Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 21:51:23 GMT -5
If the Repubs don't do something really stupid, they'll have House and Senate locked up. Re-read what you just wrote. Of course they'll do something stupid. They've proved that often enough. Ain't that the shame of it.....
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 13, 2013 22:47:23 GMT -5
Nancy Pelosi says 5 percent more have enrolled then the numbers show. That must be what common core is about. Do you believe anything that whore says?
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Nov 14, 2013 0:46:28 GMT -5
Re-read what you just wrote. Of course they'll do something stupid. They've proved that often enough. Ain't that the shame of it..... Plus-- once all the subsidies kick in, a LOT of people will be happy with their subsidies. Am I the only one who thinks the website problems will be solved long before next November-- and, somehow, those who've been cancelled will have new policies by then? (Remember, these are people who have money to buy insurance, and if they have resources, the "bronze plan" might look pretty darn good.) The Dems have, wisely, set the employer policies aside until after the 2014 election. [That's when all the employer policies become illegal, if only because pediatric dentistry has rarely, if ever, been part of health insurance. Dental coverage has gernerally been a separate and additional insurance policy, even when employer-provided. The employer may have a dental plan, 100% coverage (including "pediatric for the children"), but it's not in the health insurance plan given to employees. That makes the health insurance policy illegal EVEN WHEN DENTAL INSURANCE IS 100% COVERED!] Then, there's the hard truth that $2000/year is WAY less than the cost of a family policy, so employers will take it. PLUS, given that the subsidies go all they way up to a family of four earning $92,000/year, the vast majority of people who lose employer coverage will be pleased to find they get a subsidy. (What, with an income of $85,000/year, you can't manage to take your two kids to the DENTIST??? I never found that a problem at half that family income.) Surely, rejoicing will resound all across the land. And those unmarried couples just living together get even BETTER subsidies than married folks, and we all know that unmarried women with children adore handsome, charismatic Democrats-- or, Hillary, just because she has a vagina, just like them-- and they'll really do well... espeicially if the live-in boyfriend who fathered their children earns just $190,000/year. (He doesn't have to pay the Obamacare surtax until his earnings hit $200,000. Not like the married shlub earning $125,000 with a totally equal wife.) Newly-married gays might become a tad annoyed-- but whom are they going to vote for? The party that opposes gay marriage? They can be counted on to just sit it out, or *gasp* go Libertarian. Bottom line, if the Pubbies think can sit back and relax because ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS COMPLAIN ABOUT OBAMACARE, they will lose, and lose big. Truth is, the general public is now convinced that "the government must Do Something about doctor bills", so... all the Dems have to say is: "We TRIED while you greedy servants of Big Bisiness, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance (not to mention hedge funds and Wall Street) did NOTHING!" From where I'm sitting,the game has already been lost. Maybe tomorrow, I'll be more optimistic, but today, the conversation seems to be all about "What can my couunty do for ME?" That's not a question free men ask.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 14, 2013 2:06:06 GMT -5
Nancy Pelosi says 5 percent more have enrolled then the numbers show. That must be what common core is about. Do you believe anything that whore says? Good lord. Whore? Lol
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 14, 2013 4:26:16 GMT -5
Should we call this a success? Obamacare should never have happened. It probably wouldn't have happened if the dems and president pants on fire wouldn't have lied to the American people.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 14, 2013 4:33:15 GMT -5
The price may be too high for Democrats to pay. Single payer has been a liberal wet dream for a very long time. Obamacare was simply a paver on the way to single payer. If Obamacare dies, their dream dies with it. Again you're right re: single payer. But, what is the likelihood of them EVER getting that through congress with this mess around their necks? Remember the words of P.T. Barnum. To make more up to date just add with I-phone!
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 14, 2013 4:41:52 GMT -5
With the lousy enrollment numbers being reported where is the president? Still stuck in front of his mirror with his headphones on singing Yes We Can while Chris Mathews sniffs his butt.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 14, 2013 4:54:00 GMT -5
Let's see they have 100k enrollees but there have been 5 million cancellations. Does not sound like a success to me. Failure. If the Repubs don't do something really stupid, they'll have House and Senate locked up. There in lies the problem, the old guard of the Republican party will find away to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They will pass some empty figure head of a bill that will allow scum bag reid to get a bill in conference committee, out maneuver them and leave them holding the bag. Yes sir the old circular firing squad!
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Nov 14, 2013 5:03:31 GMT -5
Do you believe anything that whore says? Good lord. Whore? Lol Why do you seem to stand there with false indignation on you face? Decent society prevents me from saying what democrats have used to describe female republicans. I will go out on a bit of a limb and venture Nancy's rancid gash probably hasn't been used in so long it has probably healed. Too bad we can say the same thing for her mouth. Wow is this what it feels like to work at PMSNBC? Let's see crass statement. Check No one watching. Check I'm there!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 7:07:22 GMT -5
Again you're right re: single payer. But, what is the likelihood of them EVER getting that through congress with this mess around their necks? Remember the words of P.T. Barnum. To make more up to date just add with I-phone! Yeah, but the Dems are going to need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the house, and a Democratic president for this to happen. Sure, this could happen, but not in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 7:59:46 GMT -5
Ain't that the shame of it..... Plus-- once all the subsidies kick in, a LOT of people will be happy with their subsidies. Am I the only one who thinks the website problems will be solved long before next November-- and, somehow, those who've been cancelled will have new policies by then? (Remember, these are people who have money to buy insurance, and if they have resources, the "bronze plan" might look pretty darn good.) The Dems have, wisely, set the employer policies aside until after the 2014 election. [That's when all the employer policies become illegal, if only because pediatric dentistry has rarely, if ever, been part of health insurance. Dental coverage has gernerally been a separate and additional insurance policy, even when employer-provided. The employer may have a dental plan, 100% coverage (including "pediatric for the children"), but it's not in the health insurance plan given to employees. That makes the health insurance policy illegal EVEN WHEN DENTAL INSURANCE IS 100% COVERED!] Then, there's the hard truth that $2000/year is WAY less than the cost of a family policy, so employers will take it. PLUS, given that the subsidies go all they way up to a family of four earning $92,000/year, the vast majority of people who lose employer coverage will be pleased to find they get a subsidy. (What, with an income of $85,000/year, you can't manage to take your two kids to the DENTIST??? I never found that a problem at half that family income.) Surely, rejoicing will resound all across the land. And those unmarried couples just living together get even BETTER subsidies than married folks, and we all know that unmarried women with children adore handsome, charismatic Democrats-- or, Hillary, just because she has a vagina, just like them-- and they'll really do well... espeicially if the live-in boyfriend who fathered their children earns just $190,000/year. (He doesn't have to pay the Obamacare surtax until his earnings hit $200,000. Not like the married shlub earning $125,000 with a totally equal wife.) Newly-married gays might become a tad annoyed-- but whom are they going to vote for? The party that opposes gay marriage? They can be counted on to just sit it out, or *gasp* go Libertarian. Bottom line, if the Pubbies think can sit back and relax because ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS COMPLAIN ABOUT OBAMACARE, they will lose, and lose big. Truth is, the general public is now convinced that "the government must Do Something about doctor bills", so... all the Dems have to say is: "We TRIED while you greedy servants of Big Bisiness, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance (not to mention hedge funds and Wall Street) did NOTHING!" From where I'm sitting,the game has already been lost. Maybe tomorrow, I'll be more optimistic, but today, the conversation seems to be all about "What can my couunty do for ME?" That's not a question free men ask. There are absolutely winners and losers to this! But those subsidies do fade out- they aren't going to be as juicy for folks earning closer to the upper limit. And they may not be enough to dent the the massive premium upgrade that's going to come with expanding the plans. Didn't know about the dental thing-- my guess, mergers between plans will be coming--they'll be no one buying separate dental plans if all plans need to cover health and dental. This is all a matter of how many will be hurt vs how many will gain. Those subsidies, too-- are they phased in monthly, or do you only get them back at tax time like all other credits? If the latter-- those subsidies only seem good- folks will still have to swing higher monthly payments until they get them. The smart money -Dems will tweak the bills to eliminate the least popular parts-- and if Repbubs don't jump on board and keep insisting on full repeal, they'll lose.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 10:26:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 10:57:38 GMT -5
Nancy Pelosi says 5 percent more have enrolled then the numbers show. That must be what common core is about. Do you believe anything that whore says? Well Pelosi was pretty accurate that we would have to pass this bill to see what's in it. Now we are seeing what's in it.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 14, 2013 10:57:46 GMT -5
Ok, does anyone know how a subsidy helps the 47% who paid no federal income tax? Do they all go on medicaid? How will the taxpayers pay for all this? Does medicaid have deducible? If not then what stops people from wasting resources by going to the doctor/hospital when they might just as well take two aspirin and sleep it off.
There seems to be a lot of magic money floating around to pay for all of this, raising premiums doesn't pay for the medicaid.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 11:54:19 GMT -5
This should do wonders to restore Obama's tattered credibility.Wait. Wasn't it just earlier this week that these plans were "junk" and offered buy such "bad apples" as Blue Cross? Um... Part of the problem with waving the magic wand like this is that in many states, the terms and premiums are set at least a year in advance. I don't think it's such a big problem for insurance companies to pivot on these plans as it is the regulatory mechanism. And, since many of the people in the individual market are healthy, what does this do to the problem of adverse selection for those reduced to using the exchanges?
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 14, 2013 12:05:39 GMT -5
Accurate yes but she was still being a lying whore (in the political sense) for Obama.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 14, 2013 12:08:55 GMT -5
What are the state insurance commissioners going to say about this "magic wand waving" by our dictator in chief.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 12:16:01 GMT -5
What are the state insurance commissioners going to say about this "magic wand waving" by our dictator in chief. I don't know. But the Obama administration must feel they don't need the insurance companies help in implementing workarounds to this clusterfark. He just tossed them under the bus. Not to weep for the insurance companies, because the ACA fully protected their interests regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 14, 2013 15:12:21 GMT -5
This should do wonders to restore Obama's tattered credibility.Wait. Wasn't it just earlier this week that these plans were "junk" and offered buy such "bad apples" as Blue Cross? Um... Part of the problem with waving the magic wand like this is that in many states, the terms and premiums are set at least a year in advance. I don't think it's such a big problem for insurance companies to pivot on these plans as it is the regulatory mechanism. And, since many of the people in the individual market are healthy, what does this do to the problem of adverse selection for those reduced to using the exchanges? And, of course, everyone to the right of the New York Times will be asking where his authority to do this is.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 15:28:46 GMT -5
This should do wonders to restore Obama's tattered credibility.Wait. Wasn't it just earlier this week that these plans were "junk" and offered buy such "bad apples" as Blue Cross? Um... Part of the problem with waving the magic wand like this is that in many states, the terms and premiums are set at least a year in advance. I don't think it's such a big problem for insurance companies to pivot on these plans as it is the regulatory mechanism. And, since many of the people in the individual market are healthy, what does this do to the problem of adverse selection for those reduced to using the exchanges? And, of course, everyone to the right of the New York Times will be asking where his authority to do this is. That's not real hard. It's in the regulations. The very same regulations that narrowly defined a "grandfathered" plan can be rewritten as to not so narrowly define it. I don't believe his initiative forces insurance companies to write the old policies as Mary Landrieu's legislation would. It just leaves them on the hook when they're forced to get the "new" plans approved by state regulators, not tot mention the risk pool being skewed in an unknown direction yet again. These "new" plans will have to have higher - perhaps much higher - premiums baked into them. Is it cynical of me to note that this gets them past another election?
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 14, 2013 15:36:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 15:48:31 GMT -5
He's got to let people keep their old plans or the Dems lose big in '14, and with them go his ability to do anything in the final two years of his presidency. And that is likely to lead to a Republican victory in '16. But, if he lets people keep their old plans they won't support Obamacare with their dollars, which will weaken it. And it's already so weak. A lot of the public fisc will have to go to supporting those subsidies (which apply whether you pay taxes or not; they are implemented as an automatic reduction of the premiums. Any squaring up necessary because the income you predicted doesn't match the income you earned is what's handled at tax time.)
And for the love of Pete don't claim a subsidy if you might exceed the threshold - they don't phase out gradually. It's more like a cliff. And if they decide you defrauded them on purpose, that cliff is at least $25,000 in height. That's going to be a big drop for a lot of folks - and doing THAT to people won't make the Democrats many friends.
The purpose of this law is to establish socialized medicine, ala Medicare. The insurance companies and the medical community are okay with it because it's guaranteed business for 'em. It will mean eventual steep tax increases, but by then people will be used to "free" medical care and the program will be like Social Security.
Returning the country to state where you worked for your benefits, instead of others working for your benefits, would sure be nice. But as kemmer says, it's probably not going to happen. Well, not until the economy finally collapses under the weight of the entitlements.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 15:52:35 GMT -5
Sure. He knows he needs people to enroll... a lot of them... or his system collapses. You know who goes for those "crappy" plans? People who don't need better plans. You know who Obamacare needs to sign up to underwrite the sick? Yep, that's who. In a way, this mess is that incompetent George W. Bush's fault. If he hadn't utterly destroyed Republican credibility Obama's election is unlikely - and if he'd got in, he wouldn't have had the political capital to foist this mess on us. Plus, odds are good whoever won would have focused his or her attention on the economy, where it belonged. If there's any justice at all, voters will turn Democrats out of office in droves next fall.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 14, 2013 16:23:57 GMT -5
Sure. He knows he needs people to enroll... a lot of them... or his system collapses. You know who goes for those "crappy" plans? People who don't need better plans. You know who Obamacare needs to sign up to underwrite the sick? Yep, that's who. In a way, this mess is that incompetent George W. Bush's fault. If he hadn't utterly destroyed Republican credibility Obama's election is unlikely - and if he'd got in, he wouldn't have had the political capital to foist this mess on us. Plus, odds are good whoever won would have focused his or her attention on the economy, where it belonged. If there's any justice at all, voters will turn Democrats out of office in droves next fall. Dang-don't tell me you're drinking the hopium laced kool-aid?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 14, 2013 16:24:55 GMT -5
Dang-don't tell me you're drinking the hopium laced kool-aid? Either I don't understand you, or you need to read more than the part of the post you bolded.
|
|