ...



What are you talking about?  "the fall out from what happens on Dec 31st"?  

You do understand that cause comes *before* effect.  It is a physical reality of nature.  Time flows in one direction and what happens before is the cause and what happens after is the effect.  There is no such thing as "fall out from" something that happens "after".


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You are terribly confused from not having paid attention and having forgotten what you did experience.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 3, 2013)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act), Public Law 111148, was enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the Reconciliation Act), Public Law 111 152, was enacted on March 30, 2010.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It certainly is.  It was called slavery and was a large part of the economy of the Southern states.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet. It doesn't start until 2014. Open enrollment began already.
> ...





The "cause" is the law itself...the fall out is because of what happens on Dec 31...you are better than this.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your ignorance and deflection are not my problem


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> *The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet. It doesn't start until 2014. Open enrollment began already.
> 
> And, while there are key start dates to parts of it, there are also effects that won't become apparent until 2018 or beyond. Affecting the supply side is not something that can happen within a year. *
> 
> ...



As well, you seem to have not paid attention to the mass of detailed information that I posted pages ago with regard to the history of insurance premium rates as well as Kiaser's evaluation that differentiated between the ongoing effects of the health care economy and the implementation of PPACA.

You were too busy trying to claim I wasn't on subject instead of paying attention to the facts.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Your are wrong.  You have magical thinking.  

Try studying physics.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 3, 2013)

As soon as it is enacted, it is in effect, barring another congressional action ( or an Executive branch violation of the separation of powers, but I digress). Even if they spend all of the authorized funds, and have to stop buying free lunches for insurance company marketing staff, the law is still in effect.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *The main body of the PPACA hasn't even become effective yet. It doesn't start until 2014. Open enrollment began already.
> ...



(smile) You are a Dante clone, things "are" because you say they are.

Sorry, you lose.

All individual plans EXCEPT for the grandfathered "individual" plans die Dec 31....the ORIGINAL mandated "compliance" date.

The "grandfathered" individual plans die NEXT Dec 

The important word here is "individual"...why?

Because they are the only plans affected this year 

2015 the Group plans will be affected...try and keep up kid.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> As soon as it is enacted, it is in effect, barring another congressional action ( or an Executive branch violation of the separation of powers, but I digress). Even if they spend all of the authorized funds, and have to stop buying free lunches for insurance company marketing staff, the law is still in effect.



There is a difference between, say, a change in the speed limit on the books, the actual posting of new speed limit signs, and the enforcement of the speed limit by patrol officers.

A physical effect cannot occur because of some ink on pieces of paper.  There has to be an actual physical occurrence in order for something to have an effect.

That and it is currently November 3rd, 2013.  December 31st does not occur until almost two months from now.  So, no manner of happenings on December 31st are going to directly effect things back in time. Cause comes before effect. It always has, since the beginning of the universe. It is a universal law.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



There is nothing to "lose". Again, magical thinking on your part in numerous respects.  

First, you are under the mistaken belief that your thoughts are somehow beamed directly onto reality, causing something to happen. They don't.  No person, except perhaps Carnac the Magnificent, is capable of reading your thoughts.







And imagining something in your head doesn't qualify as "winning" anything.

You are just living in a land of magical thinking.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as it is enacted, it is in effect, barring another congressional action ( or an Executive branch violation of the separation of powers, but I digress). Even if they spend all of the authorized funds, and have to stop buying free lunches for insurance company marketing staff, the law is still in effect.
> ...



The ACA IS the cause for what will happen on Dec 31...you look stupid claiming otherwise.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Oh, I know.....

I am thinking of a number between one and one hundred.  Do you know what it is?  No.... Oh, I win.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



What will happen on Dec 31st hasn't happened yet.  When it happens, then ACA will have been the cause of it.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]

In common usage, causality is also the relation between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect. A direct factor is a factor that affects an effect directly, that is, without any intervening factors. (Intervening factors are sometimes called "intermediate factors".) The connection between a cause(s) and an effect in this way can also be referred to as a causal nexus."

If you can't be specific, no one has a clue what you are talking about.

What has happened already is the medical loss ratio rule

"HHS Final Rule for PPACA Medical Loss Ratio Rebates. ... required to spend 80% to 85% of consumers' premiums on direct care for patients."

And, in fact, it did result in rebates to customers by Blue Cross Blue Shield.

BCBSKS - Health Care Reform - Frequently Asked Questions - Medical Loss Ratio

Beyond Rebates: How Much Are Consumers Saving from the ACA?s Medical Loss Ratio Provision? | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

I saw advertisements for Blue Cross Blue Shield saying that they did provide rebates. That would be something that did happen.

And Kiaser reports this


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sweetie you are free to type whatever you wish.

All I can tell you is that I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield and that I deal with this everyday.

Now....the inconvenient truth is that I live in the real world, you don't.

I hear and see the tears of joy and despair everyday, you don't.

I do not want the law repealed, I want it fixed...

The people who need help the most aren't getting it.

Nothing you type changes the facts of what I live...so by all means go on...I will say however that the student loan and pharmacy shit you posted has nothing to do with anything we have have been talking about...

"We" meaning everyone but you kid.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Of course...thats why I write 5 to 10 policies a day with an effective day date of 01/01/2014.

Just slink away.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I've already assessed the disingenuous nature of your accouting with 



> She came into to see me yesterday, her premiums had gone from 289 a month to 549.... she qualified for enough subsidy to take her premiu aount down to 97 dollars."



Where you wish to claim that premiums for her went up when, in fact, all total it when down. Down from 298 to 97.

Then, I've also found how you are confused about your own changing the subject from an objective PPACA to a subjective assessment of me, Dante, or whomever, completely obliviously. And you wonder why you get insulted back.

Then your concept of causality, like your accounting skill, is mutable depending on how you want the answer to come out.  You ignore the rebate portion of the law to claim an increase.  You put cause before effect, wishing to claim that something on December 31st has happened already.  Excuse me if I am unable to follow this magical thinking.

Then, of course, the PPACA includes many implementations, from the initial preexisting condition rules and the MLRs which has happened, to student loan and grant programs which, while they will be implemented soon, cannot be expected to have a real effect for years because people really have to take exams and pass them before being licensed.   Simply signing the law into effect doesn't change the reality of that.

You may work for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I expect quite effectively, but that doesn't necessitate that you have any firm grasp on accounting or causality. And if am unable to read your mind, well.. excuuusssee meeee.

The inconvenient truth is that, in fact and so far, according to all data, the current increase in health insurance premiums attributed directly to PPACA is about 2% at most and at best,

"Adding to the premium savings the amount individual market consumers received in rebates yields a total savings of $1.2 billion for 2011. This year, individual market insurers are expecting to issue $241 million in rebates (based on our analysis of early estimates from insurers filed with state insurance departments), bringing the total estimated savings for 2012 to $2.1 billion. While this savings was not distributed evenly (with more going to people enrolled in plans that had low MLRs prior to the law), when averaged across all individual market enrollees, this amounts to a savings of $204 per person ($181 in premium savings and $23 in rebates) in 2012. Taking into account both premium savings and estimated rebates, people purchasing insurance on their own in 2012 spent 7.5% less on average on insurance than they might otherwise have in the absence of the law."  - Jun 06, 2013

Beyond Rebates: How Much Are Consumers Saving from the ACA?s Medical Loss Ratio Provision? | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

GTG


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The fact that you write policies doesn't mean anything in terms of knowledge of the effect of PPACA on health care premiums.

I can drive a car but that doesn't mean I understand the workings of an internal combustion engine.


----------



## Antares (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I feel sorry for you.

You see your ego, or perhaps the lack of size of your dick is wrapped up in this.

Mine isn't.

I write these policies because the ones that they have end Dec 31.

You are free to type anything you wish as to why...but that in no way changes the truth.

You lose, you just don't have enough integrity or honesty to admit it.

Prez cracka lied.....and American's know it.

We are coming in 2014...

I will not acknowledge you again until you become honest kid.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as it is enacted, it is in effect, barring another congressional action ( or an Executive branch violation of the separation of powers, but I digress). Even if they spend all of the authorized funds, and have to stop buying free lunches for insurance company marketing staff, the law is still in effect.
> ...



Frivolous argument. There is someone who is being paid to enforce the law, with threat of force. Could be a gun, could be the IRS and a bank seizure.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Antares said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You can spin like a top but what he said was true of what he was talking about.  Obamacare,  not private insurance company offerings.


----------



## Dante (Nov 4, 2013)

Dante said:


> > How Long Has the PPACA/Obamacare Been in Effect?
> >
> > From: Is Obamacare In Effect? Is Obamacare in effect?
> 
> ...



Some things deserve repeating


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 5, 2013)

PARTS of ObumblerCare are presently in effect.

OTHER parts of his miasma are not yet in effect.

Dainty cannot fathom what this entails.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> PARTS of ObumblerCare are presently in effect.
> 
> OTHER parts of his miasma are not yet in effect.
> 
> Dainty cannot fathom what this entails.



What's not in effect?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > PARTS of ObumblerCare are presently in effect.
> ...



Google could be your buddy.

There IS a cure for ignorance, PMS.  Avail yourself:



> 2014
> 
> 01/01 - O-DAY (full implementation)
> 
> ...


 --  Seven Key ObamaCare Implementation Dates | FreedomWorks


The bad news is that ObumblerCare will NOT cover your malady or the cure.

You're on your own.

Thanks Obumbler!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 5, 2013)

> 2014
> 
> NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
> 
> ...


  --  Key Features of the Affordable Care Act By Year | HHS.gov/healthcare


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 5, 2013)

APHA: ACA Implementation


----------



## Antares (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sorry kid, you are just a liar.....sad really.


----------



## Antares (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > PARTS of ObumblerCare are presently in effect.
> ...



Most of it, it doesn't go into effect until Jan1, thats why everyone is losing their current policies Dec31...please pay attention.


----------



## Antares (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as it is enacted, it is in effect, barring another congressional action ( or an Executive branch violation of the separation of powers, but I digress). Even if they spend all of the authorized funds, and have to stop buying free lunches for insurance company marketing staff, the law is still in effect.
> ...



Did you type this with a straight face?


----------



## Antares (Nov 5, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



It thinks it's being clever, meanwhile I wrote ten new policies with an effective date of 01/01/2014 for no other reason than I wanted to.

(rolling eyes)


----------



## Dante (Nov 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Gun, IRS bank siezure?  Idiot!  Read the law or the scotus ruling where this is addressed.

Geesh


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 7, 2013)

Antares said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Maybe the disagreement is just semantics. Baring any changes to the law , it, the ACA, is in effect. It may have effects that start at different dates.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 7, 2013)

Dante said:


> Gun, IRS bank siezure?  Idiot!  Read the law or the scotus ruling where this is addressed.
> 
> Geesh



Didn't you say goodbye yesterday? 

Short trip.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Gun, IRS bank siezure?  Idiot!  Read the law or the scotus ruling where this is addressed.
> ...



Dainty confuses "goodbye" with "I'll be back later" ALL the fuckin' time.

Dainty is not very bright, you know.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 7, 2013)

Some Dumb Ass piece of legislation says "blah blah blah."

It ends with the phrase that says, "Sections X, Y and Z of this law shall not take effect until [date in future]."

The law passes.  The President signs it.  All of the law is PASSED.  But PARTS of it are not yet in effect because --- {wait for it} ---

THAT'S what the LAW that just got passed SAYS.

And this, too, sails over Dainty's pin head.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Some Dumb Ass piece of legislation says "blah blah blah."
> 
> It ends with the phrase that says, "Sections X, Y and Z of this law shall not take effect until [date in future]."
> 
> ...



Here's what I don't understand.  Why don't you solve your problem? Why do you stay here? There are so many better places,  right? Why do you choose such a dismal place to live in?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Some Dumb Ass piece of legislation says "blah blah blah."
> ...



I'm not a lolberal.  I love America.  Unlike you tools, however, I like the parts of America that made it great.  I don't want to fundamentally change it, like Obumbler.  I want to change it back to the Republic it was designed to be.

It's worth fighting for.

There are MANY things you don't understand.  Don't be so modest.  

You don't understand that just because I don't like ObumblerCare doesn't mean I would want t leave America.  YOU don't grasp that I'd prefer to fix what we have managed to fuck up.  YOU can't grasp that parts of a law don't take effect until the law itself SAYS they take effect.

SO why would I leave?  I'm not responsible for your ceaseless (almost tragic) ignorance.  And I don't care how ignorant you remain.  I don't expect your help in any efforts to get us back from where Obumbler has driven us off the road.  But fix it we will.  Then, if that bothers you, you have my permission to run off to some other silly Neverland Utopia.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Clearly you favor people passing on their medical bills to others.  I favor personal responsibility.  

Clearly every law specifies when it goes in effect.  That is apparently inconvenient to you. 

Clearly you find your insurance companies decisions inconvenient too.  

What you do find convenient is Republican irresponsibility.  No solutions.  Ignore every problem.  Put the House on strike.  Drive the debt out of sight. 

You say that you'd rather stay here and drag America down then go to this mythical Kingdom where you're king. 

Your choice but you're only one vote here,  not aristocracy. Get used to it. Your plot to fundamentally change America back to a plutocracy has failed.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





PMZ said:


> Clearly you favor people passing on their medical bills to others.



Neither clear nor true.  The opposite is (generally speaking) true, in fact.



PMZ said:


> I favor personal responsibility.


Horse shit.  YOU favor ObumblerCare which is EXACTLY the opposite of the lie you just posted there, PMS.



PMZ said:


> Clearly every law specifies when it goes in effect.



Neither clear nor true.  SOME laws (properly and intelligently drafted) DO state when it (or parts of it) go(es) into effect.  



PMZ said:


> That is apparently inconvenient to you.



No.  It isn't "apparent" nor is it true.  I am perfectly content with a law saying when it goes into effect or the dates on which PARTS of it go into effect.  Nothing I posted even suggests anything to the contrary.  Do you read with the "eye" at the business end of your rectum?



PMZ said:


> Clearly you find your insurance companies decisions inconvenient too.



I bet you thought you were making a "point" there.  But nothing I have posted even touches on whether I find some "decisions" by insurance companies "inconvenient."  WTF are you babbling about?  Try to stay on topic.  You are just mashing meaningless phrases together for no discernible purpose at this point.  



PMZ said:


> What you do find convenient is Republican irresponsibility.  No solutions.  Ignore every problem.  Put the House on strike.  Drive the debt out of sight.



No no.  You are making shit up again, PMS.  I don't favor Republican irresponsibility.  Unlike you, I don't favor Democrat Parody irresponsibility, either.  I don't favor irresponsibility at all.  I DO favor solutions which is one of the many reasons I oppose ObumblerCare.  ObumblerCare is not a "solution;" it is the creation of a myriad of WORSE problems.  And the House didn't go on strike.  The House actually passed legislation.  It was the Demoncrap Reid-led Senate and Obumbler that put Government on the sidelines.  Well, 17% of it, anyway.  Oddly, despite your yammering, YOU don't object to Reid's and Obumbler's utter irresponsibility.  Go figure.



PMZ said:


> You say that you'd rather stay here and drag America down then go to this mythical Kingdom where you're king.



I said NO such thing, of course.  What I DID say is more about wanting to KEEP America a "Republic."  I know this bugs you mindless liberals.  Too bad.  Learn to cope.



PMZ said:


> Your choice but you're only one vote here,  not aristocracy.



I never said or implied that I had more than one vote, you dipshit.  I'm not a Democrat, so I only vote once.



PMZ said:


> Get used to it. Your plot to fundamentally change America back to a plutocracy has failed.



We never WERE a plutocracy and it isn't 'fundamental" change to revert us BACK to a Constitutional Republic.

If you ever have anything intelligent to say (or even something that isn't based on your general ignorance and dishonesty) you should come back to post some more someday.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



You need to try more to hide,  rather than advertise,  your ignorance. 

When only wealthy white males can vote,  it is a plutocracy,  by definition.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Neither clear nor true.  The opposite is (generally speaking) true, in fact.
> ...



You need to understand the actual meaning of words.

Your daffynitions remain irrelevant.

And your posts tend to be vapid, meaningless, dishonest and insignificant.

A VALID dictionary definition (one you could have easily obtained online) will tell you that a plutocracy is actually:  government by the richest people


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 8, 2013)

Dip shits like PMS cannot grasp this, but the desire of conservatives to RETURN america to the rule of law, a Constitutional Republic where the ability of the government to promulgate laws and rules and regulations is LIMITED and its powers are enumerated is NOT the same thing as desiring a return to the days of 1791.

The Constitution used to permit slavery.  It no longer does.  I have never desired a "return" to the older version of the Constitution that permitted such an immoral aberration.  

But this, too, will sail miles over the tiny little thick skull of PMS at light speed.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dip shits like PMS cannot grasp this, but the desire of conservatives to RETURN america to the rule of law, a Constitutional Republic where the ability of the government to promulgate laws and rules and regulations is LIMITED and its powers are enumerated is NOT the same thing as desiring a return to the days of 1791.
> 
> The Constitution used to permit slavery.  It no longer does.  I have never desired a "return" to the older version of the Constitution that permitted such an immoral aberration.
> 
> But this, too, will sail miles over the tiny little thick skull of PMS at light speed.



I pay no attention to Republican propaganda. I do know about the Constitution that has always been the Supreme rule of law in America. You are not going to change it. 

You can try,  but you've already alienated most of the country so I'd be surprised if anybody cares anymore what conservatives think about anything.


----------

