Even More Obamacare Follies

[MG1968]

Not sure how it worked with telephone signups, but on the website it's very clear about the subsidy amount. Plus it indicates the tax credit on your monthly premium.

And people are unaware it exists?

There are still people who think Obamacare is free.

 

[Ernest T. Vol]

Not sure how it worked with telephone signups, but on the website it's very clear about the subsidy amount. Plus it indicates the tax credit on your monthly premium.

And people are unaware it exists?

There have been so many laws changes with Obamacare, people actually believe some order or notice from Obama will result in them not having to pay back an excess subsidy. Hell, they are almost right to think so. The IRS has issued notices to forgive penalties for understatements resulting from Obamacare. They also issued a notice to just ignore the tax returns that are incorrect because of incorrect 1095A's sent earlier in the year. It's part of troubling pattern of people anticipating a change in law in real time as well as retroactively for political reasons. What will the law be tomorrow regarding Obamacare? No one knows but Obama voters think it will work out in their favor somehow.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

How is this possible?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I thought it was just stupidity. Now I feel bad for making fun of them.

 

[Vol8188]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Does that qualify me for disability? Or SS?

 

[FLVOL69]

Does that qualify me for disability? Or SS?

You may be covered under obummercare..

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Does that qualify me for disability? Or SS?

Inadvertent like. Subtract one from your total please

 

[lawgator1]

The uninsured rate has plummeted, from 18 % pre-ACA, to just 11 percent.

Nearly 90% of Americans now have health insurance - Apr. 13, 2015

 

[hog88]

The uninsured rate has plummeted, from 18 % pre-ACA, to just 11 percent.

Nearly 90% of Americans now have health insurance - Apr. 13, 2015

Instead of 82% we're up to nearly 89%, wow huge leap. :lolabove:

 

[lawgator1]

Instead of 82% we're up to nearly 89%, wow huge leap. :lolabove:

Numbers like that, in the context of health insurance, yes, that is a huge difference.

 

[hog88]

Numbers like that, in the context of health insurance, yes, that is a huge difference.

Could have accomplished the same without the cost.

 

[Vol8188]

Instead of 82% we're up to nearly 89%, wow huge leap. :lolabove:

For many of those 7 percent, yes it is huge.

 

[volinbham]

Could have accomplished the same without the cost.

:yes:

 

[lawgator1]

Could have accomplished the same without the cost.

How?

Specifically. How?

 

[Bigurnge]

How?

Specifically. How?

How is the problem fixed? Specifically? Why should everyone have to pay for 7% to get something that everyone else has to pay for themselves? If you wanna get specific add that to a person's optional tax deductions. Libs can choose to pay extra taxes for welfare and everybody else can opt out. Do the same for Medicare and SS, if you don't put in you don't take out.

 

[hog88]

How?

Specifically. How?

1) Instead of mandates they could have offered tax incentives to business to provide health insurance. Make it more attractive for smaller companies to offer the benefit.

2) Allow individuals to deduct a portion of their premiums.

Two alternative starting points for you to consider.

 

[lawgator1]

How is the problem fixed? Specifically? Why should everyone have to pay for 7% to get something that everyone else has to pay for themselves? If you wanna get specific add that to a person's optional tax deductions. Libs can choose to pay extra taxes for welfare and everybody else can opt out. Do the same for Medicare and SS, if you don't put in you don't take out.

He said we could have achieved coverage for the other 7-11 percent without cost of the ACA. b'ham agreed.

I want to know how these two came up with that. The specifics, and the proof that it would have done so. Obviously, every other policymaker out there missed it. So would be nice to know what SPECIFIC policy changes they did not adopt, with the PROOF that they would have accomplished this remarkable result.

 

[lawgator1]

1) Instead of mandates they could have offered tax incentives to business to provide health insurance. Make it more attractive for smaller companies to offer the benefit.

You said without the same cost. Which mandates cut? What is the savings? What are the tax consequences and what is the cost of that? Where is your proof that it would cause the same increase in coverage, at less cost?


2) Allow individuals to deduct a portion of their premiums.


That's a cost. How much? Where is proof it would work? Where is proof it costs less?


Two alternative starting points for you to consider.

Those both have costs. You are not being specific. and you have not produced an iota of proof they would work, at less cost.

 

[utvolpj]

Obviously, every other policymaker out there missed it.

Wait, are you claiming that the ACA was universally hailed as the savior to the system? That no one else put forward any options and it was passed unanimously? That it was so solid a plan that it was fully implemented workout delay for every citizen without exemption?

Had to be done that's the only way your statement makes sense

 

[volinbham]

He said we could have achieved coverage for the other 7-11 percent without cost of the ACA. b'ham agreed.

I want to know how these two came up with that. The specifics, and the proof that it would have done so. Obviously, every other policymaker out there missed it. So would be nice to know what SPECIFIC policy changes they did not adopt, with the PROOF that they would have accomplished this remarkable result.

A major chunk of the newly insured are the result of Medicaid expansion - that could have been done without the ACA.

Laughable too to call this a "remarkable result". A remake of the entire health insurance system + Medicaid expansion + major subsidy program yields a reduction in the uninsured by less than 50%? Bravo, Bravo.

 

[lawgator1]

A major chunk of the newly insured are the result of Medicaid expansion - that could have been done without the ACA.


Cost is the same.


Laughable too to call this a "remarkable result". A remake of the entire health insurance system + Medicaid expansion + major subsidy program yields a reduction in the uninsured by less than 50%? Bravo, Bravo.

First, its only been in effect two years. There are still parts being put in place. Second, there's a certain segment that simply will never be part of the process, for one reason or another. Third, its the highest participation rate since they started keeping track of it.

But these posts by you and hog are emblematic of the political problem this creates for the GOP. Over 50 votes to repeal all or part of it.

NOT ONE to replace it with something else. You whine and moan and bellyache -- "oh, isn't it so awful" -- and "it could have been done so much easier and less expensively" -- but when asked for an iota of specifics or evidence to support your claim, your arguments and broad claims turn out to be utterly unsupportable.

If there were such an easy, and better way to do this, how about the GOP offer up that solution, vote it out, and try to work on some replacement language with the administration?

 

[hog88]

Those both have costs. You are not being specific. and you have not produced an iota of proof they would work, at less cost.

Correct, they have costs. No I don't have proof. But the funny thing is, you don't have any proof Obamacare is working or will work long term. Even you have agreed it's just a means to single payer.

 

[Velo Vol]

1) Instead of mandates they could have offered tax incentives to business to provide health insurance. Make it more attractive for smaller companies to offer the benefit.

2) Allow individuals to deduct a portion of their premiums.

Two alternative starting points for you to consider.

Why is making insurance even more connected to the employer any cheaper than giving the tax incentive to the employee?

 

[volinbham]

First, its only been in effect two years. There are still parts being put in place. Second, there's a certain segment that simply will never be part of the process, for one reason or another. Third, its the highest participation rate since they started keeping track of it.

But these posts by you and hog are emblematic of the political problem this creates for the GOP. Over 50 votes to repeal all or part of it.

NOT ONE to replace it with something else. You whine and moan and bellyache -- "oh, isn't it so awful" -- and "it could have been done so much easier and less expensively" -- but when asked for an iota of specifics or evidence to support your claim, your arguments and broad claims turn out to be utterly unsupportable.

If there were such an easy, and better way to do this, how about the GOP offer up that solution, vote it out, and try to work on some replacement language with the administration?

If you'd bother to do some research you'd fine that several alternatives have been proposed, scored and come out with better outcomes.

But no, it's easier to carry the water for Obama and claim his solution was optimal.

As for the in place only "x" amount of time - you can look at all the projections and see that it never gets much beyond cutting the # of uninsured in half. To get there we rewrote the whole dang insurance system.

Costs also include costs of compliance, economic impact, etc.

If the ACA is to be judged as a tool to move us from 82% to 89% insured it is the very definition of overkill.

 

[hog88]

Why is making insurance even more connected to the employer any cheaper than giving the tax incentive to the employee?

I'd have been good with giving the deduction to the employee and even encouraging companies to drop group plans. Let the individual buy their insurance ala carte.