GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare

[ZeroJunk]

[QUOTE=d-ray657;357377]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

You have your FACTS wrong. The Court said that the penalty was a tax, not the premiums. That absolutely wipes out your argument that premiums are taxes. Premiums constitute the price people pay for medical coverage. The taxes are the penalty for people who do not buy insurance. If you can show figures that establish that more people paid penalties than paid for premiums, your argument might be less misleading, but I don't expect to see such data.

Call it whatever the F you want to . Premiums have gone up exponentially for the people who actually pay for insurance.

[donquixote99]

I don't think you know what 'exponentially' means.

[d-ray657]

[QUOTE=ZeroJunk;357381]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Call it whatever the F you want to . Premiums have gone up exponentially for the people who actually pay for insurance.

I'm going to make a guess here. Correct me if I am wrong. You have told us many times here how successful you were in business, and how you made a lot of money. Yet you now tell us that you have to spend a quarter of your "gross income" on insurance premiums. Would it be correct to assume that, since you were so successful in business, you don't just live off of your current gross income, but rely on a substantial nest egg, built upon you many years of success in business. If that is the case, your circumstances of paying a quarter of your gross income on insurance is not representative of most of the middle class, who rely on earning active income rather than living on passive income and investments.

[Oerets]

I blame my party the Dems for not being able to educate the values of single payer healthcare for all. This is due to my many conversations about healthcare. Where the anti ACA crowd all want good insurance at cheap prices. Universal health care anyone?
Had one tell me the VA was great but when I pointed out it is a form of socialized medicine and why they became silent.

The problem is a normal one, in that you want something but someone else to pay for it.

Barney

[ZeroJunk]

[QUOTE=d-ray657;357384]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I'm going to make a guess here. Correct me if I am wrong. You have told us many times here how successful you were in business, and how you made a lot of money. Yet you now tell us that you have to spend a quarter of your "gross income" on insurance premiums. Would it be correct to assume that, since you were so successful in business, you don't just live off of your current gross income, but rely on a substantial nest egg, built upon you many years of success in business. If that is the case, your circumstances of paying a quarter of your gross income on insurance is not representative of most of the middle class, who rely on earning active income rather than living on passive income and investments.

Not sure what difference it makes where ones income comes from. I am not old enough for Medicare. I get $21,000 SS and I take $30,000 out of savings. My wife made enough to get us to $61,000 total. And, our insurance through the ACA exchange was $1549 /month .

The way the ACA works, if we had made $59,999 we would have gotten a $ 1100/month . Actually, we did but had to pay it back at tax time because I didn't understand the law.

The disincentive to work part of the deal.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I don't think you know what 'exponentially' means.

Maybe you don't realize that it is much more commonly used to describe rapid growth. I doubt much of anything people describe as exponential actually are in a mathematical sense.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Not sure what difference it makes where ones income comes from. I am not old enough for Medicare. I get $21,000 SS and I take $30,000 out of savings. My wife made enough to get us to $61,000 total. And, our insurance through the ACA exchange was $1549 /month .

The way the ACA works, if we had made $59,999 we would have gotten a $ 1100/month . Actually, we did but had to pay it back at tax time because I didn't understand the law.

The disincentive to work part of the deal.

I've a 58 year old blue Dem dog buddy who doesn't work because of this disincentive.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by nailer

I've a 58 year old blue Dem dog buddy who doesn't work because of this disincentive.

I pay about $600/year for full Kaiser coverage via MegaCorp. A huge incentive to continue working well past minimum retirement eligibility age. Most folks retire at 62, will live with reduced SS benefits the rest of their lives. Dumb, unless they have plenty of other retirement resources to rely on.

I love what I do, won't retire until I'm unable to continue. The advantage of living in a vibrant West Coast metropolis. Plenty of jobs for those who keep up on the latest technologies.

[Chicks]

So I browse over to Fox "News" dot com to see how they are handling the huge news in their alternate reality. One tiny story from Hannity buried well down the page. The headlines screaming about Bill Clinton getting paid by the Russians for a speech. Sigh. He's not running for office last I looked...

[Chicks]

Now Trump and Mitch are talking "repeal now, replace later". Ain't gonna fly, you freaking asswipes. Two Repubes already saying "no" to this Machiavellian idea.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/politi...ful/index.html