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

[PMZ]

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.

We need to get you back to basics.

Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.

Let me know if this is too fast for you.

Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.

Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

We need to get you back to basics.

Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.

Let me know if this is too fast for you.

Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.

Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?

Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer. A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance. A system where up is down, and down is up. A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced. In short, a socialist system that will not work. Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law. The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.

Lets say you have a guy that crashes a car every time he gets in it. Would you insure him? If you say yes, we have to, then your car insurance rates are gonna have to triple. Now lets say it's to expensive based on that new rule that says we have to cover the guy that crashes a car every time he gets in it. Socialists come along and say lets fix that by providing subsidies from the rich to the poor. That doubles the cost for the top 51% and makes it free for the bottom half. This is essentially where are are at.. where we are heading. A system where it no longer pays to be someone in the top 50% unless you are in the top 1%.

 

[PMZ]

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.

We need to get you back to basics.

Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.

Let me know if this is too fast for you.

Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.

Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?

Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer. A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance. A system where up is down, and down is up. A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced. In short, a socialist system that will not work. Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law. The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

Obamacare is limited to American citizens.

Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids, a living wage for full time work.

Obamacare grandfathered existing policies.

Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead. Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business.

The real question is, and I think that most know the answer.

Why do Republicans feel so threatened by it that they have lied to the American people about it for five years?

 

[dblack]

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance relieves individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.

 

[RKMBrown]

We need to get you back to basics.

Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.

Let me know if this is too fast for you.

Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.

Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?

Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer. A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance. A system where up is down, and down is up. A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced. In short, a socialist system that will not work. Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law. The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

Obamacare is limited to American citizens.

Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids, a living wage for full time work.

Obamacare grandfathered existing policies.

Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead. Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business.

The real question is, and I think that most know the answer.

Why do Republicans feel so threatened by it that they have lied to the American people about it for five years?

>> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

Wrong, you have lied about this dozens of times. Medicare is a mandatory flat rate deduction, 50% paid by the employee, 50% employer on behalf of the employee. Obama care is 1) not mandatory 2) the subsidies make Obama care progressive rate based vs. medicare's flat rate basis.

>> Obamacare is limited to American citizens.

Flat Wrong.

>> Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids, a living wage for full time work.

Obamacare is a bill, a piece of paper, inanimate, it is not capable of taking on a responsibility. The tax payer is the one footing the bill for NON-MEANS TESTED WELFARE FOR THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS UP TO 90K FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR. You have been told this dozens of times you are being more than obtuse now. You are just flat out lying. Further there is no mandate that anyone who receives it works full time. I would work 2hrs a week and collect the maximum amount of subsidies.

>> Obamacare grandfathered existing policies.

Flat out Lie. Obamacare through out most policies and force people to sign up from scratch. Many are loosing their benefits, some were scheduled for surgery and now have to wait. People are dying because of Obamacare.

>> Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead. Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business.

YOU ARE A LIAR. Under Obamacare individuals all over this country are being forced to buy insurance for others where before they were only responsible for their own family. Now these individuals have to pay, in some cases, an extra THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH. And you sit behind you keyboard laughing at them. Pointing your sanctimonious finger at them and telling them they were cheating everyone else when they were only taking personal responsibility. Your scum bag socialist lie is that now people who don't want to be responsible for their family are getting it for free even if they have a BMW and a 400k house, they get free health insurance at the expense of their neighbor who is stupid enough to work for a living under Obuma's new socialist empire.

 

[PMZ]

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance relieves individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.

Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.

If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead, plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.

I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter, I do that for myself, but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead. And health care is not elective.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance relieves individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.

Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.

If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead, plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.

I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter, I do that for myself, but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead. And health care is not elective.

If health care is not elective, why are there elective and non-elective health care procedures? ROFL

Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them. Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them. You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.

 

[dblack]

Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Just like Medicare does.

I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance relieves individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.

Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.

I totally get that. It's the core of the problem.

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.

I'm not suggesting denying anyone that choice. I'm not saying we should make insurance illegal. But neither do you have the right or reason to deny people the alternative choice.

 

[PMZ]

I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance relieves individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.

Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.

If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead, plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.

I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter, I do that for myself, but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead. And health care is not elective.

If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures? ROFL

Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them. Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them. You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.

All laws, 100% of them, create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.

Your "liberty" is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.

If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead, plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.

I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter, I do that for myself, but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead. And health care is not elective.

If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures? ROFL

Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them. Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them. You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.

All laws, 100% of them, create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.

Your "liberty" is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.

Bull shit. Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties. Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities. Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you? Have you been worshiping Satan again? Do you not understand the difference between free will, and liberty. Free will is the ability to sin on others, liberty is not.

 

[PMZ]

If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures? ROFL

Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them. Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them. You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.

All laws, 100% of them, create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.

Your "liberty" is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.

Bull shit. Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties. Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities. Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you? Have you been worshiping Satan again?

100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.

Freedom is when law prevents, or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.

 

[RKMBrown]

All laws, 100% of them, create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.

Your "liberty" is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.

Bull shit. Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties. Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities. Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you? Have you been worshiping Satan again?

100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.

Freedom is when law prevents, or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.

So you admit Obamacare is a crime?

 

[PMZ]

Bull shit. Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties. Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities. Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you? Have you been worshiping Satan again?

100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.

Freedom is when law prevents, or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.

So you admit Obamacare is a crime?

Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage, makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.

Did you think that being sick is freedom?

 

[dblack]

100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.

Freedom is when law prevents, or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.

So you admit Obamacare is a crime?

Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage, makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.

Did you think that being sick is freedom?

The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, and the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?

 

[PMZ]

So you admit Obamacare is a crime?

Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage, makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.

Did you think that being sick is freedom?

The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, and the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?

My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights, they can't turn off their survival instinct. When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy, but the alternative is crime.

 

[RKMBrown]

Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage, makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.

Did you think that being sick is freedom?

The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, and the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?

My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights, they can't turn off their survival instinct. When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy, but the alternative is crime.

Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?

 

[PMZ]

The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, and the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?

My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights, they can't turn off their survival instinct. When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy, but the alternative is crime.

Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?

The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation, Bush. That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.

The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.

 

[RKMBrown]

My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights, they can't turn off their survival instinct. When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy, but the alternative is crime.

Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?

The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation, Bush. That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.

The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.

I voted against Bush 3 times. Once as governor, then twice for president. You sir are a stupid retard liar.

 

[PMZ]

Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?

The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation, Bush. That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.

The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.

I voted against Bush 3 times. Once as governor, then twice for president. You sir are a stupid retard liar.

You are a conservative and so is he. Can't believe that you voted for Gore/Lieberman. Hmmmmm.

A "stupid retard liar". For what? I've taught you a lot.

 

[dblack]

Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage, makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.

Did you think that being sick is freedom?

The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, and the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?

My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights, they can't turn off their survival instinct. When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy, but the alternative is crime.

That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.