The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[PMZ]

No reason to lie about it. You are not required. It's not a law that you have to do it. Nor is it a penalty. It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision. There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before. These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY. That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.

From

Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."

Exactly. What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%? I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle. Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.

What would be the subsidy for a family of 4 with an income of $90K?

Here's a tool for you.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0

 

[P@triot]

SCOTUS ruled that it does. What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation. The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.

I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has nothing to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.

Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?

If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.

Here's the thing. You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
What you can't do, is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.

Carry on.

So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.

Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are wrong).

 

[RKMBrown]

From

Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."

Exactly. What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%? I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle. Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.

More learning for you.

What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Are you mental? Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?

 

[P@triot]

Or, we could do what works for the rest of the world.

The rest of the world also engages in terrorism, sex-trafficking, and slavery. Amazing that you want to lower the United States to 3rd world levels just so you can bilk the American tax payer...

Consider good health in the same way that we value education...as a right...

And there you have it folks. A liberal has an accidental moment of honesty. They want healthcare to be a "right" (which shows just how profoundly ignorant they are if what a right is - but I digress). PMZ - if you want it to be a "right" then you need to properly amend the U.S. Constitution.

But you can't get the votes to do that - because this is not what the American people want. So instead you lie ("I will keep this promise - if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"), create an illegal bill (the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase), then you bribe a Supreme Court stacked with libtards who legislate from the bench and tell them it is a "tax" after insisting for 4 years that it is not a tax, all so Dumbocrats like you can pretend this was "lawful"...

 

[PMZ]

I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has nothing to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.

Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?

If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.

Here's the thing. You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
What you can't do, is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.

Carry on.

So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.

Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are wrong).

You are paranoid. I am not.

 

[PMZ]

Exactly. What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%? I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle. Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.

More learning for you.

What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Are you mental? Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?

The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care. In the future, it will have to, and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.

You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.

I am not mental. You are deceived.

 

[RKMBrown]

More learning for you.

What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Are you mental? Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?

The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care. In the future, it will have to, and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.

You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.

I am not mental. You are deceived.

90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year. What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.

 

[dblack]

Or, we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education. As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.

Hair of the dog, eh?

I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.

Why?

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

 

[PMZ]

Hair of the dog, eh?

I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.

Why?

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

Learning from the experience of others is irrational. That explains a lot.

 

[PMZ]

Are you mental? Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?

The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care. In the future, it will have to, and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.

You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.

I am not mental. You are deceived.

90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year. What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.

I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay. In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.

 

[PMZ]

The fact that the right wing lives deluded lives is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that they allow it to happen every day.

 

[dblack]

I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.

Why?

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

Learning from the experience of others is irrational. That explains a lot.

Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.

 

[P@triot]

I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.

Why?

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

Learning from the experience of others is irrational. That explains a lot.

Seriously [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - of all of your asinine posts, this is the most absurd. You want to talk about "learning from the experience of others" while repeating over and over how the rest of the world provides healthcare. You mean - places like Greece (bankrupt, collapsed), the former U.S.S.R. (bankrupt, collapsed), Cuba (bankrupt, collapsed), Cambodia (bankrupt, collapsed).

Yes PMZ - we should learn from the experience of others. Unfortunately you dumbocrats are too stupid, lazy, and greedy to do so...

 

[P@triot]

Here's the thing. You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
What you can't do, is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.

Carry on.

So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.

Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are wrong).

You are paranoid. I am not.

You cannot cite the section of the Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the power to alter the Constitution. Game over. I win. You lose. And this proves you are liar.

 

[P@triot]

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

Learning from the experience of others is irrational. That explains a lot.

Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.

Like all Dumbocrats, PMZ knows that a right cannot be something that costs money (healthcare, food, housing, etc.) because that creates slavery. And slavery is illegal.

So why does he play this stupid game? Because he's a greedy parasite that wants shit for free. You can make nice-nice with him all you want and appeal to his sensitive side in hopes that he will "see the light", but it ain't going to happen. He's a fuck'n asshole parasite who will never surrender his position that you owe him in life because he's too fuck'n lazy to provide for himself. Period.

 

[RKMBrown]

The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care. In the future, it will have to, and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.

You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.

I am not mental. You are deceived.

90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year. What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.

I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay. In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.

Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:

ObamaCare Subsidies

 

[PMZ]

Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.

Learning from the experience of others is irrational. That explains a lot.

Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.

Who benefits from an unhealthy population? Who benefits from an uneducated population? Who benefits from an unemployed population? Who benefits from an unsafe population? Who benefits from social instability?

Nobody.

Why would a country not do everything possible to reduce those things that nobody benefits from?

 

[PMZ]

90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year. What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.

I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay. In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.

Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:

ObamaCare Subsidies

If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county. In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.

And back to your original argument. A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses????

If that's true, people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay. In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.

Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:

ObamaCare Subsidies

If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county. In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.

And back to your original argument. A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses????

If that's true, people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.

Mr. Potato Head! You are being obtuse again. As I told you it used to be 350 a month. Now with ObumaCare it's gonna be 1000 or so.

The 9.5% is the ObumaCare Premium Cap as a Share of Income, it is used to calculate your maximum out of pocket.

Again, you ignore the rape of the American middle and upper middle class by this new Bill and deflect away to the evil rich again.

WTH is wrong with you?

I bet if it were the people on medicare getting screwed you'd care.

 

[TwistedSuze13]

Just a little humor I saw at facebook today.

pelosi: "We have to pass it to see what's in it".

A doctor who called in to talk radio: "That's the definition of a stool sample."


'Nuff Said......

As I mentioned in the title...too bad this isn't called CACA.
A big steaming pile of.....excrement.