# Video: Workers See for the First Time how Obamacare Affects their Premiums/Deductible



## Publius1787 (Jan 30, 2014)

*Video: Workers See for the First Time how Obamacare Affects their Premiums/Deductibles*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk#t=184]WTAE-PA: Pennsylvania Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs From ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## longknife (Jan 30, 2014)

Thank they'll now vote for Democrat candidates?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 30, 2014)

They are supposed to be happy because what they are paying enables poor people to have insurance.  It's called redistribution.


----------



## Zander (Jan 30, 2014)

Nothing to worry about. Right Democrats?  When every company in the country has these types of meetings over the next year, that won't hurt Democrat prospects, right?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 30, 2014)

Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 30, 2014)

Don't ya just love that "WHAT THE FUCK" look on their faces? 

Tens of millions yet to enroll, folks. The shitstorm is a-brewin'.


----------



## Zander (Jan 30, 2014)

our premiums went from $415/month to $1085 -  with higher deductibles and co-pays. 

So we cancelled it. Fuck Obamacare.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 30, 2014)

Boy you dems sure know how to stick it to the rich.
You could just tell these people make way to much money and need to give some back.
   Fuck those one percenters,right dems? Hello? Dems?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jan 30, 2014)

Wonder why this post isnt getting any lefty attention?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 30, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.



You are lying. Own it.


----------



## Antares (Jan 30, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.
> ...



Nope, YOU are lying.

National average 44%.....I've seen as high as 300%.

More expensive, less coverage from the new plans.

Many needy folks getting coverage, many average folks can't afford it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 30, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Whatever you say. The ACA is doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do....and it is all on purpose because Obama is incompetent. 

We get it. You guys are absolutely genuine. Everyone is paying more for less. It a train wreck, scam, the beginning of the end! 

You have convinced me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2014)

obviously staged


----------



## Hoosier4Liberty (Jan 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> obviously staged



Mr. Starkey, I'm just curious.  If you are a Republican and actually want the GOP to win back the Senate, then why have I not heard you once criticize the left?  You seem to support Obamacare, the stimulus, and most of Obama's other policies.  Honestly, I'm happy you're not voting Dem just because that helps our side, but does the GOP really match your ideology at all?


----------



## Antares (Jan 30, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I'm living it, you are just a bystander with no experience in it at all.

The ACA is doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do, collapse the system so as to usher in the Single Payor he wants.

You just keep cheerleading and swallowing.


----------



## Antares (Jan 30, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > obviously staged
> ...



Jake voted for Obama twice, don't let him yank your penis.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 31, 2014)

Zander said:


> Nothing to worry about. Right Democrats?  When every company in the country has these types of meetings over the next year, that won't hurt Democrat prospects, right?



heres the problem you have a video who was created by whom ??? the right wing ... there was nothing in that video that's was based on actual factual information at all ... no where in that video did they mention subsidy ... the said par is you people buy it hook lie and stinker ... 

now why would I say this because I'm partisan and want to distort the facts??? for the past 4 years I had to pay for health care 550 dollars a month for a catastrophic health care plan with a 5000 dollar deductible ... 

this year starting January 1, 2014 my first payment went to health care the Obama care that you seem to all dread so much because of the alleged cost??? well mine now is 250 dollars a month, with a 250 emergency room deductible ... with a max pay out of 1200 ... 

so this video is telling me what here??? it is telling me that a right wing company produced it ... then played it as if it was a news cast, which it clearly isn't, because if it was it would have told you totally the opposite ...the problem you all have here is call Republican liars ... they lie for the rich 1% for their benefit and not yours .... I know better ... I know what the real reality is ... because I experiencing it now...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 31, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.



heres the problem that you don't seem to get or understand ... you're being lie to ... you are quoting your cost that came from your health care company  under the currant plan you have lonelaugher was trying to tell you this... but you did get it, or you too stupid to understand ... 

which ever it is none of you mention if you got your subsidy or not ... neither did the video ... you just blurted out a percentage just like the video did ... if you are a family of 4 and make less then 94,000 dollars a year you will get a subsidy on the average of 400 dollars or more ... the single mother working at a auto repair shop paying 1300 dollars a month ??? give me a break ... if you want to be lied to fine ... but don't sit here and try to blow smoke up every bodies ass until you go to the web site you look up ,what it will cost you... then come back here and tell us the real truth... we might then believe your lies


here's are the facts... most people working at a auto shop, unless they are mechanic, are making between 10 and 15 dollars an hour... this woman isn't making more the 94,000 dollars a year you can bet on that ... more then likely she is maybe making the most ,30,000 dollars a year at best... she would almost qualify for medicaid  or the cheapest cost for health care ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 31, 2014)

Antares said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'd vote for him a third time if it were legal ... and your just playing with Jake's penis ...


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 31, 2014)

Publius1787 said:


> *Video: Workers See for the First Time how Obamacare Affects their Premiums/Deductibles*




Exactly what happened to us:  Premiums up significantly (about 50%), deductibles up significantly (100%), co-pays stayed about the same.

As I understand it, the official response remains:  "Tough shit".

So that's that.

.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 31, 2014)

But now people that never could get insurance can get insurance.

They may not be able to afford it, but it's out there somewhere. Oh, and 5-6 million more don't have insurance for the foreseeable future. 30 million didn't have insurance before Obamacare. 36 million don't after Obamacare.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 31, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.
> ...



You denying that you call people who say their rates have gone up liars?
You denying that you call people who say their doctors are leaving due the (un)aca liars?

Me, Mr. H., Meister, Vox and others have, in various threads, posted the increases we are experiencing due to the (un)aca.  You call us all liars.

To that I say:  No, YOU


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 31, 2014)

Ladies and gentlemen.  

Every one of those people could get a better deal on the exchange. The employer could relieve himself of the burden of administering the benefit. These people are being screwed by the insurance company......and by their employer.  Not by the ACA. 

Does anyone know how much the employer is contributing to the premiums of the employees? It doesn't sound like he is. 

The woman who is going to have premiums of over 1300 per month in that video is making more than $150,000 per year? Is that what we are to believe? 

I am sorry that so many of you are so easily influenced by half-journalism. Mostly because it means that we get more of it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 31, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



I am not denying it. I think you are lying. I think you have not researched your options. 

So far, nobody has proven their claim.


----------



## Antares (Jan 31, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> Every one of those people could get a better deal on the exchange. The employer could relieve himself of the burden of administering the benefit. These people are being screwed by the insurance company......and by their employer.  Not by the ACA.
> 
> ...



*Every one of those people could get a better deal on the exchange. *

Prove it.

*These people are being screwed by the insurance company......and by their employer.  Not by the ACA. *

The ACA required the coverage changes that caused the premium jump.

*Does anyone know how much the employer is contributing to the premiums of the employees? It doesn't sound like he is. *

Conjecture, irrelevant.

*The woman who is going to have premiums of over 1300 per month in that video is making more than $150,000 per year? Is that what we are to believe? *

Why do you ask?


----------



## Antares (Jan 31, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to worry about. Right Democrats?  When every company in the country has these types of meetings over the next year, that won't hurt Democrat prospects, right?
> ...



First off, we have to believe the case you put forward concerning you...maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. You haven't been factual about anything, just anecdotal.

You have no ide who or what produced it, but based on your skewed view you make claims you cannot substantiate.

As for reality? Why on earth would you assume YOUR purported reality is the same as everyone else's?


----------



## Antares (Jan 31, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.
> ...



Everything here is your opinion, nothing more.

You go an on about proof, yet you provide none.....all you have is "It helped me therefore it will help everyone".

That is silly.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 31, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



I've explain umpteen times to him our plan isn't from the (un)aca therefore there is no subsidy.  Not worth the time to respond to, his memory and/or comprehension skills are shot.


----------



## oreo (Jan 31, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.




My premium more than doubled--of course I am one of those with a so-called "junk" policy from Humana.

Employers will start laying off people or cut their hours back to no more than 29 hours per week to avoid Obamacare--thereby kicking their part time employees onto the Obamacare exchanges to buy their own insurance.

_It's not Rocket Science to what business is going to do--it's already happening.
._


> The list of companies moving to cut hours for part-time workers continues to grow, as employers look to keep staffers below the 30-hour threshold set by the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> The Obama administration announced in July that it would delay the so-called employer mandate until 2015. ObamaCare requires that companies with 50 or more employees provide health insurance benefits to every full-time worker, considered to be anyone who logs an average of 30 or more hours a week.
> 
> ...


With Eye on ObamaCare, Companies Move to Cut Workers? Hours | Fox Business






*Welcome to your hope and change!*


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 1, 2014)

Yes. That makes perfect sense. 

A small business owner who has a need to cover 400 shift hours per week....would rather hire 20 part time workers than 10 full time workers. He'd rather administer twice the number of employees. The reason being a law that does not require him to provide insurance unless he has 50 full time employees. 

It is perfect reasoning. I love it.


----------



## Politico (Feb 1, 2014)

longknife said:


> Thank they'll now vote for Democrat candidates?



Stupid is as stupid does.



Katzndogz said:


> They are supposed to be happy because what they are paying enables poor people to have insurance.  It's called redistribution.



Yeah right. The poor and disabled will be paying the fines to fund their deductibles.



Mr. H. said:


> Don't ya just love that "WHAT THE FUCK" look on their faces?
> 
> Tens of millions yet to enroll, folks. The shitstorm is a-brewin'.



Not like the information hasn't been out there for years. Stupid is a stupid does.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Bullshit!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...oid-death-spiral-post8502512.html#post8502512  post #17


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Some don't want to sign up for medicaid when they had ample plans to start with

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 1, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...




Your link did not prove anything, sorry. 

But....know this.....

Premiums cannot exceed 9.5% of income.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



What a deal... Get your premium jacked for substandard service

Where can I sign up?

-Geaux


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Did you click on the pictures I provided?
Those were real time shots for Covered California. 
Continue on with your denial though.
The ACA was supposed to SAVE families $2,500 a year.
This family is not eligible for subsidies or tax credits.

Questions and Answers on the Premium Tax Credit

*5. Who is eligible for the premium tax credit?*
You are eligible for the premium tax credit if you meet all of the following requirements:
Purchase coverage through the Marketplace.

*6. What are the income limits?*

In general, individuals and families whose household income for the year is between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line for their family size may be eligible for the premium tax credit. 

$23,550 (100%) up to *$94,200 (400%) for a family of four*.



MeBelle60 said:


> Talk about knee jerking!
> 
> The cost of ACA for a *family of four making $95k a year in California will bankrupt this family* in a year or two.



Do you get it now???
$800 makes a difference!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 1, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



yes I'm saying they are liars, as are you ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> Every one of those people could get a better deal on the exchange. The employer could relieve himself of the burden of administering the benefit. These people are being screwed by the insurance company......and by their employer.  Not by the ACA.
> 
> ...



they don't get it ... here their insurance man come to them explains that their insurance is going up ... not under standing that this guy is representing the insurance company and not the ACA ... if they are stupid enough to bit on his crap then they deserve what they get none of them went to the exchange to see what it would cost them... not one of them ... 

not one of these clowns on these boards haver gone to the website casue the republicans said it wasn't safe .... hell, I had one woman here on these boards, can't remember her screen name but she kept trying to go to the web site and couldn't get on ... then she found out after me arguing with her for three days ... shye then found out that she had to up date her software ... of course she refused to tell us here what it was going to cost her ... she just stop debating the issue ... she was one of these poster who said her rates went up 60% or some thing like that ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 1, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Video: Workers See for the First Time how Obamacare Affects their Premiums/Deductibles*
> ...


all I ask you is to go to the site ... look it up for your self see what it would cost you if you bought it yourself ... again its the insurance man that is telling you what it will cost you not the ACA... he's going to try and get as much money out of you that he can that's his job ... people who go to the site ... look up what it will cost them .. come back here and say wow !!!was I wrong as you will ... stop quoting your insurance man ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 1, 2014)

so if all those workers qualify for a subsidy 

the pyramid inverts even more 

with massive numbers of people dependent on the government 

with fewer and fewer paying the tab 

nothing like making more people dependent 

what a bunch of jackasses we have running the country


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 1, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and gentlemen.
> ...



well his 150,000 dollars is off ... the cut off for her is 95,000 that's for a family of 4 they will pay 680 dollars a month, not 1300 dollars with a 250 dollar emergency room cost with a max payout of 1200 that's it...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 1, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> so if all those workers qualify for a subsidy
> 
> the pyramid inverts even more
> 
> ...



I realize by your post alone you're not too bright ...you haven't look at the ACA bill ... look where it says how its paid for... some of the cost come from the people who can afford it, the people making over 120,000 dollars ... now mind you 90% of the American people make under 90,000 dollars ... the majority of the money comes from medical corporations paying 2.2% of their gross income ... so you, "the tax payer" aren't  getting the whole cost of every body...


----------



## Antares (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



*Beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 fulltime employees may be subject to new penalties.*

*Fulltime employees includes employees working 30 or more hours a week calculated on a monthly basis.
Fulltime equivalents are included for purposes of determining employment size. To calculate these employees aggregate the total monthly hours of parttime workers and divide by 120.*

Employer Mandate | AGC - The Associated General Contractors of America


----------



## longknife (Feb 1, 2014)

It's only going to get worse.

Dems are already running away from it as fast as they can.

Kinda curious if "you have to pass it in order to read it" will have trouble getting re-elected, even in her ultra-lefty district.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> They are supposed to be happy because what they are paying enables poor people to have insurance.  It's called redistribution.



It's amazing how not a single one of my company's clients that I've had to inform about their brand-new, never-had-one-before deductibles has said, "Well, thank God I'm paying for other people to have insurance."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



And that's the only way that insurance companies charge people, right?  Oops, no, sorry.  I talk to several people a day who now have spiffy brand-new deductibles and caps on their health insurance that they never did before ACA.  Most of them will never hit their yearly deductible because it's so high and they don't have catastrophic illnesses, so they're basically paying for their health care out-of-pocket.  Of those who DO have catastrophic, expensive illnesses, THEY get to deal with hitting their caps and not getting jack shit from their insurance.  They still get to pay the premiums, though.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



*sigh*

I never heard a single nutter whine about deductibles until this law came to be. There have always been deductibles....and they have always been hard to pay for people mired in our conservative generated freezing of real wages.

What caps? I think you might be mistaken about caps.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 2, 2014)

ACA is already impacting the future 'doctor' pool.

All of a sudden finishing the top of your class in medical school has lost it's shine

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 2, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> ACA is already impacting the future 'doctor' pool.
> 
> All of a sudden finishing the top of your class in medical school has lost it's shine
> 
> -Geaux



Let's add an anecdote here. 

My three kids all attended a regular public school here in central Florida. Nothing special about our demographic. Around 2000 students. 

Between the three of them, they have 9 friends who are either in medical school or are going to medical school. All intend to become doctors. I don't think any of them will decide to change their career path because they think they'll make too little money. 

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no shortage of young people who will pursue medicine as a career. There would be more if we did what we should do and pay for their education.


----------



## driveby (Feb 2, 2014)

You're lying.......


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



"*sigh*"  Do you work in the insurance field?  The healthcare field?  No?  They why the fuck would you EXPECT to hear "nutters whine" about deductibles, you ignorant pusbag?

On the other hand, those of us who DO work in those fields HAVE heard people complain about such things in the past, AND have observed a marked upswing in it to match the increase in deductibles and such being added to plans.  And I would say "Excuse me" for having increased YOUR hearing of "whining" about them - aka actually fucking informing you about what's going on in the world outside the sphincter you have your head so firmly planted in - except that I'm not sorry, since you're so woefully fucking overdue to wake up and become aware of something other than the liberal fantasyland you live your life in.

Anytime you just can't stand to "hear nutters whine", feel free to take your amazingly, breathtakingly useless presence elsewhere.  God knows, it's so much easier to be a leftist if you run away from anything that might even hint at real diversity or tolerance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ACA is already impacting the future 'doctor' pool.
> ...



Let's don't.  It adds nothing to the discussion, and quite frankly, no one here gives a shit about your personal life.  Save it for your therapist.



LoneLaugher said:


> My three kids all attended a regular public school here in central Florida. Nothing special about our demographic. Around 2000 students.
> 
> Between the three of them, they have 9 friends who are either in medical school or are going to medical school. All intend to become doctors. I don't think any of them will decide to change their career path because they think they'll make too little money.
> 
> I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no shortage of young people who will pursue medicine as a career. There would be more if we did what we should do and pay for their education.



I was right.  It added fuck-all to the discussion, and was incredibly dull.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 2, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



you're still stuck in the stupid mode I see ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 2, 2014)

lets try this again click on the chart and you will see what you will pay for a silver plan


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 3, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> lets try this again click on the chart and you will see what you will pay for a si;ver plan



Per person idiot!

Why don't you supply links to your graphs?


----------



## Politico (Feb 3, 2014)

Great. Too much multiplied by two is even more that they can't afford. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 3, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You seem upset. Maybe you should do something about that. It must be terribly frustrating to be so sure about things.....only to have the nation decide to ignore you.


----------



## paperview (Feb 3, 2014)

The video in the OP is a set up.  The news station was complicit. 

The agent in the video is a right wing nut job who has written negative articles about the ACA at American Thinker.

Don't believe me?  Check it out: Articles: ObamaCare: Designed for Failure

How about this article:  'I Am The Guilty Man'
lol. Complete with simmering Ayn Rand quotes and hating liberals with every fiber of his being.                 

Now, he just happens participate in a news report that  paints the ACA in a negative light. Riiiiiiight.  Just Coincidence, I'm sure.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The video in the OP is a set up.  The news station was complicit.
> 
> The agent in the video is a right wing nut job who has written negative articles about the ACA at American Thinker.
> 
> ...



Nicely done. It was only a meter of time. 

That video has been posted in the forums here at least a dozen times. It hit the echo chamber last week and caught on fire. 

It is great nutter porn.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 3, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > lets try this again click on the chart and you will see what you will pay for a si;ver plan
> ...



heres the web site
http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/301310/Health-Insurance-Tax-Subsidy-Charts

My post that you challenged me with, where you're saying I was full of it ...my post was based on per person... ME, I even said my cost is 250 a month ... there are other charts the show a family of 4 making less the 94,000... I've showed you that one too where it shows a family of 4 pays 680 dollars a month ... and I posted that web site which was the ACA web site ... Where you went silent ... now you coming back again trying to prove WHAT ???? you're poving that they ones who claim that they have these 
outrageous cost for health care haven't even gone to the ACA web site.... If I remembere correctly you found out that your software was out dated and that's why you coulnd't get on... and if I'm wrong my question to you is how come you have gone to the web site to see what you would pay ...

Finally one of the reason I don't post web sites are you people on the right always say "well that's a liberal site so it doesn't count...  so why would I waste my time just to here you say well that's a liberal site it doesn't count ... here's a though... prove me wrong in my statement ... prove that I lied


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 3, 2014)

I know I got screwed under ACA. Hope the deadbeats are enjoying the free ride on my dime

-Geaux

My premium increased by $168 a month or by $2016 per year

From Page 5 AND 6 of this thread
===========================
Page-5

Your share will increase for Self Only and Self and Family. See the back cover. 

&#8226; The copay for inpatient hospitalization has changed to $150/day up to 5 days. See page 44. 
&#8226; The copay for inpatient mental health and substance abuse hospitalization has changed to $150/day up to 5 days. See page 
50. 
&#8226; The Primary care physician office visit including mental health office visit copay has changed to $20 copay. See Sections 
5a, 5b and 5e. 
&#8226; The copay for Outpatient hospital or ambulatory surgical center/outpatient surgery copay has changed to $200. See page 
45. 
&#8226; The CT scan copay has changed to $200. See page 24.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > lets try this again click on the chart and you will see what you will pay for a si;ver plan
> ...



Because if you found out where he got the shit he quotes, you'd laugh at him even harder than you do now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Ahh, leftists.  "I said stupid shit, and you called me on it.  That must mean I upset you!"

Yes, watching you be a damned blithering moron and brag about it DOES tend to irritate me.  I'm not sure if you should be proud of being a walking advertisement for seriously late-term abortions, though.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 3, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You think I said stupid shit, huh? Isn't that special?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Not really.  You ALWAYS say stupid shit.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 3, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Tell me more.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 3, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Didn't you know you're supposed to be intimidated when insulted by an IP Address?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Like you, he takes it as a compliment that anyone noticed his existence at all.  It's a leftie thing.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 4, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



No, I didn't go silent. Go back and check the thread.
I posted real time photos from Covered California of a family of four who made $95k, received no subsidies. With their premium and deductibles met before any insurance benefits kicked in it cost them $20,000 a year.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...oid-death-spiral-post8502512.html#post8502512  post #17


The ACA isn't a 'liberal website'. If I were you I would stick with the ACA website for reference.

The chart from the blog is wrong. The penalty is (was) $95 at the time the blogger blogged it.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 4, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



looked before you leaped huh ??? nothing Like the ACA site for your info ... the problem you have is you're stupid ... where lonelaugher has proved beyond a reasonable doubt ... he's have a feild dat with you ...you haven't a clue what you're talking about ...you just hate the black man in  the white house ... we get it ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 4, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



here's what these bloggers do... the fact thats says you got it from as blogger says it all ... these bloggers go to a health care provider, that they find to be the most costly plan to you then say see it cost them this outrageous amount of money ... then people like you lap it up ...the fact that Ive shown you and others on these web sites where an family of 4 in California paid 680 dollars a month tell you they had the right plan and the person you chose had the wrong plan ... their are thousands of providers to choose from ... I'm for one don't have the time to find me the right plan that's why my plan was pick for me by a health care broker ... that's what they do ... if you are so stupid to believe that you can pick a plan for your self among thousands of providers, well all i can say is I hope you don't do your own taxes ... I know I don't ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 4, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



 if I were you I would suggest you too stick to the ACA web site ... because nothing you have shown here is actually the truth ... one more time its a right wing Blogger you are using ... they aren't for what I believe ... they are for what they can convince people like you how bad liberal Ideas are ... when you learn that you'll stop going to bloggers...


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 4, 2014)

.

No surprises here:

CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017 - Yahoo Finance

I know, I know:  "Tough shit", the standard response.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



You're actually - ACTUALLY - trying to boast about how you were so right, because the _ACA website_ agrees with you?  And LoneLaugher?  Really?

Okay, you really have to tell me.  How much DO those lobotomy scars itch?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> No surprises here:
> 
> ...



Two million fewer workers? That is horrible! Why....if I didn't know better, I would say that Obamacare is going to cost 2 million jobs. Right?


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2014)

You think it will only be two million. Bless your heart.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 5, 2014)

Publius1787 said:


> *Video: Workers See for the First Time how Obamacare Affects their Premiums/Deductibles*
> 
> WTAE-PA: Pennsylvania Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs From ObamaCare - YouTube



I posted that last week.

Liberals made it clear they didn't care about the suffering they caused.

Made it clear to me that there is way more evil in this world than I thought


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 5, 2014)

love this thread.

Don't like paying higher premiums?  Well sign up for the gubmits shit!  It won't cost as much, but never mind the fact that it's going to suck to use, b/c all gov ins sucks to use.


but, but, it'll work this time



The fact you people call yourselves 'liberals' is insulting to the word 'liberty'


----------



## paperview (Feb 5, 2014)

*#FakingNews: Local PGH station stands by fraudulent Obamacare coverage*



> There  has been a rash of Obamacare horror stories making headlines across  the country that, when exposed to a little scrutiny, are revealed to be completely bogus.
> 
> It started when Sean Hannity trotted out three couples with easily debunkable claims,
> 
> ...





> *The problem is, despite the sensationalized graphics the story is void of crucial facts and information.*
> 
> First, the story leaves out the fact that small business with fewer  than 50 full-time employees  the Simonettas have 7  are not required  to offer insurance under Obamacare.
> 
> ...


Read more here: #FakingNews: Local PGH station stands by fraudulent ?Obamacare? coverage - HearYourselfThink.org

[Meet the Obama-hating Tea Partisan who WTAE presented as a neutral, credible source on Obamacare:


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Irresponsible half-journalism. Nutters love that shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

Hoosier4Liberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > obviously staged
> ...



We can beat the Dems easily by regaining the center, which means downplaying the far right's disdain of female, minority, Hispanic, and gay issues.

Notice none of those are about small government or taxes, of which I favor both, when possible.

People and their needs and lives come first in prioritizing government service to me.

We can't by yelling at Dems if we are not championing people and their needs and showing how we can do that.

We will keep losing the center as we did in 2008 and 2012 if we do it your way, because the demographic began shifting dramatically after 2004.

Do you want to win elections?  Think people not Democratic Party.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Politico said:


> You think it will only be two million. Bless your heart.



It is a prediction! More than 2 million jobs will be lost on account of Obamacare? 

When will this begin? The shit has been law for three years now. We are not......I repeat NOT....losing jobs in this country. 

In fact, we are gaining the. Have been for something like 50 straight months. 

When the fuck are these job losses going to start? 

Give a fucking month and year. Make. Prediction with some bite to it.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 5, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...





billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



The ACA website is for States who didn't sign on to the Fed ACA and created their own exchange. 

Many bloggers post opinion slanted to their ideology.
Bloggers come from all pol persuasion.

In the state I live in Covered Cal IS part of the Fed ACA.
Most states who run their own HC exchange were  lured by medicaid dollars.

ACA  only kicks the can down the road.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

Antares said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



 I voted for McCain and Obama.

Your industry is getting what it earned, Antares.

Tuff dat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > You think it will only be two million. Bless your heart.
> ...



Most of these job "losses" are folks now willing to downscale their working hours or retire because they can get affordable, accessible, quality health care.

No one should be tied to job to get health care, the model that Antares prefers.  Work until you die but keep paying your health care.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 5, 2014)

Zander said:


> Nothing to worry about. Right Democrats?  When every company in the country has these types of meetings over the next year, that won't hurt Democrat prospects, right?



I thought the strategy was to blame Republicans.
That Reagan passed the law pushing all public health care costs onto hospitals and ER.
Then the Democrats tried to pass laws to reform it by mandating insurance to provide more insurance coverage and take the burden off abusing ER/hospitals as first point of service, but passed a flawed bill (also blamed on GOP) to start pushing even that to be reformed.
And the Republicans were supposed to come up with a better alternative
instead of shutting down govt throwing a hissy fit over socialized medicine.

So the Democrats are the underdog good guys, and the Republicans need to provide a fix
instead of abusing this for political points. Because Democrats "NEVER" do that!

Never mind all the other ways that health care costs could be REDUCED or PAID FOR.

[Such as revamping the criminal justice and immigration system to hold people accountable for costs who ARE receiving services at taxpayers expense, instead of charging these to taxpayers who aren't breaking any laws or imposing these costs.]


----------



## Meister (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Everything you say is stupid shit, Lone Goofball.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Pay no attention to what happened in 2010 you moron.

Biggest political bitch slap since the 40's.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Spout that Bammy line Fakey.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



Poor Jake, you voted for Obama...the fact that you voted for Obama at all makes everything you post about being a Repub an absolute lie.

But then all of us knew that.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > You think it will only be two million. Bless your heart.
> ...



You aren't real bright kid.....the "jobs" being created are those part time jobs you love so well


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



No they aren't. But don't concern yourself with being accurate.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



*Obama Recovery: 88% of Jobs Created in 2013 are Part-Time! *

*According to Mort Zuckerman, a stunning 88% of jobs created in 2013 are part-time. In case you were wondering if this was historic, yeah, yeah it is.

Appearing on PBSs McLaughlin Group, Zuckerman said late last month, 88 percent of the jobs that have been created this year are part-time jobs. A large part of the reason for that number of part-time jobs which is unprecedented in American history is because people are apprehensive about the impact of ObamaCare on and the costs of ObamaCare on full-time jobs.*

Obama Recovery: 88% of Jobs Created in 2013 are Part-Time! | Independent Journal Review

*75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due To Weak Economy, Obamacare Concerns*

*U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that President Barack Obama's signature health care law will drive up business costs are behind the wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and payroll firms say.
*

75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due To Weak Economy, Obamacare Concerns

You're welcome.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Cuccinelli says most new jobs have been part-time since Obamacare became law | PolitiFact Virginia

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capito...-part-time-as-obama-critics-say-probably-not/


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Cuccinelli says most new jobs have been part-time since Obamacare became law | PolitiFact Virginia
> 
> Are most new jobs part-time, as Obama critics say? Probably not - Capitol Report - MarketWatch



I used HuffPo just for you 

Just thank me.....thank me for informing you.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

*Among franchised businesses, 27 percent report their company has replaced full-time workers with part-time workers and 31 percent have reduced worker hours. Among non-franchised businesses, 12 percent are replacing full-time workers with part-time workers or reducing hours. This is happening now, with more than a year before the mandate goes into effect; and undoubtedly, these numbers will rise as we approach next July's "look back" period for tabulating workers' hours*

*This shift to more part-time workers reflects a specific problem within the ACA &#8212; the definition of a full-time worker. The ACA mandates that any business with more than 50 full-time equivalent workers must provide health-care coverage or potentially pay a penalty. Rather than the traditional 40-hour work week definition, the ACA redefined a full-time worker as anyone working 30 or more hours a week, averaged over the course of a month. For many employers already dealing with thin margins, the threat of these extra costs make reducing hours a business necessity &#8212; and could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business.*

Business backlash: Obamacare's part-time jobs problem?Commentary

CNBC, CLEARLY a "rightwing" source.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > You think it will only be two million. Bless your heart.
> ...






> *When will this begin?*


Bug off with your 'demands' and do your own research. You're in denial, don't do the hard research nor work in the healthcare industry.


> *The shit has been law for three years now. *


Now that statement I agree with!



> We are not......I repeat NOT....losing jobs in this country.
> 
> In fact, we are gaining the. Have been for something like 50 straight months.


The mere fact employers are cutting hours to <30 per week in order to comply with the ACA mandate which states 30 hours per week consists of 'full time' has cut  full time employment to 3/4 time.

And then there's this:

*ACA Coverage Mandate Could Hurt Some Calif. Workers*
Under the Affordable Care Act, large firms must provide health care coverage to employees who work at least 30 hours per week. 




> When the fuck are these job losses going to start?
> Give a fucking month and year. Make. Prediction with some bite to it.



It's already started.



> As a witness at the hearing , chaired by Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts, I testified that the new law will reduce employment in America, particularly for low-skill workers, because employers face a higher cost of labor.
> 
> Whenever possible, firms will substitute high-skill for low-skill labor, part-time for full-time workers, machinery for people, and refrain from hiring a 50th worker, which can make them liable for penalties.


Obamacare will reduce U.S. employment - Diana Furchtgott-Roth - MarketWatch



According to our resident expert Greenbeard  (whom I secretly have a crush on ... but...   ) -


Greenbeard said:


> Hi all.
> The CBO's annual budget outlook came out and it's got some pretty good news in it.
> 
> *Premiums are cheaper than they expected when determining the cost of the law* This became obvious last year when the actual premiums were first released but, to their credit, the CBO copped to it in their first projection post-premiums being announced. As they say: "CBO and JCT *lowered their estimate of average premiums for insurance coverage through exchanges in 2014 by about 15 percent* on the basis of a preliminary analysis of plans offered through exchanges." Similarly, projections of federal subsidies per subsidized enrollee dropped by about 11% as costs turned out to be lower than expected.
> ...


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 6, 2014)

All this wishful thinking would be cute if you were wishing for good things to happen, nutters.


----------



## Politico (Feb 6, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



It ha squat to do with a weak economy. It is all about not having to offer insurance. Easier to let the taxpayers pay for the subsidies.


----------



## Antares (Feb 6, 2014)

Politico said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Take it up with CBO report that Greenteeth did not read, it is their point also.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Dear Jake: instead of wasting resources competing AGAINST each other,
why not challenge each party to raise money to fix problems the way they believe in.

Then people can vote with their dollars and membership which programs represent what policies and leadership they want to pay for and be under.

I'd like your feedback and comments to my proposed draft of points and rules
to present to party leaders, to pay back the public for 24 billion estimated in costs
during the last govt shut down. Please see other thread and post as many objections or suggestions as you can think of. I will ask party leaders and members to review the
list and formulate a joint proposal to Congress and candidates to start investing
campaign funds and resources to train future leaders BASED ON THESE CORRECTIONS.

Thanks, Jake
Hope you have a productive and prosperous year ahead!


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hoosier4Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Dear Jake: instead of wasting resources competing AGAINST each other,
why not challenge each party to raise money to fix problems the way they believe in.

Then people can vote with their dollars and membership which programs represent what policies and leadership they want to pay for and be under.

I'd like your feedback and comments to my proposed draft of points and rules
to present to party leaders, to pay back the public for 24 billion estimated in costs
during the last govt shut down. Please see other thread and post as many objections or suggestions as you can think of. I will ask party leaders and members to review the
list and formulate a joint proposal to Congress and candidates to start investing
campaign funds and resources to train future leaders BASED ON THESE CORRECTIONS:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/338909-rules-for-party-leaders-on-passing-laws.html

Thank you, Jake
Hope you have a productive and prosperous year ahead!

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## oreo (Feb 6, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...




Ha.Ha.  *the Workforce participation rate in this country has SHRUNK to a 40 year low.*  Liberals forget that those that give up looking for jobs are no longer counted in the unemployment statistics.



> As of November, the Labor Department reports, 63 percent of Americans had a job or were actively seeking work. That&#8217;s the lowest level since April, 1978&#8212;nearly 36 years ago.


How much is Obama to blame for the worst labor participation rate in 40 years?

Congressional Budget Office


> Lost amidst the furor over the Affordable Care Act and its effect on jobs is a much more worrisome trend in the labor market: the labor force participation rate continues to decline. In a separate report released yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the labor force participation rate would decline from 62.9% in the fourth quarter of 2013 to 60.8% by 2024.


http://www.businessinsider.com/our-labor-force-is-shrinking-here-are-five-ways-to-fix-it-2014-2

This is why unemployment drops--yet we still have millions of unemployed or underemployed in this country.   We still have 49 million Americans receiving food stamps.

When Obamacare hits the employer mandate in 2015 there will be millions more that will be strung out in part-time jobs working no more than 29 hours per week because of the Obamacare mandate.







*Welcome to your hope and change!*


----------



## Antares (Feb 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



Jake, you said you voted for Obama.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



People, we all know Jake is a Republican the way I'm the president of NOW.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Antares never does ... he's good for blurting out nonsense, other then that nothing else .... but what does one expect from a party of surrendermonkeys


----------



## Antares (Feb 12, 2014)

Poor Billy......you just don't like facts.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



that's just one year ....what about the other 4 years???? I guess only one year counts in your mind .... you want us to believe that 88% of the jobs created the entire time obama has been in office are all part time ... nice try 

Alan Krueger on Friday, August 2nd, 2013 in an interview with Bloomberg television

Alan Krueger, top economist to Obama, says most new jobs since health care law passed are full time

Share this story:

Alan Krueger, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said that most jobs created since passage of the health care law have been full-time positions. Is that correct?

Policymakers and pundits are spending a lot of time these days talking about part-time jobs -- whether they are becoming more common at the expense of full-time jobs, and how problematic that is.

Republicans note that President Barack Obamas health care law requires larger employers to provide health insurance to their workers, which they say gives companies an incentive to cut workers hours so much that they become part-time workers and thus exempt from the health insurance mandate.

And beyond the question of Obamacares incentives, some economists worry that since the most recent recession, companies have been unusually willing to hire part-time workers rather than full-time workers.

We recently noticed two seemingly contradictory comments on this topic -- one from a Republican, one from a Democrat -- and thought it would be worthwhile checking both.

In this item, we will check a comment made by Alan Krueger, the chairman of Obamas Council of Economic Advisers, during an interview with Sara Eisen of Bloomberg television.

Eisen asked Krueger whether were "creating a part-time economy. The news is filled with stories of small businesses and colleges cutting back worker's hours or putting a freeze on hiring."

He responded, "I think that's highly misleading. Since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions." (The Affordable Care Act is the more formal name of Obamas health care law.)

In the other item, we checked a claim made by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that "this year, the overwhelming majority of new jobs are part-time."

These two comments paint sharply different pictures, so we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For Krueger, we checked the change in full-time and part-time employment between March 2010 and July 2013, then determined which of the two types of employment accounted for a larger share of the increase in overall employment. Heres the summary:


March 2010 full time 111,195,000 part time 27,527,000

July 2013 full time 116,090,000 part time 28,233,000

Change full time 4,895,000 part time 706,000



*So Krueger is right -- 87 percent of the increase in employment over this period came from full-time jobs.

Still, we will note that if you use a shorter time horizon, such as calendar year 2013, a large percentage of jobs created were part-time positions.

In other words, by choosing the time frame carefully, you can find support for either side of this argument.
*
Our ruling

Krueger said that "since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions." The statistics show that 87 percent of the increase in jobs between March 2010 and July 2013 consisted of full-time jobs. A shorter time frame would show the opposite pattern, but on the numbers, Krueger is right. We rate the claim True.

*those are the facts that you seem to allude Antares*


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> Poor Billy......you just don't like facts.


Poor Antares.... he wouldn't know a fact if he saw one ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 12, 2014)

Politico said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy ... try again


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 12, 2014)

Please share with us, Billy, as to who pays for the subsidies.


----------



## Antares (Feb 12, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Billy......you just don't like facts.
> ...



Meaning in your pointy little head nothing that disputes anything you say can possibly be a "fact".

You are too funny.


----------



## Antares (Feb 12, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You really ARE stupid.
Where does the Gov get the money to pay the subsidies?

This is much too easy....you just aren't up to this.


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Hopefully Billy was kidding when he said "sorry, pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"


----------



## Antares (Feb 12, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



He stepped on his dick, it will be fun to how he tries to get out of this one


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> tennisbum said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I want a front row seat to hear his explanation.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 13, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> Please share with us, Billy, as to who pays for the subsidies.



sure I would love to educate you ... if you look at the ACA bill where the subsidy money comes for are medical supply companies, companies who make meds ... each and every company they get 2.2% of their gross income ... see that's what happens when you read the ACA bill ...you know something about what your talking about ... in this case you don't


----------



## Antares (Feb 13, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> tennisbum said:
> 
> 
> > Please share with us, Billy, as to who pays for the subsidies.
> ...



Cite it billy boy, we all know you are a liar, so cite it please


----------



## Antares (Feb 13, 2014)

Tell the whole story because if you don't I'll shove your lies up your ass tonight


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 13, 2014)

Antares said:


> Tell the whole story because if you don't I'll shove your lies up your ass tonight



Damn!  Now I have that image in my head.


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 13, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> tennisbum said:
> 
> 
> > Please share with us, Billy, as to who pays for the subsidies.
> ...



OMG...are you for real?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 14, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > tennisbum said:
> ...



in one of the arguments with the white house Boehner wanted to pass with the budget bill, was to remove the clause in the ACA bill to cut the tax that was being charged to medical equipment and companies that made drugs ... in the press and in the bill the white house pointed out along with the democrats said no to this ... the reason they gave that was said by president  was that 60 % of the subsidies came from these taxes ... by removing it it would cause the ACA to fail ... the other were based on people who made over 250,000 dollars who bought health care said ... my point was the people who get subsidies don't pay taxes for those subsidy ... lie I said read the bil for once in your life ...

PS I've posted this before and everything went silent ... the other thing is if this is a lie, instead of me proving it to you its not, like I've done in the past, because this isn't the first time this was said by you clowns ... how about you doing some GOD damn research for once in your measly life ... see where the money comes from ... with that proof, prove me wrong... I believe it was you on the weight lifter that paralyzed himself from the waste down ... you call me a liar there too ... I posted the article word for word and you kept coming back and calling me a liar because some regulation you pointed out that said they couldn't compete if they didn't have insurance ... I posted the article from FOX NEWS ...showing you and every body else here where the article it self said exactly what I posted and yet you couldn't believe the article from fox news , which is understandable, and prove me wrong,  you didn't ... you didn't have a leg to stand on ... but you kept calling me a lair and demanding me to prove that you didn't have to have insurance to get in to the contest... all I did was post the article from Fox news where it was asking people to donate money because this weight lifter didn't have insurance and you went ballistic and couldn't accept the fact that even fox news was saying it ... you insisted I was a liar ... that's was your proof you said I lied because you said so thats your proof...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 14, 2014)

The Cost Of Subsidies

But the authors of the Affordable Care Act didn't want the subsidies to become a drain on the Treasury and add to the deficits. So they included provisions designed to offset the cost of the subsidies.

*MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says a little over half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies*.

"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."

Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By the CBO's accounting, Obamacare will produce a surplus. Gruber says the law will "actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after."

However, many Republicans have expressed skepticism about those findings.


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 14, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Cost Of Subsidies
> 
> But the authors of the Affordable Care Act didn't want the subsidies to become a drain on the Treasury and add to the deficits. So they included provisions designed to offset the cost of the subsidies.
> 
> ...



Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?  Hmm.  Then there seems to be some contradiction with your statement.  You mean families with incomes above $250,000 are  not taxpayers?


----------



## Antares (Feb 14, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Cost Of Subsidies
> 
> But the authors of the Affordable Care Act didn't want the subsidies to become a drain on the Treasury and add to the deficits. So they included provisions designed to offset the cost of the subsidies.
> 
> ...



First, I congratulate you, you told the truth for once.

Second....

*the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals.*

So we ARE cutting Dr and Hospital reimbursements...
I love that word "projected", it means nothing.

Third.....
*Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies*

Which will be passed on to consumers....

*"Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."*

Can you tell me where the Gov gets the money to pay Medicare costs?


----------



## Antares (Feb 14, 2014)

Medicare funding....

*Part A is largely funded by revenue from a 2.9 percent payroll tax levied on employers and workers (each pay 1.45 percent). *

Taxes.

*for individuals or $250,000 for couples filing jointly and rose to 3.8% on income in excess of those amounts to help partially fund the subsidies included in PPACA.[8]*

Taxes.

*Parts B and D are partially funded by premiums paid by Medicare enrollees **and general fund revenue. In 2006 a surtax was added to Part B premium for higher-income seniors to partially fund Part D.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Taxes.

Taxes Billy Boy.....you lose.

Again.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



Jake voted for obama?  Huh, he always touted that he was for Romney.  I thought that meant he voted for Romney.  Looks like I was wrong. 

Hey Jake, what gives with this?  Why didn't you vote for Mittens?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 11, 2014)

Antares said:


> Medicare funding....
> 
> *Part A is largely funded by revenue from a 2.9 percent payroll tax levied on employers and workers (each pay 1.45 percent). *
> 
> ...



I commented on this before to you ... what you've don here is posted a inaccurate post ... you always do ... the original poster said they will be taxed higher for the subsidies ... and again I said the middle class doesn't pay any increased taxes on it ...what you posted here is what a person who makes 250,000 ,dollars or more ... they can afford a .06 increase ...and they aren't middle class workers .. the middle class worker doesn't pay more taxes and that's something you can't deny ... pay attention ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 11, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The Cost Of Subsidies
> ...



I said the middle class tax payer doesn't pay more in taxes ...not the 250,000 dollar tax payer ....they aren't the middle class ... pay attention!!!


----------



## Rozman (Mar 11, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Huh, and I got called a liar by  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] went I said ours went up 44%.  He was saying everyone was lying who was claiming these outrageous increase.



Well the lefties when hearing criticism of their leader fall back 
on  calling racism or people lying.

I cancelled a scheduled doctors appointment and a dentist appointment today.
I just can't handle the out of pocket expenses right now.


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare funding....
> ...



You are a liar Billy, YOU said the "taxpayer" would not pay the subsidies, stop lying.


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



 [MENTION=34581]jake[/MENTION] Starkey

Yup, Jake typed it, Jake voted for Obama.


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



*sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy ... try again*

Nothing about "middle class" there  Billy Boi".


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



@ Jake Starkey

Hey Jake, I found where you said it again!!!!!


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
I also wanted such a mixed ticket. I thought Obama would make a better Vice President,
and could build his networks to prove his programs work, before running for President.


----------



## Antares (Apr 2, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Are you yanking his chain on purpose?
He swears I hacked his account and typed that!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 2, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Are you suggesting the "average folks" don't have subsidies?

And what is an average folks to you?


----------



## oreo (Apr 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Here are the state by state comparison to the premium spikes due to the Obamacare mandates.  







Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

Antares said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



??? So he was just saying that to be sarcastic?
I thought you were quoting him for real, sorry!

But then I don't always know WHAT people are saying these days.

I heard that Reid called all the insurance horror stories "lies"
then I heard he DENIED he EVER said that even though there was video.

So what the heck,
maybe I should give up trying to keep track.

No, I wasn't trying to incite anyone.
I think I chased away Luddly and maybe Paperview.

But Jake seems quite willing to stand his ground
and explain objections and points rationally. He generally makes sense to me.

We probably agree on a lot of the same problems with govt,
but mainly disagree on who deserves more blame for them.


----------



## Antares (Apr 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I am telling you that the "average" premium rate went up 44% across the Nation.

I am telling you that not everyone gets a subsidy, and I am telling you that many who do still can't afford the Coverage.

I am also telling you that it is worse coverage than they could get before.


----------



## Antares (Apr 2, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



No he typed it, but he was saying he Voted for McCain the first time and Bammy the second.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

Thanks for this link.

NOTE: I noticed the report cited a 99% increase in rates for men and 62% for women.
Isn't that discrimination by gender? If the ACA is going to punish the taxpayers, at least punish men and women equally! Gee whiz! 

[1]Quoted in Avik Roy, *Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg Individual Market Insurance Premiums by 99 Percent for Men, 62 Percent for Women,* Forbes, September 25, 2013, Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women - Forbes (accessed October 11, 2013).




oreo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


----------



## Yurt (Apr 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



saved


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 15, 2014)

oreo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



An average of all plans sold doesn't mean much. Individual market plans pre-ACA were often pretty skimpy (a "bronze-level" plan in the ACA individual market is actually more generous than a lot of plans offered in the pre-ACA market).

Obviously the fact that there are more generous plans available means the average premium of a plan is higher. That doesn't mean you can't still buy a cheap plan.

Your chart says the average premium for a 27-year-old in Alabama pre-ACA individual market was $165.

The average premium in Alabama for someone that age by each of the ACA's metal tiers this year is:

Catastrophic: $137.04
Bronze: $159.41
Silver: $202.31
Gold: $254.37
Platinum: $304.03

That's before any income-related subsidies and it's an average for the metal tier, not the cheapest plan available in that metal tier.

Catastrophic and bronze plans are cheaper than that pre-ACA average under the ACA, silver and gold are higher.

The premium of the average plan (period) went up largely because prior to the ACA, catastrophic- and bronze-level plans (or sub-those level) plans were the norm. There are actually more generous plans available in the market now, if folks want to buy them. There are also, of course, subsidies available now to make it more reasonable for folks to buy better coverage, so many have.

But the idea that people can't buy plans that were comparable (or cheaper) in price than pre-ACA plans is just wrong. Folks just have financial assistance and options now to buy better plans that they didn't before.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...


 Correction above


----------



## Yurt (Apr 16, 2014)

such dishonest back peddling it cracks me up

you were told about this several times after you posted and you never once corrected it...now i call you out and you dishonestly claim it was a mistake.  

LOL...you outed yourself dude


----------



## Truthbetold (Apr 16, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to worry about. Right Democrats?  When every company in the country has these types of meetings over the next year, that won't hurt Democrat prospects, right?
> ...



I think the video is showing you who is paying for the discount you are currently getting.


----------



## Truthbetold (Apr 16, 2014)

I bought Obamacare insurance myself.  I enrolled my wife in my company plan and she enrolled me in her company plan.  This way im insured from having to buy this horrendous tax even if one of us looses our job.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 16, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Lord knows I have yet to talk to a patient who said, "Ohmigod, my coverage is SO MUCH BETTER now than it was last year!"

Got to explain to a woman today that her copayments for generic medications - generics! - had just doubled.  Good times.


----------



## Antares (May 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Hoosier4Liberty said:
> ...



*Bump*

Just because jake is an ass.


----------



## Politico (May 23, 2014)

Truthbetold said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



No it is showing the discounts that don't offset the increased premiums that people can't afford.


----------



## Antares (Oct 1, 2014)

Bump


----------

