Obamacare failing big.

The actual figures, though, do not support those figures.

Ask yourself who is paying the actuaries?

Ask yourself, how do you argue with the Congressional Budget Office?

I am sure you do when you don't like them. The adjusted inflation for health care this year is 2%, far below the original estimate.

Time will tell, and the anti-ACA folks, like you, will fail in their hopes but will improve in their health costs. A lose win for you guys.
 
obamacare IS a train wreck in progress. We already know that. How many THOUSANDS of wavers have already been given out? Why were the first ones to EXEMPT THEMSELVES from it congress and the president if it was that damn good?

I'd hate to be one of the brain dead, obama ass kissers in here defending it, unless they just don't give a rats ass how STUPID they look.
 
Last edited:
Socialized health care is a roaring success in the industrialized West and the Taiwan, Japan, etc.

People live longer, more healthily, for less expense.
 
ACA is merely a stepping stone towards socialized health care.

No, it IS socialized health care. BADLY WRITTEN socialized health care at that. It's a monstrosity of epic proportions that really NO ONE FULLY understands. But what we do know is that the more we know about it, the worse it gets.

obama won't finish his second term as president before we see a financial collapse in this country that will make the great depression look like a picnic, and obamacare will be much of the driving force behind the collapse. obama and the democrats are ruining this country.
 
Last edited:
Cool. Some right-wing hack of a doctor tweeting anti-gov't bs. I guess that's the end of Obamacare :rolleyes:

Attempting to change the narrative already?..
Look, Obamacare SUCKS. The majority of us don't want it. It's going to cost us MUCH more for insurance. It is going to cost a lot of jobs. It adds many new taxes and causes other existing taxes to rise....
It's a piece of garbage. And all put together to make those on the dole feel better about voting for democrats.
 
Bam Bam Care has not lowered my health insurance rates for my employees in fact they've risen 20%.

I guess Bam Bam lied to us again huh?
 
Actually, the costs of premiums were promised to go down, they didn't. This law costs more than originally stated, and numerous states are opting for waivers. I guess that is the end of Obamacare.

The latest projections actually have it being marginally cheaper than the 2010 projections.

44008-land-figure1.png


Of course, that's nothing next to the hundreds of billions of dollars that have melted off the expected costs of Medicare and Medicaid since 2009/10 due to the slowdown in health care cost growth. Those savings alone are enough to pay for most of the law's new spending in the first decade.

What a bunch of bullshit...This chart mentions the government's Bill. It ignores OUR bill for OUR protion of the cost.
The fact is that a family of four's cost per year will be 18% of gross income if in excess of 400% of poverty. And that is for the cheap shit bronze coverage.
Do the math. The coverage for a 4 person family with a a gross income of $70k per year will be $13,500 per year..That is BEFORE taxes....Now the average total tax burden of a married couple with two kids throughout the year including federal witholding, SS, FICA Medicare, plus any state or local income taxes is roughly 40 yo 50% of gross income.
So now to be generous we'll say take home pay for this family is $45k per year...So now their insurance coverage went from 18% to almost 30% of their NET income.
The job killer is when people who have two incomes will realize it just is not worth it to have one person working for $45k and the other $25k...SO the lower waged person will drop out of the workforce. This puts them BELOW the 400% of poverty level and thus, they get their health insurance from the taxpayer.
 
The actual figures, though, do not support those figures.

Ask yourself who is paying the actuaries?

Which actual figures? The ones from whitehouse.gov?
What about who is paying the actuaries? And their angle is what?
Look jakie, the insurance companies had a great deal to do with writing ACA.
So did the pharma co's...Who are you kidding.
 
Socialized health care is a roaring success in the industrialized West and the Taiwan, Japan, etc.

People live longer, more healthily, for less expense.

I'm not saying that socialized health care is necessarily bad, especially in comparison to our current insanely expensive insurance driven system. The biggest plus may be that it will entail limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. The biggest minus may be retarding the development of new treatments.
 
Socialized health care is a roaring success in the industrialized West and the Taiwan, Japan, etc.

People live longer, more healthily, for less expense.

WHAT?!! How many Euro-zone nations are going broke under the weight of social programs?
Yeah....Thought so.
BTW,. The Japan economy is floundering....The Yen is taking it in the shorts.
Taiwan is NOT a country. The Island has a non autonomous govt under the control of China.
Socialized medicine is rationed care.
 
Since when should we pity those fucking "health care professionals" that have ripped us off so solidly over the past five decades? Screw 'em. The whole health care scam needs to be upended, and good for Obama for getting the ball rolling.

Only a right winger would defend those SOB's.
 
Since when should we pity those fucking "health care professionals" that have ripped us off so solidly over the past five decades? Screw 'em. The whole health care scam needs to be upended, and good for Obama for getting the ball rolling.

Only a right winger would defend those SOB's.

Absurd comment. You have no clue.
But for the meddling of the fedeeral government years ago, none of this would have happened.
The federal government created all of the rules and mandates that medical professionals and insurance companies must abide.
Once again proving that government ignores the laws of unintended consequences.
Most mandates and regulations were of course unfunded.
The ACA is a political "me too"...It's only going to make things much worse. The fallout is already being felt.
I remember when I was in high school, I had to get a physical exam to get my working papers. The exam cost $20...That was in the mid 70's. No insurance. Pay as you go.
When I was in my early 20's, my employer health insurance cost $5 per week...My deductible was just $250 per year. No co-pay..Co pays had not been invented yet.
If there is a more insidious example fo government meddling making medical care far more expensive, it is this.....An elderly couple went to the hospital. The husband was having chest pains. The hospital staff took him into a treatment room. They got the man stabilized and prescribed medication. No biggie...The admitting nurse handed the woman a bill for $190...This was 1990....The woman told the nurse that she and her husband were on medicare..The nurse told them the hospital would send them the bill.
Three weeks later the couple received a bill for over $600..Of which the couple had to pay $200.... The $200 went to the Hospital....The rest was written off. Medicare billed the couple $600+. The reimbursement minus the charge to the insured netted the hospital nothing from medicare and the government paid out the full amount in accounting fees.
This is our federal government in its infinite wisdom.
 
The fact is that a family of four's cost per year will be 18% of gross income if in excess of 400% of poverty. And that is for the cheap shit bronze coverage.
Do the math. The coverage for a 4 person family with a a gross income of $70k per year will be $13,500 per year..That is BEFORE taxes....Now the average total tax burden of a married couple with two kids throughout the year including federal witholding, SS, FICA Medicare, plus any state or local income taxes is roughly 40 yo 50% of gross income.
So now to be generous we'll say take home pay for this family is $45k per year...So now their insurance coverage went from 18% to almost 30% of their NET income.

A family of 4 making $70,000 is a little under 300% of the poverty line. If they're buying insurance in an exchange, that means their contribution to the premium is capped at about 9.4% of their income, or a little under $6,600 per year.

That's for the second cheapest silver plan. If they want to go for a higher deductible plan (i.e. bronze), they could likely get their contribution down closer to $4,500 per year. You may find that unacceptable, as well, but at least use the actual numbers.

400% FPL is over $94,000 for a family of four.

The job killer is when people who have two incomes will realize it just is not worth it to have one person working for $45k and the other $25k...SO the lower waged person will drop out of the workforce. This puts them BELOW the 400% of poverty level and thus, they get their health insurance from the taxpayer.

Again, in this particular example you have someone forgoing $25,000 in income to get a $3,000 increase in their exchange subsidy.
 
Don't think I am not going to shove all of this shit down your throat next year when the shit hits the fan Greenteeth.

You are a hopeless shill like every other Bammy lover.


The fact is that a family of four's cost per year will be 18% of gross income if in excess of 400% of poverty. And that is for the cheap shit bronze coverage.
Do the math. The coverage for a 4 person family with a a gross income of $70k per year will be $13,500 per year..That is BEFORE taxes....Now the average total tax burden of a married couple with two kids throughout the year including federal witholding, SS, FICA Medicare, plus any state or local income taxes is roughly 40 yo 50% of gross income.
So now to be generous we'll say take home pay for this family is $45k per year...So now their insurance coverage went from 18% to almost 30% of their NET income.

A family of 4 making $70,000 is a little under 300% of the poverty line. If they're buying insurance in an exchange, that means their contribution to the premium is capped at about 9.4% of their income, or a little under $6,600 per year.

That's for the second cheapest silver plan. If they want to go for a higher deductible plan (i.e. bronze), they could likely get their contribution down closer to $4,500 per year. You may find that unacceptable, as well, but at least use the actual numbers.

400% FPL is over $94,000 for a family of four.

The job killer is when people who have two incomes will realize it just is not worth it to have one person working for $45k and the other $25k...SO the lower waged person will drop out of the workforce. This puts them BELOW the 400% of poverty level and thus, they get their health insurance from the taxpayer.

Again, in this particular example you have someone forgoing $25,000 in income to get a $3,000 increase in their exchange subsidy.
 
The fact is that a family of four's cost per year will be 18% of gross income if in excess of 400% of poverty. And that is for the cheap shit bronze coverage.
Do the math. The coverage for a 4 person family with a a gross income of $70k per year will be $13,500 per year..That is BEFORE taxes....Now the average total tax burden of a married couple with two kids throughout the year including federal witholding, SS, FICA Medicare, plus any state or local income taxes is roughly 40 yo 50% of gross income.
So now to be generous we'll say take home pay for this family is $45k per year...So now their insurance coverage went from 18% to almost 30% of their NET income.

A family of 4 making $70,000 is a little under 300% of the poverty line. If they're buying insurance in an exchange, that means their contribution to the premium is capped at about 9.4% of their income, or a little under $6,600 per year.

That's for the second cheapest silver plan. If they want to go for a higher deductible plan (i.e. bronze), they could likely get their contribution down closer to $4,500 per year. You may find that unacceptable, as well, but at least use the actual numbers.

400% FPL is over $94,000 for a family of four.

The job killer is when people who have two incomes will realize it just is not worth it to have one person working for $45k and the other $25k...SO the lower waged person will drop out of the workforce. This puts them BELOW the 400% of poverty level and thus, they get their health insurance from the taxpayer.

Again, in this particular example you have someone forgoing $25,000 in income to get a $3,000 increase in their exchange subsidy.

Whatever the poverty times 4 equals is the issue. As of 2012 the poverty line for a family of 4 in the 48 contiguous states plus DC is $23,050 per year..Times 4 is $92.200...
Anyway, that family's insurance bill would be well over $18k per year.....That's absurd.
And no they would not be sacrificing $25k....That's GROSS income. The net is much lower.
So the family would have to weigh the pros and cons.
ACA does not work as the people who touted it told the country.
In some states premiums will rise over 80%. The average is about 30%. Obama told us our insurance costs would go down $2,500 per year.
I want my check.....Where is it.
 
Whatever the poverty times 4 equals is the issue. As of 2012 the poverty line for a family of 4 in the 48 contiguous states plus DC is $23,050 per year..Times 4 is $92.200...
Anyway, that family's insurance bill would be well over $18k per year.....That's absurd.

I'm going to go with the only reliable numbers available at this time, the posted premiums for Vermont's exchange next year (other exchange rates should be comparable). Their silver family plans are going to be under $14,000 next year.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out what point you're getting at here so help me out. There are going to be some families of four who don't have employer-sponsored coverage and are above but relatively close to 400% FPL (which is $94,200 this year and will likely be slightly higher next year) who have decisions to make.

Specifically we're talking about families who make roughly $95,000-$145,000. They won't have access to financial assistance in the exchanges. They also won't be subject to the individual mandate because the cheapest bronze plan (going by Vermont's cheapest bronze family plan, which is $11,800) would cost more than 8% of their income.

Now I assume the problem you're honing in on is that while individual market plans today are pretty flimsy (particularly in comparison to employer-sponsored coverage), the ACA requires a baseline level of generosity in plans beginning next year. Individual market plans don't provide much coverage today but will soon have to look at a bit more like the plans that people who get their coverage through work enjoy. That's why you're getting stories about claim costs to insurers going up--those plans don't cover anything now but they soon will. So I'm assuming the point is that this family has been robbed of the chance to buy the kind of flimsy (but cheaper), catastrophic coverage they're getting now if they're currently insured in the individual market.

Except that misses the point that this family doesn't have to buy the more generous metal plans. People for whom those plans are unaffordable can--just as all people under 30 can--buy catastrophic plans that don't meet the ACA's generosity standards. In Vermont, next year the cheapest catastrophic plan for a family will be less than $6,800 per year, significantly cheaper than the cheapest bronze plan.

So what's the takeaway here about these families that are in the space between subsidies and generous affordable coverage (the 95-145ers)? If it's that they shouldn't be stripped of the lower cost, less generous options that they have in the individual market now, they aren't. If it's that they shouldn't be penalized for choosing to go uninsured, they aren't. And if it's that the subsidies should be extended to help them too, well that's something to consider isn't it?
 
Since when should we pity those fucking "health care professionals" that have ripped us off so solidly over the past five decades? Screw 'em. The whole health care scam needs to be upended, and good for Obama for getting the ball rolling.

Only a right winger would defend those SOB's.

Absurd comment. You have no clue.
But for the meddling of the fedeeral government years ago, none of this would have happened.
The federal government created all of the rules and mandates that medical professionals and insurance companies must abide.
Once again proving that government ignores the laws of unintended consequences.
Most mandates and regulations were of course unfunded.
The ACA is a political "me too"...It's only going to make things much worse. The fallout is already being felt.
I remember when I was in high school, I had to get a physical exam to get my working papers. The exam cost $20...That was in the mid 70's. No insurance. Pay as you go.
When I was in my early 20's, my employer health insurance cost $5 per week...My deductible was just $250 per year. No co-pay..Co pays had not been invented yet.
If there is a more insidious example fo government meddling making medical care far more expensive, it is this.....An elderly couple went to the hospital. The husband was having chest pains. The hospital staff took him into a treatment room. They got the man stabilized and prescribed medication. No biggie...The admitting nurse handed the woman a bill for $190...This was 1990....The woman told the nurse that she and her husband were on medicare..The nurse told them the hospital would send them the bill.
Three weeks later the couple received a bill for over $600..Of which the couple had to pay $200.... The $200 went to the Hospital....The rest was written off. Medicare billed the couple $600+. The reimbursement minus the charge to the insured netted the hospital nothing from medicare and the government paid out the full amount in accounting fees.
This is our federal government in its infinite wisdom.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the health care industry didn't WRITE these regulations? Most regulation in America serves business interests by reducing competition and justifying increased revenue streams.
 

Forum List

Back
Top