Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.

Yeah, you're the one to talking about ignorance. The only one ignorant of anything here is you. Ignorant of basic economics just like our President. You haven't even attempted to debunk anything I've said. Naturally because you can't. You can't deny the insurance premiums of an aweful lot of people are going to go up. You can't deny an insurance based solution that can't charge on the basis of risk has zero chance of bringing costs down. You can't deny taxing medical devices is going to get passed on to conusmers. You can't deny Obama lied about people being able to keep their doctors and plans.

You can't deny that treating the poor using appropriate health care rather than emergency services will save lots of money.

Nor that a healthier population will be great for business.

Nor that better management of contagious diseases because everyone has access to health will be a cost saver.

You seem to want to ignore that we are paying 2X the rest of the world for mediocre health care. And you seem to see no room for improvement.

Bizarre.

I see plenty of room for improvement. I'm just not dumb enough to believe that what our health care expenses are entirely attributable to the current system. The habits of individuals play a large role in that. We are one of the most obese nations in the world. You think all the problems that come with that don't play some role in how much gets spent on health care?

There are plenty of improvements that can be made. I've never said otherwise. This particular solution is just completely illogical. If YOU were really interested in improving the system you would see that.

 

[Bern80]

Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.

Yeah, you're the one to talking about ignorance. The only one ignorant of anything here is you. Ignorant of basic economics just like our President. You haven't even attempted to debunk anything I've said. Naturally because you can't. You can't deny the insurance premiums of an aweful lot of people are going to go up. You can't deny an insurance based solution that can't charge on the basis of risk has zero chance of bringing costs down. You can't deny taxing medical devices is going to get passed on to conusmers. You can't deny Obama lied about people being able to keep their doctors and plans.

One other thing. What in the law requires people to change health care insurance plans?

The part of it that says not only must you have a plan, you must have a QUALIFYING plan. The other is yet another unintended consequence of the law that the insurance industry and employers had to adjust to the new law by dumping the benefit. Even Obama could have been so stupid as to think that wasn't going to happen. So when he says you can keep your plan and Walgreens dumps a bunch of people from their plan that becomes a lie.

 

[Bern80]

they wouldn't cost much at all if i was running things. and why do you use another one of your failed liberal policies to try to justify one of your new failed liberal policies

Simple. Because I think as someone said earlier, if said liberal, government intervention policy fails, it just means government didn't intervene enough.

That sounds like the conservative mantra. If doing nothing doesn't solve problems, try doing less.

No. It means you wake the fuck up and realize government tends to screw more up than they actually help. Obamacare is already turning out to be no exception.

 

[Politico]

Yeah it could be fixed. Would take about five minutes.

 

[PMZ]

here is the problem with obamacare. it was designed to do one thing. and that was provide healthcare to the poor. ok, a novel idea, with good intentions. but it wasn't healthcare reform. and we need to separate the two issues that exist. healthcare is borken. even for people who have it and can afford it. that has to be fixed first. you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.

obamacare is nothing more than a massive entitlement program consuming 1/6th of the GDP. it is not affordable, it is not sustainable. it doesn't address reforming the issues within our current healtcare system at all.

It designed to do many things.

Providing an alternate for the poor to get their own coverage rather than using emergency rooms.

Mandatory health insurance for everyone.

Shut down insurance problems like pre-existing conditions.

Keep young adults on their parents policies longer.

Exchanges to promote cost/coverage shopping more transparently.

so like i was saying, its a giant entitlement program

It's what Republicans failed to do. Take action to make our health care non-system competitive. They took the typical conservative action of doing nothing. What was accomplished by that?

Why, nothing of course.

 

[PMZ]

so like i was saying, its a giant entitlement program

You mean like the Bushman's wealth redistribution tax cuts?

If we are so entitlement minded, how come we have one of the most skewed wealth distributions towards the wealthy on the earth?

You really do get dumber by the post. How exactly do tax cuts for EVERYONE become wealth redistribution?

By making tax cuts for the wealthy large and long lived and tax cuts for the middle class small and very temporary. Where do you think our massive debt came from?

 

[Bern80]

You mean like the Bushman's wealth redistribution tax cuts?

If we are so entitlement minded, how come we have one of the most skewed wealth distributions towards the wealthy on the earth?

You really do get dumber by the post. How exactly do tax cuts for EVERYONE become wealth redistribution?

By making tax cuts for the wealthy large and long lived and tax cuts for the middle class small and very temporary. Where do you think our massive debt came from?

Actually it was the poor and middle class that received the largest cuts in income tax and they were permanent. It was only the tax cuts on the wealthy Obama wanted to repeal.

 

[PMZ]

You really do get dumber by the post. How exactly do tax cuts for EVERYONE become wealth redistribution?

By making tax cuts for the wealthy large and long lived and tax cuts for the middle class small and very temporary. Where do you think our massive debt came from?

Actually it was the poor and middle class that received the largest cuts in income tax and they were permanent. It was only the tax cuts on the wealthy Obama wanted to repeal.

If anybody falls for this bullshit they deserve to be ignorant.

Most middle class people got two checks for around $250.

The wealthy got substantial rate reductions for a dozen years which Obama ended as soon as Republicans could no longer hold stimulus money hostage for continued tax rate reduction for the wealthy.

This is all on top of a max rate for taxes on income from wealth of 15 percent.

 

[Bern80]

By making tax cuts for the wealthy large and long lived and tax cuts for the middle class small and very temporary. Where do you think our massive debt came from?

Actually it was the poor and middle class that received the largest cuts in income tax and they were permanent. It was only the tax cuts on the wealthy Obama wanted to repeal.

If anybody falls for this bullshit they deserve to be ignorant.

Most middle class people got two checks for around $250.

The wealthy got substantial rate reductions for a dozen years which Obama ended as soon as Republicans could no longer hold stimulus money hostage for continued tax rate reduction for the wealthy.

This is all on top of a max rate for taxes on income from wealth of 15 percent.

Are you stupid? It was a tax CUT. Not a one time check. I repeat, the income tax rates for ALL Americans went down. The income tax of the middle class and poor were cut the most.

 

[PMZ]

Actually it was the poor and middle class that received the largest cuts in income tax and they were permanent. It was only the tax cuts on the wealthy Obama wanted to repeal.

If anybody falls for this bullshit they deserve to be ignorant.

Most middle class people got two checks for around $250.

The wealthy got substantial rate reductions for a dozen years which Obama ended as soon as Republicans could no longer hold stimulus money hostage for continued tax rate reduction for the wealthy.

This is all on top of a max rate for taxes on income from wealth of 15 percent.

Are you stupid? It was a tax CUT. Not a one time check. I repeat, the income tax rates for ALL Americans went down. The income tax of the middle class and poor were cut the most.

No. I have a memory. I listen to news.

 

[PMZ]

From:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

''The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.''

''The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.''

''The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.''

Between tax cuts and wars, the Bushwacker all but guaranteed two things.

Massive deficits rather than PAYING OFF the entire NATIONAL DEBT.

The most dysfunctional wealth distribution in American history.

Conservatives want power to continue in these directions.

 

[Bern80]

From:

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

''The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.''

''The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.''

''The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.''

Between tax cuts and wars, the Bushwacker all but guaranteed two things.

Massive deficits rather than PAYING OFF the entire NATIONAL DEBT.

The most dysfunctional wealth distribution in American history.

Conservatives want power to continue in these directions.

The above is what we call 'passing the buck'. 'No, it's not our spending that's the problem. It's that you, John Q. Taxpayer, aren't giving us enough money.' And the idea that any of the above is actually bad is predicated on the assumption that it's bad if government takes in less money. The only way it's 'bad' is to the politicians who have less money to spend. Them not adjusting their spending accordingly doesn't mean the cuts were a bad idea.

 

[Flopper]

Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:

1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.

2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.

3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?

4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.

Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.

Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.

Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.

So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?



If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?



Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?

And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?

No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...

AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.

But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.

So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?

If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.

The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.

Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.

 

[PMZ]

From:

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

''The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.''

''The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.''

''The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.''

Between tax cuts and wars, the Bushwacker all but guaranteed two things.

Massive deficits rather than PAYING OFF the entire NATIONAL DEBT.

The most dysfunctional wealth distribution in American history.

Conservatives want power to continue in these directions.

The above is what we call 'passing the buck'. 'No, it's not our spending that's the problem. It's that you, John Q. Taxpayer, aren't giving us enough money.' And the idea that any of the above is actually bad is predicated on the assumption that it's bad if government takes in less money. The only way it's 'bad' is to the politicians who have less money to spend. Them not adjusting their spending accordingly doesn't mean the cuts were a bad idea.

You have a different reaction to massive debt than I do. I'm surprised, given that, of your claim to being a successful businessman.

On the other hand, it's the typical conservative economics that came close to costing us our country and has already cost us much of our economy.

Cut costs and hope something good happens.

Business and government is about growth by great products and satisfied customers. Costs are what they have to be to achieve product and customer satisfaction growth. If that's not true, you aren't in a successful business or government.

Any business that believes that great products and high customer satisfaction are unaffordable, deserves the inevitable end that they face.

The Bushwacker, and you, and most conservatives, don't believe in this country. They don't believe that we have what it takes to be successful. They want to sell off and move on.

If that happens it will be over my dead body.

 

[PMZ]

Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.

Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.

Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.

So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?



If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?



Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?



No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...

AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.

But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.

So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?

If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.

The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.

Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.

I don't think most of our citizens understand that Obamacare is nothing but opportunity for those who previously had no option but the worst health care possible. If it's not an opportunity for any one of us, like it's not for me, ignore it. Take your better option.

Government, like all good businesses, have already solved how to offer competitive compensation, including health care insurance, that's adequate to attract and hold qualified employees. Obamacare exchanges don't apply to them any more than they do to most large successful companies.

What irritates conservatives is that people they don't like are being offered a better, healthier life, because of successful government.

A more successful country.

They hate that.

 

[Flopper]

I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.

2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.

3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.

4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.

5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.

6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.

 

[Bern80]

From:

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

''The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.''

''The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.''

''The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.''

Between tax cuts and wars, the Bushwacker all but guaranteed two things.

Massive deficits rather than PAYING OFF the entire NATIONAL DEBT.

The most dysfunctional wealth distribution in American history.

Conservatives want power to continue in these directions.

The above is what we call 'passing the buck'. 'No, it's not our spending that's the problem. It's that you, John Q. Taxpayer, aren't giving us enough money.' And the idea that any of the above is actually bad is predicated on the assumption that it's bad if government takes in less money. The only way it's 'bad' is to the politicians who have less money to spend. Them not adjusting their spending accordingly doesn't mean the cuts were a bad idea.

You have a different reaction to massive debt than I do. I'm surprised, given that, of your claim to being a successful businessman.

On the other hand, it's the typical conservative economics that came close to costing us our country and has already cost us much of our economy.

Cut costs and hope something good happens.

Business and government is about growth by great products and satisfied customers. Costs are what they have to be to achieve product and customer satisfaction growth. If that's not true, you aren't in a successful business or government.

Any business that believes that great products and high customer satisfaction are unaffordable, deserves the inevitable end that they face.

The Bushwacker, and you, and most conservatives, don't believe in this country. They don't believe that we have what it takes to be successful. They want to sell off and move on.

If that happens it will be over my dead body.

You're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a businessman, or business owner, if that's what you mean. I certainly do believe in growth through quality products and satisfied customers. I'm not really sure what that has to do with taxes. Perhaps it's simply that you keep jumping to new topics every time you see you're so obviously wrong.

 

[Bern80]

I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.

2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.

3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.

4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.

5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.

6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.

Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.

 

[Flopper]

I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.

2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.

3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.

4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.

5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.

6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.

Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.

All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.

Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.

The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.

Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.

Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.

So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?



If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?



Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?



No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...

AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.

But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.

So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?

If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.

The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.

Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.

So if this affects only those $115,000, then why do Democrats keep whining about those poor Congressional staffers that have to have the subsidy?