Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare

[NYcarbineer]

This rightwing propaganda was debunked on USMB months ago. Why is it still kicking around?

 

[dblack]

Corporate whores.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let us say that you are married to a woman 10 years younger than you are, and you retire at 70 with an income of 30K. You are covered by MediCare, but she has to get insurance on her own. If she has no prior illnesses, she can get that insurance for about 8K. A significant bite out of an income of 30K. Under the ACA, the cost to the old couple is $1800. That can be handled.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Results



The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid.
Household income in 2014:193% of poverty levelUnsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:$8,191Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:6%Amount you pay for the premium:$1,799 per year
(which equals 6% of your household income and covers 22% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$6,392
(which covers 78% of the overall premium) .
Bronze Plan

The premium and subsidy amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You have the option to apply the subsidy toward the purchase of other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $397 per year (which is 1.32% of your household income, after taking into account $6,392 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.

Out of Pocket Costs

Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than $2,250. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.

You are guaranteed access to a Silver plan with an actuarial value of 87%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 87% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for first time in four decades and the according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right? And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent. Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.

LOL. Mostly the reason for the flapyap from idiots like you is that the reality is that things are improving, and the cost of health care is rising at a much slower rate than it was under "W". Come 1Jan14, a lot of people are going to find out that they can afford basic health care coverage, and people like Rabid are going to look as dumb on those predictions as they have on the predicitons of impending economic doom.

They will be back to crying about turning socialist, and muttering darkly about second amendment solutions and revolution.

 

[MeBelle]

Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.

The conceit of the thread is that the cheapest bronze plan would cost a family of 5 $20,000/year in premiums. That was a lie, told by idiots to idiots. The point of looking up actual numbers is to expose the absurdity of that claim. The actual cheapest bronze plan for a family that large is actually less than $5,000, with families potentially being asked to pay substantially less than that.

That's not a recommendation that this family actually choose to buy catastrophic coverage, the point is that catastrophic coverage doesn't cost $20,000, as the more impressionable minds in the rightwing herd were led to believe.

Derp.

Bronze is not a catastrophic plan.

I checked some numbers real quick.
For a real family of five that I know, the cheapest bronze plan would cost $26,980 before any benefits are paid out.

I then went to the cheapest platinum plan. Cost: $25,240.

Neither of those numbers come even close to what that family currently pays.

Dental not included.
Eye care not included.
Formularies not included.

The families 'health insurance' just doubled!

Let's not even talk about the number of Docs dropping MediCal patients.

 

[Flopper]

Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.

The conceit of the thread is that the cheapest bronze plan would cost a family of 5 $20,000/year in premiums. That was a lie, told by idiots to idiots. The point of looking up actual numbers is to expose the absurdity of that claim. The actual cheapest bronze plan for a family that large is actually less than $5,000, with families potentially being asked to pay substantially less than that.

That's not a recommendation that this family actually choose to buy catastrophic coverage, the point is that catastrophic coverage doesn't cost $20,000, as the more impressionable minds in the rightwing herd were led to believe.

Derp.

Bronze is not a catastrophic plan.

I checked some numbers real quick.
For a real family of five that I know, the cheapest bronze plan would cost $26,980 before any benefits are paid out.

I then went to the cheapest platinum plan. Cost: $25,240.

Neither of those numbers come even close to what that family currently pays.

Dental not included.
Eye care not included.
Formularies not included.

The families 'health insurance' just doubled!

Let's not even talk about the number of Docs dropping MediCal patients.

Checked where?

 

[MeBelle]

The conceit of the thread is that the cheapest bronze plan would cost a family of 5 $20,000/year in premiums. That was a lie, told by idiots to idiots. The point of looking up actual numbers is to expose the absurdity of that claim. The actual cheapest bronze plan for a family that large is actually less than $5,000, with families potentially being asked to pay substantially less than that.

That's not a recommendation that this family actually choose to buy catastrophic coverage, the point is that catastrophic coverage doesn't cost $20,000, as the more impressionable minds in the rightwing herd were led to believe.

Derp.

Bronze is not a catastrophic plan.

I checked some numbers real quick.
For a real family of five that I know, the cheapest bronze plan would cost $26,980 before any benefits are paid out.

I then went to the cheapest platinum plan. Cost: $25,240.

Neither of those numbers come even close to what that family currently pays.

Dental not included.
Eye care not included.
Formularies not included.

The families 'health insurance' just doubled!

Let's not even talk about the number of Docs dropping MediCal patients.

Checked where?

post# 189...I used Greenbeard's 'tool'

(sorry, seriously giggling @ the word 'tool'. I am guilty of warped humor @ times )

 

[American_Jihad]

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown

October 18, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert

There’s good news and bad news for Republicans in the wake of the deal that reopened the federal government. The bad news is that Republicans signed off on a lousy package that does nothing to solve the nation’s out-control spending habits. The good news is that much of the attention the public devoted to the shutdown and the debt ceiling will now be focused on the disaster known as ObamaCare. It is a disaster wholly owned by Democrats.

Moreover, it is one born of unbridled hubris. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her planners were given ample warning by health industry insiders and low-level Obama administration officials that the exchanges had not been properly tested and implementation schedules were not being met, despite having a three year window and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on building the Healthcare.gov. website. Sebelius ignored those warnings. But telltale signs, such as her ongoing efforts to denigrate critics, as well as her refusal to turn over documents the HHS inspector general for a routine performance audit, indicated all was not well.

The latter revelation might be telling: the actual money spent setting up the website is almost impossible to determine. According to Reuters, the original cost to build the site was approximately $93.7 million. Yet that total tripled to $292 million when new money was assigned to site construction as late as April. That assignment apparently coincided with warnings from federal and state officials that the information technology on which these online exchanges were based was not working properly.

...

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Politico]

LOL. Mostly the reason for the flapyap from idiots like you is that the reality is that things are improving, and the cost of health care is rising at a much slower rate than it was under "W". Come 1Jan14, a lot of people are going to find out that they can afford basic health care coverage, and people like Rabid are going to look as dumb on those predictions as they have on the predicitons of impending economic doom.

They will be back to crying about turning socialist, and muttering darkly about second amendment solutions and revolution.

Being forced to buy insurance that you can't afford is an improvement? Who knew?

 

[billyerock1991]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

have you filed for health insurance at all ??? I realize the state handles its sign up, but I just got my health care coverage ... its just for me ... starting january 1 2014 I will pay $251.12 a month with a 250 dollar deductible with a max pay out of 2000 dollars... my insurance now cost me 550 dollars a month with a 5000 dollar deductible with no max pay out ... now tell me again how that's worse ... I would love to know how you came to that conclusion ...

 

[Antares]

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for the first time in four decades and according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

You do know that......

A) The ACA has not been enacted yet?
B) That does nothing to address Healthcare Costs?

 

[dblack]

Being forced to buy insurance that you can't afford is an improvement? Who knew?

Guess who said the following:

“So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

Makes you wonder what's next, eh?

 

[Claudette]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

have you filed for health insurance at all ??? I realize the state handles its sign up, but I just got my health care coverage ... its just for me ... starting january 1 2014 I will pay $251.12 a month with a 250 dollar deductible with a max pay out of 2000 dollars... my insurance now cost me 550 dollars a month with a 5000 dollar deductible with no max pay out ... now tell me again how that's worse ... I would love to know how you came to that conclusion ...

I'm sure the guy with at $13,999.00 deductable would have a hard time agreeing with you.

Oh and BTW, are you being subsidized by we the taxpayer??

Oh an a gentleman I work with got on the site last night. He just wanted to see how affordable his HC would be through the ACA.

His monthly premium for he and his wife $729 a month. However the deductable is $11,000 per year.

Yep. One has to wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr. Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

have you filed for health insurance at all ??? I realize the state handles its sign up, but I just got my health care coverage ... its just for me ... starting january 1 2014 I will pay $251.12 a month with a 250 dollar deductible with a max pay out of 2000 dollars... my insurance now cost me 550 dollars a month with a 5000 dollar deductible with no max pay out ... now tell me again how that's worse ... I would love to know how you came to that conclusion ...

You are subsidized. Which plan did you choose?
If it is Bronze, you are still out 0f pocket for 40% of ALL costs.
Most people will opt for the cheapest insurance they can get. Until they have to file a claim. Then they won't have the money to cover their portion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize.

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.

Your claims aren't supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for the first time in four decades and according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

That's the Obama administration's version.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your claims aren't supported supported by the facts. Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for first time in four decades and the according to CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right? And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent. Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.

Since the law is not fully enacted there is no way to know what the actually costs will be, just projections which I've sighted. Yes, there are many explanations of why healthcare cost is falling, one being that the health insurance companies and healthcare providers have been cleaning up their act for some years knowing that healthcare reform was coming.

Sure they are...For those who's private or employer provided insurance does not meet the nearly impossible Obamacare mandates, their premiums will double or even triple.
For example, maternity plus pre and post natal care are required with ACA...So even those who are beyond childbearing years or those who have no intentions of ever having children are forced to cover themselves for having children...
Gee, that makes sense.
ACA is nothing but a gigantic welfare/redistribution of wealth program.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This rightwing propaganda was debunked on USMB months ago. Why is it still kicking around?

Because it HAS NOT been debunked.
Your side just wishes is has been.

 

[Flopper]

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown

October 18, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert

There’s good news and bad news for Republicans in the wake of the deal that reopened the federal government. The bad news is that Republicans signed off on a lousy package that does nothing to solve the nation’s out-control spending habits. The good news is that much of the attention the public devoted to the shutdown and the debt ceiling will now be focused on the disaster known as ObamaCare. It is a disaster wholly owned by Democrats.

Moreover, it is one born of unbridled hubris. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her planners were given ample warning by health industry insiders and low-level Obama administration officials that the exchanges had not been properly tested and implementation schedules were not being met, despite having a three year window and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on building the Healthcare.gov. website. Sebelius ignored those warnings. But telltale signs, such as her ongoing efforts to denigrate critics, as well as her refusal to turn over documents the HHS inspector general for a routine performance audit, indicated all was not well.

The latter revelation might be telling: the actual money spent setting up the website is almost impossible to determine. According to Reuters, the original cost to build the site was approximately $93.7 million. Yet that total tripled to $292 million when new money was assigned to site construction as late as April. That assignment apparently coincided with warnings from federal and state officials that the information technology on which these online exchanges were based was not working properly.

...

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown | FrontPage Magazine

I've gone through the entire registration process. It's slow and it could stand improvement but it does work and tens of thousands of people are buying insurance through the exchanges. From one who bought individual insurance a few years ago, completing an 18 page health history questionnaire and waiting 6 weeks just to find out if you were approved, this is a much better process and the cost is about the same.

 

[RandallFlagg]

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown

October 18, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert

There’s good news and bad news for Republicans in the wake of the deal that reopened the federal government. The bad news is that Republicans signed off on a lousy package that does nothing to solve the nation’s out-control spending habits. The good news is that much of the attention the public devoted to the shutdown and the debt ceiling will now be focused on the disaster known as ObamaCare. It is a disaster wholly owned by Democrats.

Moreover, it is one born of unbridled hubris. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her planners were given ample warning by health industry insiders and low-level Obama administration officials that the exchanges had not been properly tested and implementation schedules were not being met, despite having a three year window and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on building the Healthcare.gov. website. Sebelius ignored those warnings. But telltale signs, such as her ongoing efforts to denigrate critics, as well as her refusal to turn over documents the HHS inspector general for a routine performance audit, indicated all was not well.

The latter revelation might be telling: the actual money spent setting up the website is almost impossible to determine. According to Reuters, the original cost to build the site was approximately $93.7 million. Yet that total tripled to $292 million when new money was assigned to site construction as late as April. That assignment apparently coincided with warnings from federal and state officials that the information technology on which these online exchanges were based was not working properly.

...

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown | FrontPage Magazine

I've gone through the entire registration process. It's slow and it could stand improvement but it does work and tens of thousands of people are buying insurance through the exchanges. From one who bought individual insurance a few years ago, completing an 18 page health history questionnaire and waiting 6 weeks just to find out if you were approved, this is a much better process and the cost is about the same.

Now, pray to God that the personal information that you provided doesn't get hacked (every IT professional in the world says it's "security" is a dangerous joke) and anything and everything you may or may not have, gets stolen.

oh! and enjoy those deductibles!

 

[Trajan]

Obama never used the 46 million number.


This story is an old lie by the rightwing propaganda machine that was debunked on this board a long time ago.

you're right, he said 47...

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 22, 2009

Excerpts of the President's Opening Remarks at Tonight's News Conference
-As Prepared for Delivery-
That is why I’ve said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort.
This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It’s about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. And it’s about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

Excerpts of the President's Opening Remarks at Tonight's News Conference, 7-22-09 | The White House