Obamacare Mandate May Be Delayed

[icenine]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Instead of all this gloating and whining and endless useless hearings just maybe if Congress got the finger out and fixed the problems we might just get what we are paying them to do,

I think that is the smartest thing I have read all year.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

'Affordable Care Act' - reminds me of the 'Patriot Act' Lies, damned lies, and politicians.

Man oh man is this taking a drubbing. Now they've been warned? Hoo boy, heads are going to roll. Great political theater.

Pete

Pffffftttt. Only in the pea brained minds of the Repubs on the Ways and Means committee. None of this political theater will do shit to the ACA.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Back at ya:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b78_story.html

From your post:

" Customers can transition onto better quality — but more expensive — plans."

Obama: "The typical family will save $2500 a year in premium."

Politifact called BS on that one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

From your post:

" Customers can transition onto better quality — but more expensive — plans."

Obama: "The typical family will save $2500 a year in premium."

Politifact called BS on that one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/

From your post:

(H)ere's how the CBO projected the effect of the Senate Democrats' plan on insurance premiums:

• For those in the large group market, 0 to 3 percent lower (with average family premiums going from $20,300 in 2016 under current law to $20,100 under the Reid plan)

• For those in the small group market, anywhere from a 1 percent increase to a 2 percent decrease (with average family premiums going from $19,300 in 2016 under current law to $19,200 under the Reid plan)

• For those in the nongroup market, an increase of 10 to 13 percent (with average family premiums going from $13,100 in 2016 under current law to $15,200 under the Reid plan)

So according to the CBO, the vast majority of working families -- who get their insurance through their employer -- would see a slight decrease in premiums. But only in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a year, nowhere near $2,500 a year.

So, it seems that most people will get better coverage for $100 - $200 less. WTF is wrong with that? I think the only thing really wrong with the ACA is that a Democrat succeeded in passing it on a national basis.

[ohbummer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

You do realize that the overwhelming voting class in America does not make anywhere near $100,000 per annum, right? You've been out voted, get over yourselves. I have two words for the well to do having to pay a little more of their disposable income, 'tough titty'.


You could always pay cash or you could support a cheaper system, (single payer) if you really cared about being a leaner and meaner capitalist.

If you think you are right, why not just pay for it yourself.


Instead of being jealous of what other hard working individuals have done for themselves and their families, get off your food stamps and get a real job and pay for your own instead of EXPECTING the hard working to take care of you because you are unwilling to do it yourself.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by ohbummer

If you think you are right, why not just pay for it yourself.


Instead of being jealous of what other hard working individuals have done for themselves and their families, get off your food stamps and get a real job and pay for your own instead of EXPECTING the hard working to take care of you because you are unwilling to do it yourself.

One question.

Tell me how you "know" Bob is on food stamps, unemployed and unwilling to support himself?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

From your post:

(H)ere's how the CBO projected the effect of the Senate Democrats' plan on insurance premiums:

• For those in the large group market, 0 to 3 percent lower (with average family premiums going from $20,300 in 2016 under current law to $20,100 under the Reid plan)

• For those in the small group market, anywhere from a 1 percent increase to a 2 percent decrease (with average family premiums going from $19,300 in 2016 under current law to $19,200 under the Reid plan)

• For those in the nongroup market, an increase of 10 to 13 percent (with average family premiums going from $13,100 in 2016 under current law to $15,200 under the Reid plan)

So according to the CBO, the vast majority of working families -- who get their insurance through their employer -- would see a slight decrease in premiums. But only in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a year, nowhere near $2,500 a year.

So, it seems that most people will get better coverage for $100 - $200 less. WTF is wrong with that? I think the only thing really wrong with the ACA is that a Democrat succeeded in passing it on a national basis.

WTF is wrong with it is that it is meaningless. The CBE study you're referring to is from 2009, before PPACA became law, and before it reached its final form. The Senate Democrat plan isn't what became law, and the CBE report you're referring to only looked at the Senate Democrat plan.

A later CBO study is cited in the same post:

"A report by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper for Congress, said premiums would barely change for anyone who currently has employer-based health care coverage. For individuals and families that do not get health care through an employer, premiums would go up, with the average premium per policy for families increasing by $2,100. Again, families with incomes below the federal poverty line would benefit from subsidies that would negate those increases in part or in full. This report, however, predates the passage of the health care law and doesn't focus on premiums for the average family."

We are already finding out that the CBO report mentioned above is incorrect about the reference to employer based health care. Small group plans are seeing signficant rate changes due to PPACA, and most of them aren't favorable.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

We are already finding out that the CBO report mentioned above is incorrect about the reference to employer based health care. Small group plans are seeing signficant rate changes due to PPACA, and most of them aren't favorable.

Though I'm not an unabashed fan of Obamacare, I still find it preferable to the system predating it or the (nonexistent) Republican plan. It's saved my family a bunch of money thus far.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Though I'm not an unabashed fan of Obamacare, I still find it preferable to the system predating it or the (nonexistent) Republican plan. It's saved my family a bunch of money thus far.

Bingo.

Dave

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ohbummer

If you think you are right, why not just pay for it yourself.


Instead of being jealous of what other hard working individuals have done for themselves and their families, get off your food stamps and get a real job and pay for your own instead of EXPECTING the hard working to take care of you because you are unwilling to do it yourself.

Oh really? Where did you get these crazy ideas? Cute name by the way.