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

It's said that Republicans and Democrats want the same things. Democrats for everyone.

True enough. It is obvious reading through forums like this that every Republican leaning post is centered around what's good for Me. Want I want. How can life best serve Me. What I am entitled to.

Democrats post about how can our lives be improved. What's best for the country or the middle class, or we, the people.

Here's good objective info on why Obamacare is good for America.

Followed, I'm sure by Republican whining about why it's not good for each of them individually.

By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
Question: What Is Obamacare?

Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care.

The most important part of this Act requires you to have health insurance in 2014 or be subject to a tax. Coverage starts on January 1, 2014 if you've signed up by December 15, 2013. See When Does Obamacare Start?

Open enrollment through the exchanges ends March 31, 2014. If you don't have insurance by then, you will be taxed 1% of income unless certain conditions apply. Find out How Much Will Obamacare Cost Me?

Here's the Obamacare Facts You Need to Know

The health insurance exchanges opened on October 1, 2013. Some exchanges are run by states, and some by the Federal government. At first, the Federally-run exchange made you wait hours, if you could register at all. However, it's been cleared up and you can now compare plans.

Keep in mind to compare, not just your monthly premium, but your overall anticipated health care costs. This includes the annual deductible, percentage covered, and copayments.

If you already have insurance, you can keep it IF:

It was in existence before March 23, 2010. In that case, it's been grandfathered in.
You employer keeps its plans. However, many companies are using this opportunity to dump or change how they provide health insurance.
It meets the minimum requirements, as detailed in the first section below.
​Here's more facts, customized to your personal situation:

If You Already Have Insurance - All insurance plans must provide services in 10 essential health benefits categories. In addition, those with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded (children in 2010, adults in 2014). Health insurance companies can no longer drop those who get sick. Parents can put their children, up to age 26, on their plans. However, if your plan began before March 23, 2010, then it might be "grandfathered in," and not have to provide all these benefits. Therefore, even if you have insurance, it will be worth your time to review it and compare it to those on the exchanges.

If you have Medicare, the "donut hole" gap in coverage will be eliminated by 2020.

If You Can't Afford Insurance - Medicaid will be extended to those who earn up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. That's $15,281 for an individual, or $31,321.50 for a family of four in 2013. The poverty level usually increases each year to keep up with inflation.

However, not all states have elected to expand Medicaid, even though the Federal government will subsidize it. If you live in a state where you are eligible for Medicaid, but the state won't give you coverage, you won't have to pay the tax if you can't get insurance.

Those who earn too much for Medicaid will receive tax credits if their income is below 400% of the poverty level. In 2013, that's $45,960 for an individual, or $94,200 for a family of four. The credit is applied monthly, rather than as an annual tax rebate. There are also reduced copayments and deductibles. Find out How to Get Obamacare.

If You Don't Get Insurance - If you don't enroll in a health insurance plan by the end of open enrollment (March 31, 2014) you won't be able to get insurance through the exchanges. (Find out about special circumstances here.) You must have coverage for at least nine months in 2014 to avoid the tax.

The Obamacare ruling allows the IRS to tax you 1% of adjusted gross income, but no less than $95 per adult/$47.50 per child in 2013. These taxes rise in 2015 and 2016. For more, see Obamacare Taxes.

If You Make More than $200,000 a Year - Taxes increased in 2013 for wealthy Americans, some health care providers, and other health-related businesses. For more, see Obamacare Bill.

If You're a Business Owner - The mandate to provide health insurance for your employees has been postponed to January 1, 2015. This may be good news for you, because many of your employees may find insurance on the exchanges by then, lowering your costs. If you have 50 or fewer employees, you are eligible to look for better employee coverage on the SHOP exchange starting October 1, 2013.

For more about how Obamacare affects you, depending on the group you're in, see How Will Obamacare Affect Me?

Little-known Facts

The Affordable Care Act contains many provisions that aren't as well known. For example, it created the National Prevention Council that coordinates all Federal health efforts to promote active, drug-free lifestyles. It funds scholarships and loans to double the number of health care providers in five years. It cuts down on fraudulent doctor/supplier relationships. It also requires background checks of all nursing home staff, to prevent abuse of seniors. For more details of all ten Titles, see Obamacare Bill.
Obamcare Pros and Cons

The main advantage of the Affordable Care Act is that it lowers health care costs overall by making insurance affordable for more people. That's because insurance will be extended to two uninsured groups. First, it will include many more younger people, who are healthier. This lowers costs overall because they'll pay premiums, but won't use as many services. Second, insurance will become available to people who now use expensive hospital emergency room treatments instead of going to a primary care physician. This lowers costs because they will have their conditions treated before the expensive critical stage.

Another advantage is it provides insurance more fairly. Prior to the Act, only people who fell into one of four categories could get affordable health care:

Those who work for a company that provides it.
Those who can afford to pay on their own and who have no pre-existing conditions.
The very poor, who have Medicaid.
Those who are 65 and older, who have Medicare.
If you don't fall into one of those categories, you are forced to pay for health care out of your pocket. If you can't afford it, either the hospital must pick up the cost, or you must declare bankruptcy. The U.S. system was set up this way when the Federal government gave tax breaks to companies who provided health insurance for their employees.


The main disadvantage is that the Act could actually increase health care costs over the short term. That's because many people will receive preventive care for the first time in their lives. This could lead to treatment of heretofore unknown illnesses, driving up costs. (Source: CBO, 2009 Study on Preventive Health Care, August 7, 2009)

Most of the disadvantages are accruing to those individuals and businesses that are paying higher taxes. In addition, somewhere between 3-5 million workers could lose their existing, company-sponsored health insurance if their company finds it more cost-effective to let them buy it on their own and pay the penalty. For details, see Obamacare Pros and Cons.

The cost of Obamacare has been listed as both a pro and a con. That's because the calculation depends on the assumptions used. Estimates ranging from $1.76 trillion added to the debt down to $143 billion subtracted from the debt are all correct (in their own way). Find out how in Cost of Obamacare. Article updated November 6, 2013.
 
Last edited:
Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care.

He cares about you enough to lie to you about it.

.
 
Kid wants a candy bar, starts screaming for it. Democrat answer, give the kid the candy bar. Conservative answer, give the kid some chores to earn an allowance, then let him buy the candy bar and be proud that he earned it.
 
Just think, had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today

You think that people are laughing with you. They're not. They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.

dude, people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central. how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess? Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget
 
Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care.

He cares about you enough to lie to you about it.

.

What he said was absolutely true about Obamacare, the subject of his talk. The choices made by private insurance companies belong to them. They are accountable for their decisions.
 
Kid wants a candy bar, starts screaming for it. Democrat answer, give the kid the candy bar. Conservative answer, give the kid some chores to earn an allowance, then let him buy the candy bar and be proud that he earned it.

How come conservatives can only defend their delusions by describing what Fox Opinions propaganda says about how their official scapegoats act?
 
Just think, had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today

You think that people are laughing with you. They're not. They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.

dude, people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central. how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess? Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget

Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government, we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.
 
Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government, we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.

I guess you haven't been around for the last four and a half years ... They damn sure haven't been debt free ... Retreat to the bushes, because that's all you got ... Nothing worthwhile.

.
 
Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government, we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.

I guess you haven't been around for the last four and a half years ... They damn sure haven't been debt free ... Retreat to the bushes, because that's all you got ... Nothing worthwhile.

.

Another believer in dates causing debt rather than policies. That’s a real tough sell to intelligent folks but a real easy sell to the cult apparently.

Not that you are capable of dealing with the truth, but here it is anyway.

url]
 
You think that people are laughing with you. They're not. They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.

dude, people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central. how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess? Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget

Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government, we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.

the only thing the democrats were missing from the launch of obamacare was a seltzer bottle and a couple of creampies to toss. abbott and costello would have been the perfect pitch men
 
You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?

No ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.

That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.

.

It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed, which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
 
No ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.

That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.

.

It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed, which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?
 
No ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.

That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.

.

It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed, which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.

I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self insured families in the country on one hand. Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.
 
It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed, which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?

Just think of where the country would be without democrat congress members. If Bush had only Republicans in Congress we would be at war with most of the world, Wall St would look like Versailles, and the rest of the country like the Philippines after the storm. And the Whitehouse would be in the backwaters of Texas. And we'd be on the third generation of Kings Bush.
 
It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed, which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.

I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self insured families in the country on one hand. Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.

Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects real responsibility into the equation.

Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.
 
Last edited:
Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?

Just think of where the country would be without democrat congress members. If Bush had only Republicans in Congress we would be at war with most of the world, Wall St would look like Versailles, and the rest of the country like the Philippines after the storm. And the Whitehouse would be in the backwaters of Texas. And we'd be on the third generation of Kings Bush.

Yeah... If Bush was still in there, Guantanamo would still be operating, the PATRIOT Act would be expanded, the NSA would be spying on all of us and we'd be drone bombing everyone under the sun, pissing of the world. I bet he'd have bailed out the banksters with a sweetheart deal to boot! Damn, we're so lucky to have the Democrats looking out for us.
 
Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they will impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.

I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self insured families in the country on one hand. Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.

Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects real responsibility into the equation.

Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.

Ok, now you've got your population up to two handfuls.

What is your plan for the millions who either chose or have no option to buy health care insurance?
 

Forum List

Back
Top