Huge numbers sign up for the ACA

[billyerock1991]

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.

if any one who is a loser that would be you ... none of this is how the ACA is paid for ... that's wasn't the question loser ... the question was we'll probably have to pay for their subsidy loser ... I pointed out how they are paid for coming from the ACA PDF file... not some loser web site that has noting in it ... butt you like to use it most losers do

why is it everything you uses as a source comes up
Page Not Found
We're sorry;
we seem to have lost this page,
but we don't want to lose you.

p.s. its medical equipment and drug MFG not medicare

It appears, Billy, you live in denial as to just how these subsidies are going to be paid for. Don't you see that folks making over $250,000 are taxpayers?

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

 

[tennisbum]

if any one who is a loser that would be you ... none of this is how the ACA is paid for ... that's wasn't the question loser ... the question was we'll probably have to pay for their subsidy loser ... I pointed out how they are paid for coming from the ACA PDF file... not some loser web site that has noting in it ... butt you like to use it most losers do

why is it everything you uses as a source comes up
Page Not Found
We're sorry;
we seem to have lost this page,
but we don't want to lose you.

p.s. its medical equipment and drug MFG not medicare

It appears, Billy, you live in denial as to just how these subsidies are going to be paid for. Don't you see that folks making over $250,000 are taxpayers?

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

 

[TooTall]

I've googled it and didn't come up with any percentages from the government or any of the health care providers ...I think its too early for those number ... to be enrolled you have to be set up with a payment system of some sort... I chose to pay them through a bank deduction myself ... I use to pay 550 dollars a month ... now I pay 250 dollars a month ...

That is BS, just like everything else you post. Here is another link and excerpt where I got my 30% not paid from.

How many people signing up are paying their first month's premium?
This is another metric that is frustratingly difficult to track because HealthCare.gov -- and most state-based exchanges -- do not currently handle the first month's premium payment. When someone signs up for coverage online, that enrollment typically gets bounced over to the health plan responsible for collecting the money (there are a few states, like Washington and Rhode Island, that are exceptions and do collect premium payments).
Right now, the best data on this comes from the health insurance plans themselves.

At the J.P. Morgan Health Care Conference last month in San Francisco, executives from large insurance companies like Aetna and Wellpoint estimated that about 70 percent of the people signing up for coverage were paying their first month's premium. Washington, one of the few states that does collect premium payments, says that just over half of people who have signed up for private insurance (90,000 Washingtonians) have paid for their coverage and slightly fewer than half (85,000) have not yet submitted a premium.

A guide to understanding Obamacare?s sign-up numbers

you can't come to a credible conclusion with just one company telling you they received only 70% payment ... hate to inform you, that same article said 1 in 5 don't pay... 1 in 5 isn't 30% .. try again !!!! you keep posting this crap as a source, what it really show us is what a fool you really are ... in my case, as I said, I looked for the total percentage of all companies participating not just one company ... which they don't have a total percentage as of yet of all the companies involved try again loser...

No point in pursuing this any more with someone that can't count to two.

large insurance companies like Aetna and Wellpoint estimated that about 70 percent of the people signing up for coverage were paying their first month's premium.

 

[TooTall]

Actually, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did a pretty good job of that.

Bush cut income taxes for every level of the income scale, not just the wealthy.
Carry on with your ignorant talking points though, it helps us to understand you.

you're funny ... or stupid ... I think you need to go and educate yourself cause you're making a fool of your self here, big time!!!

Allow me to point out who is stupid.

Definition of 'Bush Tax Cuts'

A series of temporary income tax relief measures enacted by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. The tax cuts lowered federal income tax rates for everyone, decreased the marriage penalty, lowered capital gains taxes, lowered the tax rate on dividend income, increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child, eliminated the phaseout on personal exemptions for higher-income taxpayers and eliminated the phaseout on itemized deductions and eliminated the estate tax.

Bush Tax Cuts Definition | Investopedia

 

[Antares]

When we get to 90% of the 48 million that Obama said didn't have insurance then maybe the Libs
can start to brag about huge numbers signing up.

lets see ... you do the math yourself ... by November of this year that's 10 months away do you think they will come close to the number of people enrolling if the continue to enroll about 2 million people a month ??? thats 20 million more in the system ... if they enroll more, then case close ... republican will be voted out of office ...

If open enrollment ends at the end of March, and it does.....how can they enroll 2 million a moth when the enrollment period is closed?

 

[Antares]

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 half 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 $200,000 single $250,000 couple a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes." 2.3% more

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.
Reply With Quote

as you can see the actual taxpayer really doesn't pay for the subsidy as you think they do ... a lot of it comes from medicare savings, the other comes from corporations being taxed ... not the individual tax payer ... you won't see any taxes at you unless you make over 200,000 ... and thats was a increase in your medicare by 2.3%

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.

if any one who is a loser that would be you ... none of this is how the ACA is paid for ... that's wasn't the question loser ... the question was we'll probably have to pay for their subsidy loser ... I pointed out how they are paid for coming from the ACA PDF file... not some loser web site that has noting in it ... butt you like to use it most losers do

why is it everything you uses as a source comes up
Page Not Found
We're sorry;
we seem to have lost this page,
but we don't want to lose you.

p.s. its medical equipment and drug MFG not medicare

You have a very serious comprehension deficiency, a VERY serious one.

I took your post and showed you haw those things the gentleman you quoted are actually are funded.

You just aren't bright enough to understand it

 

[Antares]

It appears, Billy, you live in denial as to just how these subsidies are going to be paid for. Don't you see that folks making over $250,000 are taxpayers?

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

He did, he simply isn't intellectually capable of remembering what he said where.

 

[Antares]

Billy's words.....

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

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...care-affects-their-premiums-deductible-8.html

 

[Darkwind]

here are some interesting facts

49.9 million -- The number of uninsured Americans in 2010. That's 16.3% of the total population.
18.4% -- Percentage of uninsured Americans younger than 65 in 2010.
Short-term loss for conservatives? Obama: It's a victory for the people Romney: I'll do what justices didn't Ruling on individual mandate explained
28.4% -- The percentage of Americans 25 to 34 without insurance.
7.3 million -- The number of children in the United States without health insurance, 9.8% of all children in the country.
15.4% - The percentage of children living in poverty who are also uninsured.
Ruling plays into campaign narrative for both sides
26.9% -- Percentage of people earning less than $25,000 a year who are also uninsured.
256.2 million -- The number of Americans who were insured in 2010.
195.9 million -- The number of Americans with private health insurance in 2010, 64% of the total population.
What the health care ruling means to you
169.3 million -- The number of Americans who get their insurance through the workplace.
95 million -- Number of people in the United States covered by government health insurance, 31% of the population.
44.3 million -- Number of Americans receiving Medicare coverage in 2010.
48.6 million -- The number of Americans covered by Medicaid in 2010.
$940 billion -- The amount of money the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost to provide the expanded insurance coverage over 10 years.
$143 billion -- The amount by which the plan could reduce the deficit over the first 10 years. And over the following decade, the CBO projected, health reform could reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion, although the agency stressed such long-term projections are highly uncertain.
Timeline of the health care law
2.35% -- The tax rate high-income individuals would pay into Medicare, up from 1.45%. High-income is defined as individuals making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly).
2014 -- The year that people who don't buy insurance will be penalized $95 or up to 1% in income.
19.1% - Percentage of people living in the South who are uninsured, the highest percentage of any region.
24.6% - The percentage of uninsured people in Texas, the highest of any state.
5.6% - The percentage of uninsured people in Massachusetts, the lowest of any state.

Your numbers are lies. What is the source...and don't quote any government site or the NYT's.

 

[tennisbum]

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

He did, he simply isn't intellectually capable of remembering what he said where.

I have not quite figured him out. He is either or

 

[Antares]

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

He did, he simply isn't intellectually capable of remembering what he said where.

I have not quite figured him out. He is either or

I think both......couple that with his comprehension problem and you almost feel sorry for him.

 

[oreo]

Now that is funny, Jim. No one in their right mind would want any connection to Obamacare

There are still more people that have lost their insurance because of the Obamacare mandates than have enrolled.

6.4 million policies in the individual market have been cancelled due to the mandates--and if you add in spouses and children that were covered under those plans estimates are another 12 to 14 million joined the uninsured rolls in this country. Of course this, after being promised by Obama and democrats over 40 times that "you can keep your policy" if you like them.

So no--Democrats are not going to campaign on Obamacare aka the Affordable Health Care act that has turned out to be the Not so Affordable health care act for millions of Americans. But Republicans sure are.

Democrats wisely postponed the employer mandate AGAIN--now until 2016--and the article is correct--that means we're going to be talking about Obamacare way into the Presidential election season--which won't be good for Democrat Presidential contenders or those democrats running for re-election.

Welcome to your hope and change!

 

[billyerock1991]

It appears, Billy, you live in denial as to just how these subsidies are going to be paid for. Don't you see that folks making over $250,000 are taxpayers?

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

plural: I said the tax payers don't pay for it and they don't ...

 

[Antares]

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

plural: I said the tax payers don't pay for it and they don't ...

Just slink away, you've been bitch slapped again you moron.

 

[billyerock1991]

This program is such a raging success. Why hold businesses back - launch this now for everyone as it was originally intended.

Too freaking funny.

.

I'm surprised that no one is outraged that business is being discriminated against and forced to wait until 2016 to enjoy the many benefits of the ACA. Every fair-minded American should demand that it be implemented now as the law was originally written.

Don't you agree?

.

nope I don't agree ... it also says in the bill that the government is allow to adjust sections in the law that says when you have to be signed up...

 

[billyerock1991]

That is BS, just like everything else you post. Here is another link and excerpt where I got my 30% not paid from.



A guide to understanding Obamacare?s sign-up numbers

you can't come to a credible conclusion with just one company telling you they received only 70% payment ... hate to inform you, that same article said 1 in 5 don't pay... 1 in 5 isn't 30% .. try again !!!! you keep posting this crap as a source, what it really show us is what a fool you really are ... in my case, as I said, I looked for the total percentage of all companies participating not just one company ... which they don't have a total percentage as of yet of all the companies involved try again loser...

No point in pursuing this any more with someone that can't count to two.

large insurance companies like Aetna and Wellpoint estimated that about 70 percent of the people signing up for coverage were paying their first month's premium.

ok you can't come to a credible conclusion with TWO COMPANIES ... THERE YA HAPPY ???

 

[billyerock1991]

he did, he simply isn't intellectually capable of remembering what he said where.

i have not quite figured him out. He is either Or

i think both......couple that with his comprehension problem and you almost feel sorry for him.

isn't that just like a couple of republican losers ... They can't refute my post with any factual bases so they resort to personal attacks ... They wonder why i get nasty... Well listen dick breaths !!!!! You can't come to a creditable conclusion from just two companies reporting... Plus these companies reporting, they have until march 31 to give a actual total ....why ??? Because you don't have to be paid in until march 31 you idiots ...

 

[billyerock1991]

now that is funny, jim. No one in their right mind would want any connection to obamacare

there are still more people that have lost their insurance because of the obamacare mandates than have enrolled.

6.4 million policies in the individual market have been cancelled due to the mandates--and if you add in spouses and children that were covered under those plans estimates are another 12 to 14 million joined the uninsured rolls in this country. Of course this, after being promised by obama and democrats over 40 times that "you can keep your policy" if you like them.

so no--democrats are not going to campaign on obamacare aka the affordable health care act that has turned out to be the not so affordable health care act for millions of americans. but republicans sure are.

democrats wisely postponed the employer mandate again--now until 2016--and the article is correct--that means we're going to be talking about obamacare way into the presidential election season--which won't be good for democrat presidential contenders or those democrats running for re-election.

welcome to your hope and change!

sorry buddy health care insurance doesn't work that way ...you have a family policy ... If that policy is canceled it only counts for one policy ... Nice try but like always you're a lose...

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

if any one who is a loser that would be you ... none of this is how the ACA is paid for ... that's wasn't the question loser ... the question was we'll probably have to pay for their subsidy loser ... I pointed out how they are paid for coming from the ACA PDF file... not some loser web site that has noting in it ... butt you like to use it most losers do

why is it everything you uses as a source comes up
Page Not Found
We're sorry;
we seem to have lost this page,
but we don't want to lose you.

p.s. its medical equipment and drug MFG not medicare

You have a very serious comprehension deficiency, a VERY serious one.

I took your post and showed you haw those things the gentleman you quoted are actually are funded.

You just aren't bright enough to understand it

NO ... heres what you did ...you took the total money paid to medicare 3.8% you then tried to imply that person over 200,000 dollars pay 3.8% they don't they pay 1.9% the employer pays the other 1.9 ... that was an attempt on your part to be implying that they pay a lot now... here's what the ACA did ... they raised the rates of people making over 200,000 to 2.3% a cost to them of .4% and the employer pays 2.3% a cost to them .4% and total of ,8% you made it look like they were paying this huge amount .4% isn't going to break a person budge who makes 200,000 dollars a year... you lied your ass off here and now I've trapped you in a lie once again ...

 

[billyerock1991]

first of all that wasn't the question... try and keep up!!!! what I've shown here is how its paid for ... the question wasn't who pays for it, the questions was. well if more people sign up for medicaid well have to pay for it ... they didn't say whose a tax payer paying for it ... it said we'll have to pay for it ... what I've shown here is how it's paid for ...and yes people making over 200,000 are tax payers ... but they are taxed through the medcare deduction ... they were saying we the tax payer will have to pay more, if and that's a big if, there are more people on medicaid ... so far that's not proving to be true .... but these republicans with their hypothetical ... the worry about the silliest things ... try and keep up ...

Hold on here, Billy Boy. Did you not say this on another thread Billy...didn't you say "sorry pal, the tax payer doesn't pay for the subsidy"?

He did, he simply isn't intellectually capable of remembering what he said where.

I know what I've said I said the same thing their that I'm saying here ... and you two can't seem to challenge me in what Ive said ... you resort with your personal attack because you can't refute what Ive said... that's what this is all about ... I show you the facts and then with your piss poor ability to respond with a credible answer you two try and gang up on me ... you two can't respond to what Ive said... it shows us all here how deceiving and conniving republican really are ...