# The affordable care act is working.



## mak2

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2014/10/affordable-care-act-is-working.html



In response to waybomb's question in another thread.


----------



## squerly

mak2 said:


> http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2014/10/affordable-care-act-is-working.html


Are you shitting me?  I might have read the rest of the article but you lost me on item #1, which is complete BS.



> 70% of Americans with Marketplace insurance plans feel they can now  afford care if they get sick, and a majority say their premiums are easy  to afford. (Source: The Commonwealth Fund)


----------



## jimbo

squerly said:


> Are you shitting me?  I might have read the rest of the article but you lost me on item #1, which is complete BS.



Further down.  85% of those signed up are paying less because others are picking up the tab.  The other 15% are presumably paying more.

Welcome back, Mak


----------



## road squawker

On the new Health Insurance Marketplace, insurance companies are finally competing for consumers’ business – and consumers are winning


I guess thats why my insurance went up $190 a *month*....... total BS article

it even takes credit for savings 2010............. before obamaCAID existed


----------



## Big Dog

For some that don't pay so much or nothing at all ...... and then there are the 40 million that still don't have it!


----------



## 300 H and H

mak2,

Welcome back!! Glad to see this post!

Tough crowd though. 

Regards, Kirk


----------



## mak2

Hi Kirk, thanks.

I wouldn't have it any other way.  





300 H and H said:


> mak2,
> 
> Welcome back!! Glad to see this post!
> 
> Tough crowd though.
> 
> Regards, Kirk


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

squerly said:


> Are you shitting me? I might have read the rest of the article but you lost me on item #1, which is complete BS.


the part of this statement that isn't true is the if they get sick insurance should be just that if you have a catastrophic event the insurance will help you cover it and premium's are affordable. the way it is now is insurance is more of a maintenance plan to help you afford a visit to go see the doctor and the premium's reflect this for those of us who pay for it. we had a doc up here wouldn't do insurance each visit was 70 bucks he had more work than he could handle which is why he isn't around he couldn't even take a week off he really needed some extra help.


----------



## mak2

Are you saying insurance should only cover catastrophic events?  





Snowtrac Nome said:


> the part of this statement that isn't true is the if they get sick insurance should be just that if you have a catastrophic event the insurance will help you cover it and premium's are affordable. the way it is now is insurance is more of a maintenance plan to help you afford a visit to go see the doctor and the premium's reflect this for those of us who pay for it. we had a doc up here wouldn't do insurance each visit was 70 bucks he had more work than he could handle which is why he isn't around he couldn't even take a week off he really needed some extra help.


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

by definition what does insurance on your car cover. yes I know now there is stuff like aaa for towing and tire repairs. your standard insurance only covers damage you do or encounter. insurance company's are now selling warranty type stuff too but your insurance isn't going to cover an oil change or tune up. the point I wanted to make if insurance only covered un expected stuff it could be much more affordable one of the reasons health care is so expensive is it has become expected insurance will cover every visit weather you are working up to the co pay limit or already at it. what has been crammed down our throats would have been handled better by a public health clinic and if folks opted not to wait in lines than they could buy an insurance plan that would cover them for that like your auto insurance you get what you choose to pay for not what you want at others expense. some times my writing isn't all that good I hope I was able to make my point correctly,  but to me what we are all seeming to pay for is a body maintenance plan. that only makes insurance company's rich and because of the high premiums the consumer expects to use it for every visit. IE if I break a leg that would justify an insurance claim but if I go in for flue or a cough I  feel the doctor should hand you a fair bill for you to pay.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> Are you saying insurance should only cover catastrophic events?



I'd say that my insurance should cover whatever I want it to, tempered by my abiity and desire to pay for it.  All that after I have done my research and negotiated with the insurance companies. 

I'd say you should have the right to do the same.


----------



## mak2

Then if you crash your motorcycle and end up in the ER and you did not negotiate for that?   Who should pay then?  





jimbo said:


> I'd say that my insurance should cover whatever I want it to, tempered by my abiity and desire to pay for it.  All that after I have done my research and negotiated with the insurance companies.
> 
> I'd say you should have the right to do the same.


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

I like your point jimbo  the way things are now you get what the government wants you to have and if you cant afford it comes at others expense. my point I was trying to make if you cant afford it and you need the taxpayers help it should be bare bones just like your bare bones liability you get for your car if you decide you cant pay or don't want to pay for comprehensive.


----------



## mak2

Who is going to pay for your healthcare if you don't have any or not picked the care you need?  And by the way, car insurance and healthcare insurance are different.   





Snowtrac Nome said:


> I like your point jimbo  the way things are now you get what the government wants you to have and if you cant afford it comes at others expense. my point I was trying to make if you cant afford it and you need the taxpayers help it should be bare bones just like your bare bones liability you get for your car if you decide you cant pay or don't want to pay for comprehensive.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Then if you crash your motorcycle and end up in the ER and you did not negotiate for that?   Who should pay then?


You're presuming (accusing?) Jimbo is ignorant, and not smart enough to insure himself against catastrophic incidents like a motorcycle accident. I don't think you're presenting a realistic scenario to counter his desire to negotiate his coverage within his financial ability, and would suggest you present another scenario to make your point. JMHO.


----------



## mak2

I accused Jimbo of nothing except not being able to predict the future.  What should we, as a society do, if Jimbo guesses wrong and does not get the correct coverages on his ala carte policy?  





JEV said:


> You're presuming (accusing?) Jimbo is ignorant, and not smart enough to insure himself against catastrophic incidents like a motorcycle accident. I don't think you're presenting a realistic scenario to counter his desire to negotiate his coverage within his financial ability, and would suggest you present another scenario to make your point. JMHO.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> I accused Jimbo of nothing except not being able to predict the future.  What should we, as a society do, if Jimbo guesses wrong and does not get the correct coverages on his ala carte policy?


I beg to differ. The scenario you presented implied that he was not smart enough to insure himself against a catostrophic accident if he were able to negotiate on his own behalf. You said nothing about prognostication, but implied lack of knowledge to adequately insure himself, and them having his medical costs rest on someone or something else.


----------



## mak2

Just for the record, this is the kinda crap that keeps stuff stirred up and runs normal people off this forum.  





JEV said:


> *You're presuming (accusing?) Jimbo is ignorant, and not smart enough to insure himself *against catastrophic incidents like a motorcycle accident. I don't think you're presenting a realistic scenario to counter his desire to negotiate his coverage within his financial ability, and would suggest you present another scenario to make your point. JMHO.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Just for the record, this is the kinda crap that keeps stuff stirred up and runs normal people off this forum.


So you feel my challenging your statement is a threat to "normal" people enjoying lively political discussion? That's too bad, but it's not really a problem, since there aren't many "normal" people here on FF. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## ki0ho

The ...almost total lack of NORMAL folks is what makes this place sooo inviting!!!!


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> Then if you crash your motorcycle and end up in the ER and you did not negotiate for that?   Who should pay then?



If I owned a motorcycle, and I don't, then I would have negotiated for motorcycle insurance prior to the crash possibiity.  That's the point.

OTOH, if you crash your motorcycle, and you don't have insurance, why is that my responsibility?


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

just for the record I have been trying to figure out how the un insured are getting over free. when I had my first child it cost me 15 grand which was a lot of bucks back then after buying formula and diapers I was unable to meet the payment obligation to the hospital. they sent me to a collection agency I paid every cent back plus interest. if you don't pay up when a bill is sent it goes to collection and them blood suckers get it out of your asse. so I don't see how the un insured is getting over. i feel it is more of making things equal for the dopers or uneducated. equal to those who have the skills or education to negotiate with an employer for a group plan and if the. hell idon't see those elected officials in Washington ditching their plan for obamacare. also once they are back in the private sector I'm willing to bet they wont sign up for obamacar either. in order to be compliant with Obama care my company's plan is in the toilet now but still cost as much.


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

there may be some good in it. for me and the guy I work with it has just made health care a bigger pia


----------



## mla2ofus

Mak2, tell our son, who works for a big corp, that it's working. As soon as obamacare was rolled out the co. dropped their health insurance.
                                Mike


----------



## tiredretired

My Medicare Supplemental insurance increased 10% for 2015, my Part D drug plan is inreasing 14% for 2015.  Both way above the posted cost of living inreases according to the Gov't as COLA was increased by 2% or so.

So maybe someone could explain to me the affordable part of the NObamaCare plan and how it pertains to the everyday citizen who was promised in 2010 that costs would actually be going down once this plan was implemented?  Oh, wait a minute, turns out Gruber was the only one involved in the formation of NObamaCare that actually told the American people the truth.  We really are stupid for allowing this are we not?


----------



## tiredretired

JEV said:


> So you feel my challenging your statement is a threat to "normal" people enjoying lively political discussion? That's too bad, but it's not really a problem, since* there aren't many "normal" people here on FF. *
> 
> Have a nice day.



HEY!!  I resemble that underhanded remark.  You watch it there fella!!


----------



## pixie

Ya tell me about the affordable part…
It would cost half my income for the least expensive plan and if I can't afford that, the state will attach my real estate that I worked 20 years to pay off the mortage. In ten years, they will own it and I'll be homeless ? ? ! Nice plan !

Just trying to hold out till I'm 65.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> I accused Jimbo of nothing except not being able to predict the future. What should we, as a society do, if Jimbo guesses wrong and does not get the correct coverages on his ala carte policy?



But you are wrong, Mak, I can predict a lot of my future. Here are some predictions:

I'm 76 and had a vasectomy years ago. I will never need prenatal or baby insurance.

I will never own a motorcycle. I will never need motorcycle insurance

All my kids are over 50. No chance either will be living with me until they are 26.

I will never again climb rock faces, skydive, kayak class 6 rivers, or race cars.

I will not be involved in the lumber business. I don't need high risk labor insurance,

OTOH, I am 76. I will need to cover problems associated with getting old.

I'll be able to pay for this with the money I save by not buying lumberjack insurance unless the government forces me to buy insurance for lumberjacks.

Mak, another question. I've got a friend. He has 4 homes, a couple of businesses, 3 high dollar autos. Other than liability, he has no insurance, none. He feels he is of sufficient wealth to self insure and saves millions doing so.. He's a billionaire. I feel he can self insure. 

Should he be required to buy AHC? Wealth redistribution does not count. His charitable trust distributes more money in a year than you and I will make in a lifetime.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> I accused Jimbo of nothing except not being able to predict the future. * What should we, as a society do, if Jimbo guesses wrong and does not get the correct coverages on his ala carte policy*?


It's my opinion that Jimbo would be in the same boat as if you invested heavily in a single stock, then lost it all because you guessed wrong. But liberals feel that they have all the answers to solve the challenges of our society, and few of their solutions involve personal responsibility for one's actions. Nobody is going to bail you out if you lose your investment, especially based on warning of caveat emptor when it comes to investing. But liberals pick how individuals should be treated, thus negating personal choice in the matter of health care. I need not remind you that ObamaCare was passed by a single political party at the wishes of Dear Leader, eliminating any dialog to the contrary. It's a terrible solution to how we approach health cafe, and was a takeover of 1/6th of the economy...which was the intent all along.

What should we do? We should listen and weigh all options from all sides before trying solutions, not just take over because you can, which is what the democrat super majority did. As we saw in the midterm elections, the chickens are coming home to roost, and even the liberals are seeing the error of their ways as they are being replaced in significant numbers, and there are still people who are not, and will  not be covered by healthcare...by design.

FWIW, just because the government publishes a propaganda piece saying it's working, does not mean it's based in fact. I remind you "_If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor._"  This lie came from the head of the government (along with other blatant lies) that we are encouraged to trust. All we trust is that we cannot believe anything that comes from his lips or his pen. But keep believing what you choose to believe, and ignore the facts when they are proven. It's the liberal way.


----------



## jwstewar

Yeah, tell me how Obama care is working, my premiums have gone up every year and now we have to pay a nice sum of money before they will ever pay anything. And this is all because our insurance was "too good" before and the company was going to have to pay a fine for it. Yes, Obama care is working my ass!!!1


----------



## mak2

Insurance is about sharing risks.  I think we discussed this to death before but one more time.  Did you know 30% of lifetime healthcare expenses are in the last 6 months of life?  Thankfully for older Americans healthcare cost are shared, one way or the other, over a very large group.  All of us, one way or the other.  Unless you are willing to push patients to the curb, an a la carte healthcare system simply wont work, unless of course you and everyone else can accurately predict the future.  Then I guess you wouldn't need insurance. 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ould-have-to-buy-maternity-coverage/index.htm

A. I’ve been getting this question a lot (most recently from Dr. Sanjay Gupta during a recent appearance on his weekly program). It refers to the fact that as of 2014, all individual and small group insurance plans sold in the U.S. must cover those services as "essential health benefits." Here's why.  

Health insurance, like all insurance, works by pooling risks. The healthy subsidize the sick, who could be somebody else this year and you next year. Those risks include any kind of health care a person might need from birth to death—prenatal care through hospice. No individual is likely to need all of it, but we will all need some of it eventually.




jimbo said:


> But you are wrong, Mak, I can predict a lot of my future. Here are some predictions:
> 
> I'm 76 and had a vasectomy years ago. I will never need prenatal or baby insurance.
> 
> I will never own a motorcycle. I will never need motorcycle insurance
> 
> All my kids are over 50. No chance either will be living with me until they are 26.
> 
> I will never again climb rock faces, skydive, kayak class 6 rivers, or race cars.
> 
> I will not be involved in the lumber business. I don't need high risk labor insurance,
> 
> OTOH, I am 76. I will need to cover problems associated with getting old.
> 
> I'll be able to pay for this with the money I save by not buying lumberjack insurance unless the government forces me to buy insurance for lumberjacks.
> 
> Mak, another question. I've got a friend. He has 4 homes, a couple of businesses, 3 high dollar autos. Other than liability, he has no insurance, none. He feels he is of sufficient wealth to self insure and saves millions doing so.. He's a billionaire. I feel he can self insure.
> 
> Should he be required to buy AHC? Wealth redistribution does not count. His charitable trust distributes more money in a year than you and I will make in a lifetime.


----------



## mak2

BS usually doesn't qualify as reasonable discourse. 





squerly said:


> Are you shitting me?  I might have read the rest of the article but you lost me on item #1, which is complete BS.


----------



## mak2

Again BS is usually not a legitimate discussion point but ok.  What were you paying before?  Did you coverage increase?  Has insurance and healthcare ever went up before?  We are discussing a national healthcare system.  IF you want to discuss your coverage I guess we could, but the ACA is about the system.  





road squawker said:


> On the new Health Insurance Marketplace, insurance companies are finally competing for consumers’ business – and consumers are winning
> 
> 
> I guess thats why my insurance went up $190 a *month*....... total BS article
> 
> it even takes credit for savings 2010............. before obamaCAID existed


----------



## mak2

Is the MLR still around?  





Big Dog said:


> For some that don't pay so much or nothing at all ...... and then there are the 40 million that still don't have it!


----------



## mak2

Mean corporation?  What company was it and exactly what policies were dropped and why.  Did he get a raise to offset the loss?  





mla2ofus said:


> Mak2, tell our son, who works for a big corp, that it's working. As soon as obamacare was rolled out the co. dropped their health insurance.
> Mike


----------



## Kane

ObamaCare was dreamed up by the liberal elite to provide healthcare for the some 45 million poor Americans that were not previously covered by insurance.

And to date, around just 7.3 million people have gained access to new insurance for the first time. Seven million. What happened to the other 38 million people?

Of course Obama promised to everyone else, that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it". Of course this was a lie. Since its inception, some 6 million people have had their personal plans cancelled, and millions more will have plans cancelled when the corporate plan changes kick in, just like mal2ofus' son.

Of course Obama promised that ObamaCare wouldn't cost America "one thin dime", and provided misleading info to the CBO to prove it. Of course it was a lie, too. Truth is, ObamaCare will cost America nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years.

So, in order to provide healthcare insurance to 7.3 million people, it will cost America nearly $2,000,000,000,000.

Yep. ObamaCare sure is working.


----------



## mak2

THems a lot of numbers, where did they come from?  





Kane said:


> ObamaCare was dreamed up by the liberal elite to provide healthcare for the some 45 million people that were not covered by insurance.
> 
> Since its inception, tho, some 6 million people have had their personal plans cancelled, and millions more will have plans cancelled when the corporate plan changes kick in next year.
> 
> And to date, around just 7 million people have gained access to new insurance for the first time. Seven million. What happened to the other 38 million people?
> 
> Of course Obama promised that ObamaCare wouldn't cost America "one thin dime", and provided misleading info to the CBO to prove it. It was a lie. Truth is, ObamaCare will cost America nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years.
> 
> So, in order to provide healthcare insurance to 7 million people, it will cost America nearly 2 trillion dollars.
> 
> Yep. ObamaCare sure is working.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> Insurance is about sharing risks. I think we discussed this to death before but one more time. Did you know 30% of lifetime healthcare expenses are in the last 6 months of life? Thankfully for older Americans healthcare cost are shared, one way or the other, over a very large group. All of us, one way or the other. Unless you are willing to push patients to the curb, an a la carte healthcare system simply wont work, unless of course you and everyone else can accurately predict the future. Then I guess you wouldn't need insurance.
> 
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ould-have-to-buy-maternity-coverage/index.htm
> 
> A. I’ve been getting this question a lot (most recently from Dr. Sanjay Gupta during a recent appearance on his weekly program). It refers to the fact that as of 2014, all individual and small group insurance plans sold in the U.S. must cover those services as "essential health benefits." Here's why.
> 
> Health insurance, like all insurance, works by pooling risks. The healthy subsidize the sick, who could be somebody else this year and you next year. Those risks include any kind of health care a person might need from birth to death—prenatal care through hospice. No individual is likely to need all of it, but we will all need some of it eventually.



Insurance is about pooling risk.  i.e. a group with similar risk factors get together and pool funds sufficient to cover the risk.  However, the operative phrase  here is similar risk.  As examples, drivers need at least liability to cover the effect their actions potentially have on other persons, or even themselves if they so choose.  In health care, the same happens.  Everyone has the potential to have a heart attack.  Not everyone will have a heart attack, but pools spread the risk among the prospects.

 However, not all groups have the same potential to incur the losses, so sub groups with similar risks are formed, and each group pays according to the group risk.  Smokers tend to pay more than non smokers for cancer and heart attack insurance.   95 year olds pay more than either group based on potential future costs.

 AHC, however, does not work that way.  Everybody pays for prenatal care, regardless of the probability of future use.  That's not risk pooling, that's redistributing wealth.  Ala carte most certainly works for those willing to pay for their own risk.  It does not work for those who expect someone else to pay their bills.  The proponents state this.  ACA will not work unless those with little or no risk agree to or are forced to participate to cover the high risk participant.  That is redistribution of risk or wealth, whichever way you want to look at it.

 I'm fully aware that the highest medical costs occur during the last few months of life.  I've taken steps to minimize those risks.  First, I've got me covered, second, I've got no desire to spend the last 6 months of my life in bed unconscious and with tubes sticking in my arms.  I've made my wishes known.  I don't want the government involved in my final desires.

 Like I stated, I cannot accurately predict the future, but I can accurately predict some of my future needs.


----------



## mtntopper

Debating the US health care system on FF is like opening a can of worms in front of vultures. We end up with a feeding frenzy of opinions based on each person's own perspective and experiences.


----------



## Kane

mtntopper said:


> Debating the US health care system on FF is like opening a can of worms in front of vultures. We end up with a feeding frenzy of opinions based on each person's own perspective and experiences.



Actually, MT, we can debate it based upon the facts and the numbers. The ACA is a stinker. An artfully legislated redistribution of wealth.

Of course, like you say, from the liberal's perspective, they love it. Even tho they, too (even tho they will not admit it), are paying for it dearly.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Insurance is about sharing risks. * I think we discussed this to death *before but one more time.


That we did, and since then there has been a lot water flowing under the bridge. During that time the roll-out was a sham, an "architect" has been exposed who admitted, on multiple occasions, that his input was to insure the "stupid voters" never found out what it was REALLY going to turn out like, or it would never have passed. Well, the not-so-stupid voters found out what was really in the law, and are now being screwed big time. Did some premiums go down Yes. But, at the cost of deductibles so high most people cannot afford to pay them before the plans kick in, and then, at a lower rate than what the people had before their previous insurance was cancelled because it did not meet plan minimums. My wife is 63 and cannot have children any longer. WTF are people like us doing paying for pre & post natal care??? Wealth redistribution is a scheme to lure in more democrat voters so the charade can perpetuate itself.


----------



## tiredretired

Something either works or it does not work.  ACA or as it is more commonly known OSlimmeyCare, does not work as promised. It was a scam perpitrated on the American people to, as Kane said, redistribute wealth.

Jonathon Gruber was the ONLY architect on the plan that stated the truth.  The only one!   Even then, the only reason this abomination got through was the fact that the left wing media wanted it as bad as the liberals.

And that, my friends, is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Prove me wrong, Mak2!


----------



## jimbo

mtntopper said:


> Debating the US health care system on FF is like opening a can of worms in front of vultures. We end up with a feeding frenzy of opinions based on each person's own perspective and experiences.



Mak started this thread.  His first in a while.  Mak is a big boy that has been around this forum and others for years.  Mak is aware of the views of many on this thread, including me.

 I believe that Mak has a giant chain hanging on the wall of his office that requires jerking every so often.

 What Mak will do is institute lively conversation without the conversation turning personal.  I like that.

 Welcome back, Mak.


----------



## tiredretired

mak2 said:


> Insurance is about sharing risks.



True story, but what are the differences here?

In my state I can only choose between two health care providers.  For auto and home insurance I can shop nationwide.

For auto and home I get discounts for a good driving record, deadbolt locks, security cameras, etc.  ACA gives no such options.

With ACA I have to purchase coverage that does not pertain to me.  We are all familiar with those.  That would be like me having to purchase road rallye auto insurance for my Crossfire even though I do no such thing.  You get my drift.

It is a fatally flawed plan that cannot survive the longterm.  Oddly enough I believe at some point it will be the Dems that will want to get rid of this as it will just become too big an anchor attached to their ass.

Sorry Mak, but history will show that Obama's name to be nothing more then synonymous with failure and incompetence.


----------



## mak2

Auto and health insurance are not comparable.  I will push your crashed car to the curb and let it rust away, so you don't have to have it fixed and I don't have to pay for it.  if you are not adequately insured I cannot push you to the curb and let you die.  I too think ACA is a mistake, we should just cut to UHC and be done with it, because that is where we will end up someday, unless of course we just push people to the curb.   





TiredRetired said:


> True story, but what are the differences here?
> 
> In my state I can only choose between two health care providers.  For auto and home insurance I can shop nationwide.
> 
> For auto and home I get discounts for a good driving record, deadbolt locks, security cameras, etc.  ACA gives no such options.
> 
> With ACA I have to purchase coverage that does not pertain to me.  We are all familiar with those.  That would be like me having to purchase road rallye auto insurance for my Crossfire even though I do no such thing.  You get my drift.
> 
> It is a fatally flawed plan that cannot survive the longterm.  Oddly enough I believe at some point it will be the Dems that will want to get rid of this as it will just become too big an anchor attached to their ass.


----------



## mla2ofus

mak2 said:


> Mean corporation?  What company was it and exactly what policies were dropped and why.  Did he get a raise to offset the loss?



   I don't think it's my place to disclose the co name.
 They dropped the entire health plan and no, he didn't get a raise to buy his own health insurance. I wonder if "mak2" is a pseudonym for Alan Colmes?
                                 Mike


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Auto and health insurance are not comparable.  I will push your crashed car to the curb and let it rust away, so you don't have to have it fixed and I don't have to pay for it.  if you are not adequately insured I cannot push you to the curb and let you die.  I too think ACA is a mistake, *we should just cut to UHC and be done with it*, because that is where we will end up someday, unless of course we just push people to the curb.



Also know as complete government domination, IMO.

Two interesting articles from Forbes about the accuracy of the enrollment numbers, thus validating the effectiveness of ObamaCare. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...dont-know-how-many-people-obamacare-enrolled/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-the-air-on-obamacares-enrollment-statistics/

This second article is a follow up to the first, with an interesting slant on how the government plans to increase revenue from the ACA.



> By failing to look at the new offers, individuals can find themselves inadvertently paying far more  than they expect.  The government is encouraging current customers to  renew their current plans through auto-enrollment, undoubtedly to ease  pressure on fragile exchange web sites.  Many customers will see  significant price spikes if the plan they selected for 2014 loses its  status as a “benchmark” plan—the second lowest-cost silver plan offered  in the local market.
> Since subsidies are tied to the benchmark plan, the premiums paid by  consumers net of the subsidy depend both on the plan they select and  where that plan’s premium ranks among the options.  A benchmark plan for  2014 could be underbid by a competitor, which could double the net  premium paid next year by a consumer who fails to check the new prices.
> Many people caught in this trap probably will not realize it until  their checking accounts are overdrawn next year after a few months of  unexpected and unnoticed premium payments.  If the Obama administration  wants to avoid another black eye—and if they would like to avoid harming  some of their most enthusiastic constituents—they should rethink a  strategy designed only to make life easier for the politicians.


----------



## mak2

It is impossible to debate something if one side gets to throw out anecdotal evidence then refuse to back it up.  Hey I know a lady that ACA almost certainly saved her life, I really do.  Colmes is a wussy, that is why they let him on Fox.   





mla2ofus said:


> I don't think it's my place to disclose the co name.
> They dropped the entire health plan and no, he didn't get a raise to buy his own health insurance. I wonder if "mak2" is a pseudonym for Alan Colmes?
> Mike


----------



## tiredretired

mak2 said:


> Auto and health insurance are not comparable.  I will push your crashed car to the curb and let it rust away, so you don't have to have it fixed and I don't have to pay for it.  if you are not adequately insured I cannot push you to the curb and let you die.  I too think ACA is a mistake, we should just cut to UHC and be done with it, because that is where we will end up someday, unless of course we just push people to the curb.



If you think UHC is the answer, then take a look at the most liberal state in the union. Vermont.  Today, they announced that Single Payer or Green Mountain Care as they call it is not doable, too expensive and unworkable. It would have taken a 10% added tax on business, 10% added payroll tax and a 9% increase in income tax.  The largest tax increase in per capita in this nation's history. If nothing else, political suicide at the very least. Vermont would be a RED state in two years and they knew it.

UHC is DEAD. It is a corpse and the smart liberals and most Republicans know it.


----------



## mla2ofus

OK, Alan, I don't throw BS out just for something occupy my fingers on a keyboard!! I've stated a hard fact and debating w/ you is like doing it w/ the real Alan. No matter what facts are given he just keeps beatin' his gums about how wonderful his savior is!!
                                                Mike


----------



## mak2

But then there is the rest of the civilized world...What do you mean UHC is dead.  I must have missed the memo, the rest of the world trying to get a system like our and get rid of UHC?  





TiredRetired said:


> If you think UHC is the answer, then take a look at the most liberal state in the union. Vermont.  Today, they announced that Single Payer or Green Mountain Care as they call it is not doable, too expensive and unworkable. It would have taken a 10% added tax on business, 10% added payroll tax and a 9% increase in income tax.  The largest tax increase in per capita in this nation's history. If nothing else, political suicide at the very least. Vermont would be a RED state in two years and they knew it.
> 
> UHC is DEAD. It is a corpse and the smart liberals and most Republicans know it.


----------



## mak2

Your anecdotal evidence is not debating.  National healthcare systems are really really big with lots and lots of people.  





mla2ofus said:


> OK, Alan, I don't throw BS out just for something occupy my fingers on a keyboard!! I've stated a hard fact and debating w/ you is like doing it w/ the real Alan. No matter what facts are given he just keeps beatin' his gums about how wonderful his savior is!!
> Mike


----------



## tiredretired

mak2 said:


> But then there is the rest of the civilized world...What do you mean UHC is dead.  I must have missed the memo, the rest of the world trying to get a system like our and get rid of UHC?



It may be worth the time for both of us to take a look at what the European nations pay for their single payer.  What percentage of their GDP is consumed by health care? i do not know, but I would suspect it is right up there.  Overall they are burdened by the welfare state.  

Canada is another example.  From everything you and I have both seen, do you honestly think the people that run our governement are as competant as our neighbors up north in running health care?  I am a proud American as much as the next guy but our government is right up there in terms of corruption and imcompetence. The VA is barely managable if indeed it is managable at all.  The Peter Principle is rampant in Federal government.  Until that changes, nothing will change. 

I say UHC is dead, because it is too late.  The sticker shock will preclude any action on this.  The costs are enormous.  2.5 billion alone just for little Vermont.  Look it up.


----------



## bczoom

An article on Vermont.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rmont-ends-push-for-single-payer-health-care/

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) has abandoned a years-long push for a universal health-care system in the state after budget analysts said the program would require what he called “enormous” new taxes.

Shumlin had proposed what he called the Green Mountain Care plan, which would have put Vermont on track to provide publicly-financed health care starting in 2017.

But Michael Costa, Shumlin’s deputy director of health care reform, concluded the plan would have required an 11.5 percent payroll tax on all Vermont businesses and an income tax hike of up to 9.5 percent. Those taxes wouldn’t have covered transition costs to the new system, which would have amounted to at least $500 million.

“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the legislature to pass,” Shumlin said in a speech Wednesday. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”

Shumlin blamed slower-than-expected economic growth after the recession that forced the state to make steep budget cuts. Federal funding for the transition would have been $150 million less than initially projected, costs the state would have had to absorb.

“Pushing for single payer health care financing when the time isn’t right and it would likely hurt our economy is not good for Vermont and it would not be good for true health care reform,” Shumlin said. “Now is not the right time to ask our legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care.”

The administration’s budget officials tried to find ways to pay for the program without the tax hikes, though no one could come up with a solution that prevented the tax hikes.

In an op-ed released by Shumlin’s office, he called the move to scrap universal care “one of the most difficult decisions of my public life.”

Instead of universal health care, Shumlin said he would pursue other avenues to reduce health-care costs, such as paying for quality of outcomes rather than quantity of services, and improving information technology systems.

Republicans cheered the decision to abandon the push for a single-payer system. Lt. Gov. Phil Scott (R) called the move “a definitive step in the right direction for Vermonters, Vermont businesses and Vermont’s economy.”

“Businesses cannot afford an 11.5 percent payroll tax, individuals cannot afford a 9.5 percent income tax, our State cannot afford a $2.6 billion bill, and Vermont cannot afford to continue down this path of uncertainty,” Scott said in a statement. “We’ve already spent far too much money exploring this idea, and the discussion has paralyzed our business community.”

More than 41,000 Vermonters were made eligible for Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Programs under the Affordable Care Act and another 38,000 had signed up for coverage as of April, according to statistics maintained by the pro-ACA Kaiser Family Foundation. Just 9.3 percent of Vermonters were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act was passed, one of the lower rates in the nation.


----------



## mak2

Universal healthcare is based on evidence based medicine.  Every citizen in our country should have access to healthcare.  Our current system was profit based, evidence (science) rarely played into it still is very ineffiencetly ran, for example, think about a $750 ER visit for a cold, the pt still cant get the script filled so have to come back when they can breath at all then get admitted in ICU on a vent when a $25 script would have taken care of it.  UHC is ran much more efficiently.  Saying overall they are burdened by the welfare state really means nothing, it is just a right wing talking point.  Gooberment bad is also a talking point.  Pretty much the rest of the world has some form of Universal healthcare, not one is attempting to emulate our system.  Not one.  When you talk about the sticker shock of UHC it makes me think you don't realize we are all paying for it ether way, we just need to make it a way that works.     





TiredRetired said:


> It may be worth the time for both of us to take a look at what the European nations pay for their single payer.  What percentage of their GDP is consumed by health care? i do not know, but I would suspect it is right up there.  Overall they are burdened by the welfare state.
> 
> Canada is another example.  From everything you and I have both seen, do you honestly think the people that run our governement are as competant as our neighbors up north in running health care?  I am a proud American as much as the next guy but our government is right up there in terms of corruption and imcompetence. The VA is barely managable if indeed it is managable at all.  The Peter Principle is rampant in Federal government.  Until that changes, nothing will change.
> 
> I say UHC is dead, because it is too late.  The sticker shock will preclude any action on this.  The costs are enormous.  2.5 billion alone just for little Vermont.  Look it up.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Your anecdotal evidence is not debating.  *National healthcare systems are really really big with lots and lots of people*.


 So is socialism, communism & Islam. We all can see how great those are working. Try to have more than one kid in China. Great system if you're in control of it. Deny the prophet and lose your head over it. I'm sure liberals would like to do that to conservatives if they could get away with it. Maybe Dear Leader will sign another executive order for the.


----------



## mak2

What exactly does this add to the discussion?  More than one kid in China?  Not like you try to hijack a thread or anything. 





JEV said:


> So is socialism, communism & Islam. We all can see how great those are working. Try to have more than one kid in China. Great system if you're in control of it. Deny the prophet and lose your head over it. I'm sure liberals would like to do that to conservatives if they could get away with it. Maybe Dear Leader will sign another executive order for the.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Every citizen in our country should have access to healthcare.


 Wasn't every American entitled to home ownership? You didn't even have to prove you could make the payments if you were the right social group. See how well that one worked out?


----------



## mak2

Again, that has what to do with...





JEV said:


> Wasn't every American entitled to home ownership? You didn't even have to prove you could make the payments if you were the right social group. See how well that one worked out?


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> What exactly does this add to the discussion?  More than one kid in China?  Not like you try to hijack a thread or anything.



Not trying to hijack anything. Big government systems being compared as to their effectiveness.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Again, that has what to do with...


Again...comparing government "entitlement" programs. Can't you see that?


----------



## mak2

No.  IF you want to talk about Islam or kids in China home ownership or what ever it was, feel free, but none of that silliness is an argument against a scientific based national healthcare system.   





JEV said:


> Again...comparing government "entitlement" programs. Can't you see that?


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> No. IF you want to talk about Islam or kids in China home ownership or what ever it was, feel free, but none of that silliness is an argument against a scientific based national healthcare system.



We do not have a scientific based healthcare system, nor is one being proposed.  We have a politically based health care system.  That is why it has been extended, exempted, eliminated, for various voting blocks tens of times.

 As for cost efficiency, shouldn't we look at what has already happened?

 The AHC web site cost by most accounts, just north of a billion dollars.  That is more than Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Google combined.  All of those sites worked out of the box.  The Obamacare site didn't.  Nobody got fired.  Why would you expect the next phase to be any better?


----------



## tiredretired

Thanx for the linkie I was too lazy to dig up BCZOOM.

The ironic thing is that the death knell here in Vermont for UHC was the very welfare state that the liberals created.  Not enough people paying into the system.  Too much wealth distribution for even the liberals to stomach.  

Mak tries to make the case that we are already paying for health care, which is true.  However even the liberals here realized that was not enough.  There just is not enough money available to make it work or the liberals here would have done it.  Trust me on this, I live in this God forsaken state.  

The liberals created the monster that has destroyed the concept of single payer.  It might have worked 20 or 30 years ago when there was actually more people working then not.  Now it is fantasy and trust me Mak, you will never ever see it in your lifetime or the next.


----------



## mak2

You are correct, our healthcare system is still profit based.  We need to get to a UHC evidence based system and we certainly will.  We have and have had the most expensive health care system in the world, by far.  the one system we KNOW doesn't work is our old one.  I don't get what you mean by politically based healthcare.   





jimbo said:


> We do not have a scientific based healthcare system, nor is one being proposed.  We have a politically based health care system.  That is why it has been extended, exempted, eliminated, for various voting blocks tens of times.
> 
> As for cost efficiency, shouldn't we look at what has already happened?
> 
> The AHC web site cost by most accounts, just north of a billion dollars.  That is more than Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Google combined.  All of those sites worked out of the box.  The Obamacare site didn't.  Nobody got fired.  Why would you expect the next phase to be any better?


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> No.  IF you want to talk about Islam or kids in China home ownership or what ever it was, feel free, but none of that silliness is an argument against a politically ideological, junk-scientific based national healthcare system.




There..I fixed it for ya. 

Silliness?? I make analogies on government systems and you call it silliness? Are analogies not permitted?

Sadly, politics permeates science as we have seen with global warming "science" to meet the narrative of the left, there is little to no trust in "science."


----------



## mak2

This thread is specifically about the ACA working.  It could also encompass healthcare in the US without stretching it too much.  Now you are even babbling on about global warming and junk science, some stuff never changes.   I did miss the smilies on this forum.  





JEV said:


> There..I fixed it for ya.
> 
> Silliness?? I make analogies on government systems and you call it silliness? Are analogies not permitted?
> 
> Sadly, politics permeates science as we have seen with global warming "science" to meet the narrative of the left, there is little to no trust in "science."


----------



## MrLiberty

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/17/v...ngle-payer-health-care-over-ballooning-costs/

There isn't one single payer system in the world that works as promised, it can't because the cost is enormous.


----------



## Kane

Yes, mak2, ObamaCare is working like a charm for the handful of people getting subsidies.  For everyone else? Not so much. It is a boondoggle built upon one lie after another. 


Kane said:


> ObamaCare was dreamed up by the liberal elite to provide healthcare for the some 45 million poor Americans that were not previously covered by insurance.
> 
> And to date, around just 7.3 million people have gained access to new insurance for the first time. Seven million. What happened to the other 38 million people?
> 
> Of course Obama promised to everyone else, that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it". Of course this was a lie. Since its inception, some 6 million people have had their personal plans cancelled, and millions more will have plans cancelled when the corporate plan changes kick in, just like mal2ofus' son.
> 
> Of course Obama promised that ObamaCare wouldn't cost America "one thin dime", and provided misleading info to the CBO to prove it. Of course it was a lie, too. Truth is, ObamaCare will cost America nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years.
> 
> So, in order to provide healthcare insurance to 7.3 million people, it will cost America nearly $2,000,000,000,000.
> 
> Yep. ObamaCare sure is working.


----------



## Danang Sailor

Mak, the "old system" worked just fine for me, and a lot of other people ... a LOT of other people.  These are the things I
find abhorrent about ACA/ObamaCare:

1.  It was passed without being critically examined, even by the Democrats that forced it through.
2.  It was passed based on string of outright falsehoods, which were known to be false when they were uttered.
3.  It was passed on the promise that 38 to 40 million people who could not afford health insurance now would.  That
hasn't happened and the numbers suggest it won't.
4.  Small businesses across the country have scaled back the number of people they employ or have changed the status
of their employees from FTE to PTE, the alternative being to shutdown due to the costs of ACA.
5.  On a personal level, I don't believe I should be forced to underwrite the health insurance coverage of other, unknown
people.  This is going to cause the income taxes for everyone to increase as the true costs of this boondoggle become known.

There are numbers to support these points, but I'm quite sure you've already seen them.  If this were a viable and cost
effective program I would still harbor rancor about it due to the number of lies spewed forth to sell it.


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

I know one staunch democrat who was telling me about how great Obama care was when I asked if he had signed up ,his answer was it's cheaper to pay the fine


----------



## Kane

Snowtrac Nome said:


> I know one staunch democrat who was telling me about how great Obama care was when I asked if he had signed up ,his answer was it's cheaper to pay the fine



More correctly, it's cheaper to pay the TAX ... also known as the transfer of wealth.


----------



## road squawker

mak2 said:


> Insurance is about sharing risks..Health insurance, like all insurance, works by pooling risks. The healthy subsidize the sick...



Sooooo, you acknowledge that the ACA has nothing to do with actual health*CARE*,...

 its only about requiring everyone to purchase insurance.


----------



## SShepherd

I thought that law passed by deception was supposed to save us 2500/year?

I thought you could keep your Dr. if you liked them?

so many lies. gruber ? gruber? 

passed by lies and deception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-failing-cost-control-1413758684

"If the ACO goes the way of every other previous HHS adventure in false omniscience, government planners will invariably turn to rationing care. Their main tool will be the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member committee of experts whose decisions are insulated from political oversight. Under ObamaCare, medicine will always be accountable to government, not patients."


----------



## ki0ho

Well....Mak.....as usely happens.......hate and disconect  lies and untruth  follows  the evil one.......and even with great skill its hard to conceal 
Like a big black crow trying to hide in the snow!!!
Im not any good at word games...but watching you peddle your libtard dribble is almost as much fun as watching Beckle try to slip the same crap past the ladys on the Five!!!!!
He thinks he is smooth as silk but every time the ladys are laughing their heads off at his buffoonery. and cover him up with facts...which libtards seem totally unable to digest

But hay.....welcome...you do wake up the dogs.....and I happen to be a dog lover and enjoy watching them have fun.........


----------



## mak2

How else you gonna keep them people from getting that "free" healthcare?  It was really funny, until the mandate free healthcare was a RW meme.  I bet I heard them people getting free healthcare a million times.  The only way to stop people from not paying for their healthcare is to require them to have insurance (or go to UHC).  As soon as the mandate happened, that free healthcare is freedom itself.  Just more RW amusement.  





road squawker said:


> Sooooo, you acknowledge that the ACA has nothing to do with actual health*CARE*,...
> 
> its only about requiring everyone to purchase insurance.


----------



## Big Dog

It's always the ones that get free healthcare that exploit the "benefits" of the ACA. It's great for the ones getting it free but what about the ones that are now having to pay much more for a plan that cost MUCH more for initial care.

I don't know how anyone right of mind finds it acceptable for those that had affordable healthcare that now have to pay double the premium and triple the deductible. I have done the numbers for me personally on the ACA website. Trying to do a comparable plan (currently on my wife's plan but look for it to be dropped) on the ACA is impossible. Our current plan cost approximately $320/mo. The closest plan for coverages on the ACA is one of the Silver plans offered, I would get no subsidies. The cost is $1150/mo with triple the deductible. Now please explain to me how that is fair. If I have an issue my current plan out of pocket expense before my 80% would kick in is $5,840. For the ACA play TPO before the 80% is $19,800. Is that acceptable? Are a majority of Americans prepared to pay that much if something happens.

3 million Americans forced into the ACA have already seen a similar scenario (the other 3 million forced into the ACA has seen a drop in premium). Not a redistribution on the backs of those who pay? When employers start dropping healthcare (and it's gonna happen) is when the masses are really going to turn on the ACA ....... IMHO


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> How else you gonna keep them people from getting that "free" healthcare?  It was really funny, until the mandate free healthcare was a RW meme.  I bet I heard them people getting free healthcare a million times.  The only way to stop people from not paying for their healthcare is to require them to have insurance (or go to UHC).  As soon as the mandate happened, that free healthcare is freedom itself.  Just more RW amusement.



The amusement is in your defense of the indefensible. Free healthcare has always been here because we are a nation of people with empathy & compassion. You can walk into any ER in the country, be cared for, and never take a nickle out of your pocket to pay for it. ObamaCare, UHC, single payer, whatever name you hang on this dog, is something the thieving, heartless bastards who walk the halls of Congress and run the government, wanted to take over so they had 100% control over it, and the people who use the system. They're almost there, and you and the others who promote this on their behalf, work tirelessly to help them achieve 100% domination over Americans. Sadly, you don't see it that way, because people like Gruber and others with silver tongues have convinced you that it's the best thing for all Americans. 

But what the hell, I'm just a white, conservative racist who hates Obama because he's half black and I want to bring back Jim Crow and assigned seating for coloreds on da bus.


----------



## mak2

In our old system many people got "free" healthcare.  If there is a mandate and they have to have insurance or pay a fine, no more free healthcare.  It depends on what affordable means.  Are we talking Aflac?  something that starts to pay after 50k, but then the patient has no where near 50k laying around so guess what?  We pay anyway.  It is really funny every single conservative forum I am on there is all these horror stories about the deductible going way up and premium going up etc, everyone insurance is going to be cancelled and on and on.  But the numbers anywhere but the RWNM doesn't seem to bear that out.  Oh, by the way, didn't the Republicans just fund it for the year?   





Big Dog said:


> It's always the ones that get free healthcare that exploit the "benefits" of the ACA. It's great for the ones getting it free but what about the ones that are now having to pay much more for a plan that cost MUCH more for initial care.
> 
> I don't know how anyone right of mind finds it acceptable for those that had affordable healthcare that now have to pay double the premium and triple the deductible. I have done the numbers for me personally on the ACA website. Trying to do a comparable plan (currently on my wife's plan but look for it to be dropped) on the ACA is impossible. Our current plan cost approximately $320/mo. The closest plan for coverages on the ACA is one of the Silver plans offered, I would get no subsidies. The cost is $1150/mo with triple the deductible. Now please explain to me how that is fair. If I have an issue my current plan out of pocket expense before my 80% would kick in is $5,840. For the ACA play TPO before the 80% is $19,800. Is that acceptable? Are a majority of Americans prepared to pay that much if something happens.
> 
> 3 million Americans forced into the ACA have already seen a similar scenario (the other 3 million forced into the ACA has seen a drop in premium). Not a redistribution on the backs of those who pay? When employers start dropping healthcare (and it's gonna happen) is when the masses are really going to turn on the ACA ....... IMHO


----------



## mak2

primary care in an ER is amazingly inefficient, ever wonder why we do it that way?  If you walk into any ER you will probably be seen, they will probably write you a prescription,  and if you have no money you wont be able to fill it.  You will have to keep coming back until you have pneumonia and cant breath.  Then you are correct, you would have to be treated.  If our old healthcare system was really empathetic and compassionate, they would have a clinic that poor people can get primary care from without going to the ER.  Since the early 90's medicine in the US has emulated worldwide UHC systems and has slowly been becoming more science based.  This has been coming for a long time, there is no way to stop it and there is no reason to.  UHC is a far better national healthcare system.  in the words of Aaron Rogers R-E-L-A-X, the RWers irrational fear of the government is misplaced, at least in this case.  





JEV said:


> The amusement is in your defense of the indefensible. Free healthcare has always been here because we are a nation of people with empathy & compassion. You can walk into any ER in the country, be cared for, and never take a nickle out of your pocket to pay for it. ObamaCare, UHC, single payer, whatever name you hang on this dog, is something the thieving, heartless bastards who walk the halls of Congress and run the government, wanted to take over so they had 100% control over it, and the people who use the system. They're almost there, and you and the others who promote this on their behalf, work tirelessly to help them achieve 100% domination over Americans. Sadly, you don't see it that way, because people like Gruber and others with silver tongues have convinced you that it's the best thing for all Americans.
> 
> But what the hell, I'm just a white, conservative racist who hates Obama because he's half black and I want to bring back Jim Crow and assigned seating for coloreds on da bus.


----------



## Big Dog

mak2 said:


> In our old system many people got "free" healthcare.  If there is a mandate and they have to have insurance or pay a fine, no more free healthcare.  It depends on what affordable means.  Are we talking Aflac?  something that starts to pay after 50k, but then the patient has no where near 50k laying around so guess what?  We pay anyway.  It is really funny every single conservative forum I am on there is all these horror stories about the deductible going way up and premium going up etc, everyone insurance is going to be cancelled and on and on.  But the numbers anywhere but the RWNM doesn't seem to bear that out.  Oh, by the way, didn't the Republicans just fund it for the year?



You never respond to the subject at hand ......... In my case, how would you feel if forced into my scenario??? You get ur shit for free so I'm sure you haven't looked into the ACA for coverage. How can you say "all these horror stories about the deductible going way up and premium going up etc," and not look at the facts!

"Oh, by the way, didn't the Republicans just fund it for the year?" .... To get past the first of the year IMHO without pissing off the public. A lot like every initiative after the elections in the Obama admin.

"he RWNM doesn't seem to bear that out" .......... Well it bears out in my case and I'm sure many others. Denial is not an answer Mak!


----------



## Glink

mak2 said:


> We need to get to a UHC evidence based system and we certainly will.



I tend to agree on the logic and need;  but am not so optimistic on the possibility.
For sure this is an oversimplification; and I welcome the insight you can offer from your experience.

Two big problems that I see;

1. The are too many people being made millionaires by having their hands in the money stream that flows from the insurance premiums being paid by the insured, prior to the value of that money being converted to actual efficient care, being delivered to a patient.  These folks are well connected; and probably  make all the right campaign contributions. I don't see how we can root them out.

2. The thirty percent of healthcare that is paid in the last six months of life, (your number I believe; but sounds about right based on what I have seen)
We as a people have to really think this through.  Does this really make sense? Some really tough decisions need made here.  However there is the possibilty that if we can fix #1, #2 may be abated by a degree.


----------



## mak2

unless you want to get out your policy and discuss exactly what you have covered and why you have to pay more I see no reason to discuss an individuals policy.  and even you just "expect" your wife's policy to be canceled.  Why would not funding it piss off the public?  Apparently it has raised everyone's premiums, raised their deductibles, covers less and costs more.  Why would the public be pissed off?  If it is as horrible as the RWers let on it should get them reelected.  





Big Dog said:


> You never respond to the subject at hand ......... In my case, how would you feel if forced into my scenario??? You get ur shit for free so I'm sure you haven't looked into the ACA for coverage. How can you say "all these horror stories about the deductible going way up and premium going up etc," and not look at the facts!
> 
> "Oh, by the way, didn't the Republicans just fund it for the year?" .... To get past the first of the year IMHO without pissing off the public. A lot like every initiative after the elections in the Obama admin.
> 
> "he RWNM doesn't seem to bear that out" .......... Well it bears out in my case and I'm sure many others. Denial is not an answer Mak!


----------



## road squawker

mak2 said:


> unless you want to get out your policy and discuss exactly what you have covered and why you have to pay more I see no reason to discuss ...Apparently it has raised everyone's premiums, raised their deductibles, covers less and costs more....



THATS what I said earlier in this thread,................. YOU are the one that tried to DEFLECT my post talking BS about coverage "changes" that do NOT exist.

I am paying MORE for the EXACT same policy!
I am paying a HIGHER deductable for the EXACT same policy!
I am paying a HIGHER co-pay for the EXACT same policy!

My insurance agent (who is a SUPPORTER of the ACA) told me the REASON I am paying MORE is to pay for the people that are not paying their FAIR share..


----------



## mak2

Did your agent tell you you have always paid for everyone else that doesn't pay their fair share?  That is part of what was wrong with our old system.  At least with the mandate people will be forced to pay their share.   





road squawker said:


> On the new Health Insurance Marketplace, insurance companies are finally competing for consumers’ business – and consumers are winning
> 
> 
> I guess thats why my insurance went up $190 a *month*....... total BS article
> 
> it even takes credit for savings 2010............. before obamaCAID existed





road squawker said:


> Sooooo, you acknowledge that the ACA has nothing to do with actual health*CARE*,...
> 
> its only about requiring everyone to purchase insurance.





road squawker said:


> THATS what I said earlier in this thread,................. YOU are the one that tried to DEFLECT my post talking BS about coverage "changes" that do NOT exist.
> 
> I am paying MORE for the EXACT same policy!
> I am paying a HIGHER deductable for the EXACT same policy!
> I am paying a HIGHER co-pay for the EXACT same policy!
> 
> My insurance agent (who is a SUPPORTER of the ACA) told me the REASON I am paying MORE is to pay for the people that are not paying their FAIR share..


----------



## SShepherd

......"At least with the mandate people will be forced to pay their share. "

that's all that needs to be said. it's not a mandate

A *tax* (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.


----------



## mak2

Fine,  At least with the tax people will be forced to pay their share. 


SShepherd said:


> ......"At least with the mandate people will be forced to pay their share. "
> 
> that's all that needs to be said. it's not a mandate
> 
> A *tax* (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Fine,  At least with the tax people will be forced to pay their share.


So when the peoplel are no longer able to pay their TAX because they may have lost their jobs, they will be given FREE healthcare which will be paid for by increasing the premiums, co-pays & deductibles of those who are already paying twice what they were when they had "non  compliant" policies which Dear Leader forced the insurance companies to refuse renewals thereof. And you're good with that. Amazing.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> Fine, At least with the tax people will be forced to pay their share.



Who are these people who will be forced to pay their fair share?  According to an article above, 85% of those signed up are receiving subsidies.  Are these the ones that will now be forced to pay their fair share?  If so, when do they start?  The people who now are seeing the premiums increase for less coverage?  The politicians who exempted themselves from their own law?  The dozens of unions, companies, and other groups that have been exempted, delayed or dismissed from the law?


----------



## JEV

Hmmm...If you have no money, how do you pay the tax???


----------



## Big Dog

mak2 said:


> unless you want to get out your policy and discuss exactly what you have covered and why you have to pay more I see no reason to discuss an individuals policy.  and even you just "expect" your wife's policy to be canceled.  Why would not funding it piss off the public?  Apparently it has raised everyone's premiums, raised their deductibles, covers less and costs more.  Why would the public be pissed off?  If it is as horrible as the RWers let on it should get them reelected.



I told you what I am paying and what it included ........ you haven't changed I see. You never answer a direct question .................... I don't know why guys serve up the energy of discussion with you. All you do is talk in circles. You thrive on stirring up the septic ............. you're not serious in your discussion because you're never prepared.


----------



## JEV

Since ObamaCare is all about the "collective," there can be no personal choices permitted. To do so would remove assets from the pool of premium dollars from different classes defined by age, marital status, widowed, unable to bear children (male or female), that would support or underfund the pool. Personally insuring one's self from an ala carte menu is anathema to the soviet style collective that ObamaCare is predicated on, and which is the antithesis of the ala carte menu available to us before Dear Leader deemed it bad. Everyone is the same in the collective...one size fits all. If you fail to comply, the IRS can, and will, seize your assets to the point of making you destitute and homeless if that's what it takes to collect the tax. Hussein knew what he was doing when he assigned the IRS as his personal gestapo agent to collect the tax. And mak2 is one of Hussein's foot soldiers in Obama's war against anti-compliance. Be careful what you tell him, as he has a direct line to the compliance division of the IRS.

All hail emperor Obama.
All hail Prince mak2, foot soldier extraordinaire.


----------



## SShepherd

lol, there we go with "fair share" again

who decides what fair. the one it's taken from or the one that's receiving it ?


----------



## JEV

SShepherd said:


> lol, there we go with "fair share" again
> 
> *who decides what fair*. the one it's taken from or the one that's receiving it ?


The "benevolent" politicians & their advisers who are redistributing the wealth. We are so privileged to have such kind & caring politicians to watch out for our ignorant asses. I think of them often when reading Proverbs Chapter 16. 

Rev. JEV


----------



## mak2

We will pay of their healthcare either way if they have lost their job.  At least if they are required to have healthcare insurance they might make some contribution to their own care.  





JEV said:


> So when the peoplel are no longer able to pay their TAX because they may have lost their jobs, they will be given FREE healthcare which will be paid for by increasing the premiums, co-pays & deductibles of those who are already paying twice what they were when they had "non  compliant" policies which Dear Leader forced the insurance companies to refuse renewals thereof. And you're good with that. Amazing.


----------



## mak2

If you really want to talk about your individual situation scan in your policies or provide links to it and the policy Obama is going to make you take. We can compare and contrast.  If I recall correctly your wife has not yet lost her insurance and your whole story is made up BS.  I am not answering in circles, you guys want to throw out some anecdotal point, sometimes made up or heard of somewhere else in the noise machine, pretend that is what is happening system wide then getting all pissed of because I don't simple confirm your bias and go on and just agree with you.  As always happens on this forum.  As for why "guys" serve up energy to talk to me....I really don't care, I have 3 or 4 forums that I am on continually that can actually be interesting sometimes.  All four are much larger than this one and are growing and are fairly interesting most of the time. Even the most conservative of them can tolerate a wee bit of thought that is not conservobot.   I have not looked around much here, but I have been gone two years and I only have encountered a name or two I don't know, and they sound exactly like the rest of you.  You are not serious in your discussion or thought, you are a conservative that "KNOWS" pretty much everything and are not secure enough to even consider other ideas.  Have a great day Big Dog.   





Big Dog said:


> I told you what I am paying and what it included ........ you haven't changed I see. You never answer a direct question .................... I don't know why guys serve up the energy of discussion with you. All you do is talk in circles. You thrive on stirring up the septic ............. you're not serious in your discussion because you're never prepared.


----------



## mak2

Insurance companies to not contribute to healthcare.  IIRC we pretty much agree on what we need to do.  





Glink said:


> I tend to agree on the logic and need;  but am not so optimistic on the possibility.
> For sure this is an oversimplification; and I welcome the insight you can offer from your experience.
> 
> Two big problems that I see;
> 
> 1. The are too many people being made millionaires by having their hands in the money stream that flows from the insurance premiums being paid by the insured, prior to the value of that money being converted to actual efficient care, being delivered to a patient.  These folks are well connected; and probably  make all the right campaign contributions. I don't see how we can root them out.
> 
> 2. The thirty percent of healthcare that is paid in the last six months of life, (your number I believe; but sounds about right based on what I have seen)
> We as a people have to really think this through.  Does this really make sense? Some really tough decisions need made here.  However there is the possibilty that if we can fix #1, #2 may be abated by a degree.


----------



## Kane

Big Dog said:


> I told you what I am paying and what it included ........ you haven't changed I see. You never answer a direct question .................... I don't know why guys serve up the energy of discussion with you. All you do is talk in circles. You thrive on stirring up the septic ............. you're not serious in your discussion because you're never prepared.


Yes, poor mak2. The consummate liberal. Long on opinion, short on facts, twisted into circular logic. Hangs around a number of websites until he becomes too embarrassed to continue, just like FF. Now he returns for more self-imposed embarrassment.

It's good to have another lib on FF, and good to have him back. But debating with mak2 becomes so tedious and pointless. A waste of the zither.

Just like so many liberals, he will always love ObamaCare, even tho he cannot articulate how it actually works.


----------



## mak2

I was invited. 





Kane said:


> Yes, poor mak2. The consummate liberal. Long on opinion, short on facts, twisted into circular logic. Hangs around a number of websites until he becomes too embarrassed to continue, just like FF. Now he returns for more self-imposed embarrassment.
> 
> It's good to have another lib on FF, and good to have him back. But debating with mak2 becomes so tedious and pointless. A waste of the zither.
> 
> He will always love ObamaCare, even tho he cannot articulate how it actually works.


----------



## mak2

Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here.  I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort.  To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred.  It just aint fun.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here. I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort. To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred. It just aint fun.



There you go again, mak2, claiming you are being abused. Well, friend, it is not abuse and "personal attacks". It's called embarrassment.

If I were to go on a website and day after day claim it is my opinion that the sky is green, eventually someone would tire and call me out "personally". I would be embarrassed. But if I were to go on a website with facts and data that actually demonstrate the sky is green, someone would come back with actual "debate". We would all learn.

Bone up on ObamaCare and try again.


----------



## mla2ofus

So is mak saying it's up to doc to decide who should be here and who shouldn't?? 
                                  Mike


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here.  I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort.  To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred.  It just aint fun.


"_United in our resolve_", is "_closed minded and inbred_" in the world of liberals. Not surprising. I'm sure you're well received at Political Wrinkles with Mikeyy and the other liberals and haters of the truth. It's good you have left wing place that welcomes your liberal views. Enjoy.


----------



## pirate_girl




----------



## jimbo

mla2ofus said:


> So is mak saying it's up to doc to decide who should be here and who shouldn't??
> Mike



Docs site, Doc pays the bills. Doc gets to stay up all night to fix the glitches.  I'd say that is an accurate statement.

What Mak is stating is an opinion.  We all have them.  Some state them louder than others.


----------



## jimbo

JEV said:


> "_United in our resolve_", is "_closed minded and inbred_" in the world of liberals. Not surprising. I'm sure you're well received at Political Wrinkles with Mikeyy and the other liberals and haters of the truth. It's good you have left wing place that welcomes your liberal views. Enjoy.



I'm not aware that Mak is at PW.  I'm less aware what that has to do with this site, or Mikeyy.  Several who post here also post elsewhere, including PW.  Any notion that PW and other sites welcome only liberals is non factual.  Any notion that posters who disagree with you are haters of the truth is also non factual.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here.  I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort.  To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred.  It just aint fun.



Message to Doc.  Mak's correct.  You've obviously reached out to former members and posters in an effort to increase actvity.  They returned.  This is the result.

Before you go outside seeking new or returning members, perhaps you should take a look internally.


----------



## Kane

jimbo said:


> I'm not aware that Mak is at PW. I'm less aware what that has to do with this site, or Mikeyy. Several who post here also post elsewhere, including PW. Any notion that PW and other sites welcome only liberals is non factual. Any notion that posters who disagree with you are haters of the truth is also non factual.



Interesting. Mikeyy, on PW, is just as sensitive as mak2 when confronted by anyone denigrating liberalism with the facts. Mikeyy (a one-time mod) had me banned from PW for referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Said it was disrespectful and that I was a "hater".

Heck, I have all the respect in the world for the office of the presidency. For this particular president? Not so much. But if liberals feel slighted in the least by the truth, they get all touchy and claim they are being "abused".

So much for tolerance.




My guess is that thin-skinned mak2 is already gone from FF. Again. Anyway, Doc, thanks for having him back.


----------



## pirate_girl

jimbo said:


> I'm not aware that Mak is at PW.  I'm less aware what that has to do with this site, or Mikeyy.  Several who post here also post elsewhere, including PW.  Any notion that PW and other sites welcome only liberals is non factual.  Any notion that posters who disagree with you are haters of the truth is also non factual.


----------



## pirate_girl

Kane said:


> (a one-time mod) had me banned from PW for referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Said it was disrespectful and that I was a "hater".



LOL.. oh how wrong you are.


----------



## jimbo

Kane said:


> Interesting. Mikeyy, on PW, is just as sensitive as mak2 when confronted by anyone denigrating liberalism with the facts. Mikeyy (a one-time mod) had me banned from PW for referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Said it was disrespectful and that I was a "hater".
> 
> Heck, I have all the respect in the world for the office of the presidency. For this particular president? Not so much. But if liberals feel slighted in the least by the truth, they get all touchy and claim they are being "abused".
> 
> So much for tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that thin-skinned mak2 is already gone from FF. Again. Anyway, Doc, thanks for having him back.



Again, Mikeyy on PW has nothing whatever to do with Makeyy on FF.


----------



## Danang Sailor

Mikeyy was a Mod?   I didn't know that.  Know very little about him, other than the fact that he's a troll.


----------



## FrancSevin

As usual, a good thread has disintegrated to arguments about opinios of posters. Sad.

Bottom line truth here is that the Affordable care act has increased the percentage of Americans who now have healthcare insurance. An undeniable success on scoring that goal.

but consider, It is now mandatory, by law. So, one has to ask if that "improvement is a success at all. After four years, why is not everyone in American on a health insurance plan? was that not the purpose? is it not the law?

That said, on just about every other score, it has failed to meet it's promised goals. We cannot always keep our doctor. And if the Law makes your favored insurance policy obsolete, then you can't keep it either.
ndthe programs of "funneling to gain efficiency has removed your doctor's attention to fingering a keyboard, and filing forms instead of feeling your pulse.
Rates have not gone down at all. NOT FOR ANYBODY. Because a subsidized rate, no matter who picks up the tab, is not in reality a lowered rate.

The list of things wrong with the ACA are as prolific as the 2007page document itself. But the facts remain, by strict measurement of what it was supposed to accomplish, Affordable Health Care for all Americans, it is most certainly *not* working.


----------



## Kane

FrancSevin said:


> As usual, a good thread has disintegrated to arguments about opinios of posters. Sad.
> 
> Bottom line truth here is that the Affordable care act has increased the percentage of Americans who now have healthcare insurance. An undeniable success on scoring that goal.
> 
> but consider, It is now mandatory, by law. So, one has to ask if that "improvement is a success at all. After four years, why is not everyone in American on a health insurance plan? was that not the purpose? is it not the law?
> 
> That said, on just about every other score, it has failed to meet it's promised goals. We cannot always keep our doctor. And if the Law makes your favored insurance policy obsolete, then you can't keep it either.
> ndthe programs of "funneling to gain efficiency has removed your doctor's attention to fingering a keyboard, and filing forms instead of feeling your pulse.
> Rates have not gone down at all. NOT FOR ANYBODY. Because a subsidized rate, no matter who picks up the tab, is not in reality a lowered rate.
> 
> The list of things wrong with the ACA are as prolific as the 2007page document itself. But the facts remain, by strict measurement of what it was supposed to accomplish, Affordable Health Care for all Americans, it is most certainly *not* working.



Yes, franc, more people are now insured. But the majority of those newly insured are on expanded Medicaid programs, which is another pot of money entirely. As for the rest?  To wit:



> ObamaCare was dreamed up by the liberal elite to provide healthcare for the some 45 million poor Americans that were not previously covered by insurance.
> 
> And to date, around just 7.3 million people have gained access to new insurance for the first time. Seven million. What happened to the other 38 million people?
> 
> Of course Obama promised to everyone else, that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it". Of course this was a lie. Since its inception, some 6 million people have had their personal plans cancelled, and tens of millions more will have plans cancelled when the corporate plan changes kick in, just like mal2ofus' son. Of course then we can talk about higher premiums and higher deductibles.
> 
> Of course Obama promised that ObamaCare wouldn't cost America "one thin dime", and provided misleading info to the CBO to prove it. Of course it was a lie, too. Truth is, ObamaCare will cost America nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years.
> 
> So, to insure those 7.3 new ACA enrollees, America will spend nearly two trillion dollars this decade.



Of course then we can talk about death panels, also known as the IARB.


----------



## ki0ho

Ive often wondered ...if o-care is so great.....why arent the senaters and reps..all on it?
and a good number of the unions arnt on it eather....as they all got wavers.....Im still of the opinion it is all based on a pack of lies....just like O-slimy and his cohorts......but then that is just my opinion.....and all others can have theirs also.....


----------



## Doc

mak2 said:


> Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here.  I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort.  To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred.  It just aint fun.



Mak, I'm glad you came back.  We are all adults.  You have your thoughts / beliefs as do all members here.   I have yet to see any member change another members mind on any subject.  We all share ideas / thoughts and move on.   

We banned you a while back and have since lighted up on moderation letting grown adults talk as they choose.  No idea what personal attacks you are talking of but it is what it is.  I'm glad you are no longer banned.  If you want to post here you are welcome to.  I thought you got a good welcome back but surely you do not expect grown men to completely change the way they think.  You decided to post about the affordable care act saying that it is working and it is no surprise the response that you got.  Few believe the ACA is working and something for Americans to be proud of.  I have not seen facts that support that, but each adult is free to decide for themselves.   

I guess if you feel you were personally attacked I could feel that you did the same to me with your post.  Attacking my way of running this place, as if I would change the base of this forum.  Ban members for their way of thinking.  But I choose not to view it as an attack.  I understand it is your opinion.  We all have them.   You taunted (jabbed at) the membership here knowing that the majority would disagree with your premiss in the title of this thread.  I do think you got exactly what you expected.   

You are welcome to post here anytime.  And I believe you will get honest responses as to where folks stand.  I have no desire to attempt to control opinions in any way, and hopefully grown adults have a skin thick enough to handle a few jabs here and there.


----------



## ki0ho

The post Doc just wrote is in my opinion spot on...I was glad mak came back
because the more the happier.....but it didnt suprise me that he did just as he did......he wanted a fight and he got it...and many here dont back up...and he knew that to...and what happened ...happened......so be it.....

I hope mak stays...along with every one else.... and codos to Doc and all the mods..for letting it play out...I chose to believe whom ever I wish..and intend to let all others belive what ever they chose...Hell there are a lot of subjects to be hashed out..besides O-slimmy care!!!!!

Ok every body go to your respective corners and come out at your leasure....

And THANKS DOC...for one hell of a fourm!!!         And yes this place is fun even when I get my ears pined back!!!


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Actually Doc, I think unless you do something with the base, there is no hope for growth here. I will stop by from time to time but I have went back over the threads I have been on since I have been back and nearly every post contains a personal attack of some sort. To this day I have never been on a forum that is this closed minded and inbred. It just aint fun.


and there's the insult I've been waiting for.

Mak knows how many here feel about the ACA, there have been threads upon threads before the was banned and he definatly knows how many here feel about it.
He was simply trolling/ trying to stir the pot, but I saw not defense of the beloved ACA other than a few insults- no facts. I did see and even stated quite a number of knows facts why the ACA is simply not working.
Now it's "the base" of this forum that are "closed minded and inbred".

irony


----------



## Danang Sailor

(Copy of my post #70 in this thread.)


Danang Sailor said:


> Mak, the "old system" worked just fine for me, and a lot of other people ... a LOT of other people.  These are the things I
> find abhorrent about ACA/ObamaCare:
> 
> 1.  It was passed without being critically examined, even by the Democrats that forced it through.
> 2.  It was passed based on string of outright falsehoods, which were known to be false when they were uttered.
> 3.  It was passed on the promise that 38 to 40 million people who could not afford health insurance now would.  That
> hasn't happened and the numbers suggest it won't.
> 4.  Small businesses across the country have scaled back the number of people they employ or have changed the status
> of their employees from FTE to PTE, the alternative being to shutdown due to the costs of ACA.
> 5.  On a personal level, I don't believe I should be forced to underwrite the health insurance coverage of other, unknown
> people.  This is going to cause the income taxes for everyone to increase as the true costs of this boondoggle become known.
> 
> There are numbers to support these points, but I'm quite sure you've already seen them.  If this were a viable and cost
> effective program I would still harbor rancor about it due to the number of lies spewed forth to sell it.



Everyone, please note two things:
.....1.  Items 1 thru 4 of my list are facts which can be easily verified by anyone who wants to do so.
.....2.  Mak has made no snide comments about the above post, in fact has not responded at all.

I seriously doubt he is going to respond to Franc's post.  Mak and I don't see eye to eye much - hell, hardly at all! - but we
have a mutual respect and neither of us argues with provable facts.  Makes a person wonder why this thread has gone on
for so many pages.


----------



## JEV

I'm glad Doc cleared up the facts. I'm known to get a little passionate from time to time,  and I reviewed my posts to see if I had inadvertently attacked mak2 personally, or just his ideology. Turns out, like Shep points out, that the attack came from mak2 himself in the form of going after the the whole darn gang of closed minded in breeds here. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like my Slovenian roots are being confused with a culture that believes "_if she ain't good enough for us, she ain't good enough for anyone else._"

I think I hear banjo music in the background.


----------



## JEV

jimbo said:


> I'm not aware that Mak is at PW.  I'm less aware what that has to do with this site, or Mikeyy.  Several who post here also post elsewhere, including PW.  Any notion that PW and other sites welcome only liberals is non factual.  Any notion that posters who disagree with you are haters of the truth is also non factual.


mak2 brought up the other forums, and I know him to be a member over at PW. The comment about haters is a fact that is well known on the other site. The liberal skin is thin over there, and conservative views are met with false accusations that the conservatives are haters. That's all I'll say about them, but wanted to clear up any confusion that the hater comment was intended to be applied here against any member, because it was not.


----------



## RedRocker

It's pretty simple, nothing the federal government runs is managed worth a damn. They screw up everything they touch & end up just stealing loads of tax money that gets pissed away one way or another. All the so called "insured" people have much higher deductibles & much higher monthly costs for crappy insurance. I'm fortunate enough to have BCBS from my work, but it has gone up in cost every year since this debacle was passed. Obama care won't do anybody much good if you can't get decent medical care. Nothing can beat the free market, especially the effed up federal government!


----------



## Big Dog

mak2 said:


> Did your agent tell you you have always paid for everyone else that doesn't pay their fair share?  That is part of what was wrong with our old system.  At least with the mandate people will be forced to pay their share.



So some folks fairs share doubles and triples for the the free folks fair share? How can you speak of fair share in all seriousness? Fair share is a Liberal fantasy ........... HC keeps going up even though we where paying for the freeloaders before the ACA. I'll bet a lot of folks would like to have their old policies back and keep paying for those that didn't have it like they did before ......

There is still a whole bunch without HC and we'll be paying for them and they won't be paying their "fair share" with the ACA.

Calling me a liar about my policy compare is essentially what you did ........ easy to do when you'll never have to or had to with free HC


----------



## mla2ofus

Before the ACA the insurance co's and the folks paying for said insurance paid for all the folks who came to ER w/o insurance thru higher charges for everything. Maybe it will still be the same now.
  It's kinda like when politicians and bureaucrats put additional taxes on businesses. It ain't the business that pays the tax, the customers do.
                                             Mike


----------



## pirate_girl

Kane said:


> Interesting. Mikeyy, on PW, is just as sensitive as mak2 when confronted by anyone denigrating liberalism with the facts. Mikeyy (a one-time mod) had me banned from PW for referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Said it was disrespectful and that I was a "hater".
> 
> Heck, I have all the respect in the world for the office of the presidency. For this particular president? Not so much. But if liberals feel slighted in the least by the truth, they get all touchy and claim they are being "abused".
> 
> So much for tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that thin-skinned mak2 is already gone from FF. Again. Anyway, Doc, thanks for having him back.





jimbo said:


> Again, Mikeyy on PW has nothing whatever to do with Makeyy on FF.



First of all, Kane. The only person responsible for you getting banned off that forum was you.
You went straight in to thug mode not long after you'd been there and ran off a founding member with your constant attention to her posts and she still hasn't come back.
I did get PM's asking about you and told the admin you were a friend, just like the 16 or so others I invited there back then, same as with JEV.
It's up to the admin on there as to what lines have been crossed and when.
Even liberals have gotten warned and banned as well, but they believe in self moderation, which amounts to basically, "look at where you're taking this, correct it please"
If you don't heed the advice and enough people complain, you'll be shown the door.
It's not an automatic ban for just any old thing.

The two M's get along really well on that forum, and I get along with them both because I done learned a lot about forums since.

Enough said.
Peace, love and chopsticks.


----------



## SShepherd

lol, I don't know anything about these other forums so the cross forum fighting seems rather pointless


----------



## ki0ho

dose it not say Policital....debate at the top of this page?????
if one cant stand the heat....stay out of here!!!!  but then I sort of agree with SShep......why bring other forums into it?  but then if I had known that PG was there I would have at least stoped by....

stay on subject  to quote Mak


----------



## Kane

Anyone that knows me also knows that I am driven by fact-based debate, that is, political arguments driven by the data, not emotion. So goes it, too I suppose, in the unwinnable world of debate among conservatives and liberals. Pragmatism v. Emotion. And just like Doc warns, this is the political debate forum. Post contained herein can get heated.

But when someone waltzes by and says the sky is green and ObamaCare is working, I object. Let's look at the numbers. Let's look at the facts and the data, just as I proffered from the onset of this thread. To wit:

Depending on which misleading number we are to believe from the HHC, and not including new Medicaid enrollees, some 7-9 million people are now enrolled in ObamaCare. OK? This number probably includes a good many folks that have had to re-enroll in ObamaCare since their previous private policies were cancelled (the policies with which they were entirely happy) due to being "non-compliant" with new ObamaCare standards (for not including prenatal care, for instance). So, it is probably safe to say that around 6 million folks are now _willingly_ enrolled in Obamacare, and for them, it is working. OK? Note to self: sure they're happy with ObamaCare. They're getting subsidies! That is, healthcare paid for by someone else! For these 6 million people, ObamaCare is working. Fine.

On the other hand:

There are some 350 million people in America. Let's assume for conversation's sake that roughly one third of those people are head-of-household and are the ones actually paying the bills. OK? So it is probably safe to assume that approximately 100 million people are actually paying for healthcare insurance in some form or another, either personally or thru work. And it is probably also safe to say that for these 100 million people, Obamacare has resulted in higher premiums, higher deductibles and, to make it worse, less choice. These are the people that did NOT get to "keep their plan if they liked it". They did NOT get to "keep their doctors if they like them". And they did NOT find that their "premiums were reduced by $2,500 per year".

These are also the people that were told ObamaCare "would not cost America one thin dime". Well, we all know now that Obamacare will actually cost America nearly two trillion dollars over the next decade. Note to self: this was the grandest lie of all.

So when some liberal saunters by and declares that, in their opinion, ObamaCare is working, they refuse to look at the facts. And when pushed to look again hard at the facts -- the data, the truth -- they tend to get all emotional, get their feelings hurt, feel picked on, and point again to the anecdotal stories about the folks that are happy with ObamaCare. They go on and on, continuing to aver that Obamacare "is working".

Yes, for 6 million people ObamaCare might be working. For the 100 million rest of us? Not so much. And for those mere 6 million people, the other 100 million will spend nearly 2 trillion dollars.

These are the facts, ma'am. Don't get mad at me. Don't get mad at me or my avater if I get "thuggish" and compelled to point it out repetitively. Get mad at the liberals that shoehorned Obamacare thru the Congress with legislative chicanery. Get mad at Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Get mad at Jonathan Gruber. Get mad at Barack Hussein Obama.

But whatever you do, please, stop saying Obamacare is working.


----------



## mla2ofus

I apologize for calling mak alan colmes. Instead I'll name him "H&R" ------------- Hit and Run. He seems to like to come here, get an argument going and then run away.
                                 Mike


----------



## mak2

Thanks for letting me back in Doc, however I truly misunderstood your intent.  I had thought you wanted more new members.  I will return from time to time and don't mind a bit in talking as a grown adult.  Thanks again.  





Doc said:


> Mak, I'm glad you came back.  We are all adults.  You have your thoughts / beliefs as do all members here.   I have yet to see any member change another members mind on any subject.  We all share ideas / thoughts and move on.
> 
> We banned you a while back and have since lighted up on moderation letting grown adults talk as they choose.  No idea what personal attacks you are talking of but it is what it is.  I'm glad you are no longer banned.  If you want to post here you are welcome to.  I thought you got a good welcome back but surely you do not expect grown men to completely change the way they think.  You decided to post about the affordable care act saying that it is working and it is no surprise the response that you got.  Few believe the ACA is working and something for Americans to be proud of.  I have not seen facts that support that, but each adult is free to decide for themselves.
> 
> I guess if you feel you were personally attacked I could feel that you did the same to me with your post.  Attacking my way of running this place, as if I would change the base of this forum.  Ban members for their way of thinking.  But I choose not to view it as an attack.  I understand it is your opinion.  We all have them.   You taunted (jabbed at) the membership here knowing that the majority would disagree with your premiss in the title of this thread.  I do think you got exactly what you expected.
> 
> You are welcome to post here anytime.  And I believe you will get honest responses as to where folks stand.  I have no desire to attempt to control opinions in any way, and hopefully grown adults have a skin thick enough to handle a few jabs here and there.


----------



## mak2

There is often less than a post an hour around here, I just stop back occasionally and respond to intelligent, interesting or funny posts.  Well, except this one.  





mla2ofus said:


> I apologize for calling mak alan colmes. Instead I'll name him "H&R" ------------- Hit and Run. He seems to like to come here, get an argument going and then run away.
> Mike


----------



## mak2

Why do you keep repeating I get free healthcare?

If you want to use your personal healthcare policy as evidence on an internet debate you should be prepared to post it or provide a link.  Otherwise talk about it when no one is around that questions you.   I doubt many people know everything in their policy and payment trends etc, but if you want to pretend I called you a liar...I don't have the words to describe how little I care.  





Big Dog said:


> So some folks fairs share doubles and triples for the the free folks fair share? How can you speak of fair share in all seriousness? Fair share is a Liberal fantasy ........... HC keeps going up even though we where paying for the freeloaders before the ACA. I'll bet a lot of folks would like to have their old policies back and keep paying for those that didn't have it like they did before ......
> 
> There is still a whole bunch without HC and we'll be paying for them and they won't be paying their "fair share" with the ACA.
> 
> Calling me a liar about my policy compare is essentially what you did ........ easy to do when you'll never have to or had to with free HC


----------



## mak2

There are I dunno probably 1000's of other political fourms on the internet, PW and FF are a very very small percentage of forums and posters.  I mean very small.  By other forums I meant the several I am on often and the dozens and dozens out there I have seen and spent at least some time on. 

Do you guys really spy on other froums?   





JEV said:


> mak2 brought up the other forums, and I know him to be a member over at PW. The comment about haters is a fact that is well known on the other site. The liberal skin is thin over there, and conservative views are met with false accusations that the conservatives are haters. That's all I'll say about them, but wanted to clear up any confusion that the hater comment was intended to be applied here against any member, because it was not.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> There are I dunno probably 1000's of other political fourms on the internet, PW and FF are a very very small percentage of forums and posters.  I mean very small.  By other forums I meant the several I am on often and the dozens and dozens out there I have seen and spent at least some time on.
> 
> Do you guys really spy on other froums?


If a conservative participates in a forum dominated by liberal dialog, you refer to that as spying?? Yet another label/personal attack on conservatives by liberals when they feel hurt by the truth or run out of worthwhile contributions.



> There is often less than a post an hour around here, I just stop back  occasionally and respond to intelligent, interesting or funny posts.   Well, except this one.


 Inference that mak2 is the only intelligent, interesting or funny person on FF, then excludes himself on the thread he started. Hmmm....??



> Thanks for letting me back in Doc, however I truly misunderstood your  intent.  I had thought you wanted more new members.  I will return from  time to time and don't mind a bit in talking as a grown adult.  Thanks  again.


 Yet another inference as to the childish dialog of FF members. except for the professor himself, of course.



> Why do you keep repeating I get free healthcare?
> 
> If you want to use your personal healthcare policy as evidence on an  internet debate you should be prepared to post it or provide a link.   Otherwise talk about it when no one is around that questions you.   I  doubt many people know everything in their policy and payment trends  etc, but if you want to pretend I called you a liar...I don't have the  words to describe how little I care.


 You make demands on other to substantiate their claims (post or provide a link), but you have the audacity to exclude yourself, sans a biased government propaganda piece that has been refuted as false time and again. 

I have noticed upon your return to FF, that you have a certain cockiness in your comments, and have become more condescending than you were in the past. Do you do this because you feel superior to those of us with differing opinions? Are you trying to put us in our place as inferior to the liberal knowledge base? What cause you to look at us this way?


----------



## SShepherd

not more, just more of the same. I'm not sure why a person would bother to make an obviously inflammatory  statement knowing that in the past this forum hasn't agreed with that point of view- and then complain when the predictable happened . And then insult those who don't agree as being "closed minded and inbred". Ad hominem attacks poison any factual debate, not that any minds were expected to be swayed.


----------



## mak2

"Inference that mak2 is the only intelligent, interesting or funny person on FF, then excludes himself on the thread he started. Hmmm....??"

Self deprecating humor.  People with a healthy self esteem may indulge in such on occasion.


----------



## mak2

Good point, I know I should not bring us something the forum disagree with.  But then that sorta makes my closed minded and inbred statement true then huh?  


SShepherd said:


> not more, just more of the same. I'm not sure why a person would bother to make an obviously inflammatory  statement knowing that in the past this forum hasn't agreed with that point of view- and then complain when the predictable happened . And then insult those who don't agree as being "closed minded and inbred". Ad hominem attacks poison any factual debate, not that any minds were expected to be swayed.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Good point, I know I should not bring us something the forum disagree with.  But then that sorta makes my closed minded and inbred statement true then huh?



It makes it as true as "if you like your plan..."


----------



## MrLiberty

Man, did this thread get personal........


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

SShepherd said:


> not more, just more of the same. I'm not sure why a person would bother to make an obviously inflammatory statement knowing that in the past this forum hasn't agreed with that point of view- and then complain when the predictable happened . And then insult those who don't agree as being "closed minded and inbred". Ad hominem attacks poison any factual debate, not that any minds were expected to be swayed.


 
 I have a friend who is a liberal too. he is very much the same rather than say we can just disagree he trys to cram his liberal view point down everybody's throat. 
kind of like a liberal Rush Limbaugh, not every one will agree we just have to accept this. it would be nice if he would just tell me I'm sorry you feel this way and let it be.


----------



## mak2

This is a political debate forum.  





Snowtrac Nome said:


> I have a friend who is a liberal too. he is very much the same rather than say we can just disagree he trys to cram his liberal view point down everybody's throat.
> kind of like a liberal Rush Limbaugh, not every one will agree we just have to accept this. it would be nice if he would just tell me I'm sorry you feel this way and let it be.


----------



## Bamby

Here's a valid point I've never seen addressed on Ocare. Let's say my and your coverage is both a thousand dollars a month. But your coverage comes through your employer and you therefor obtain it in pretax dollars. My cheap-ass employer doesn't provide anything whatsoever as far as my health care concerns. So I'm forced to pay the entire coverage out of pocket in after tax dollars which in effect means though we both may make the same gross money my health care is actually costing me several thousand more due to withholding taxes. For this system to be fair it needs amended fairly as to yours taxable or mine a total write-off.  End of Rant....


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Good point, I know I should not bring us something the forum disagree with. But then that sorta makes my closed minded and inbred statement true then huh?



remember those other 3 fingers in your hand are pointing back at yourself


----------



## Kane

Bamby said:


> Here's a valid point I've never addressed on Ocare. Let's say my and your coverage is both a thousand dollars a month. But your coverage comes through your employer and you therefor obtain it in pretax dollars. My cheap-ass employer doesn't provide anything whatsoever as far as my health care concerns. So I'm forced to pay the entire coverage out of pocket in after tax dollars which in effect means though we both may make the same gross money my health care is actually costing me several thousand more due to withholding taxes. For this system to be fair it needs amended fairly as to yours taxable or mine a total write-off.  End of Rant....



It's probably just me, but you may need to clarify a couple things. 

Explain "withholding tax" comment. How does this impact your HC costs?

However, if you are providing basic coverages for yourself, you're probably right: not fair.  But  your  premium costs are deductible, I believe, if total HC costs exceed 2% of AGI. 

And if  employer-provided coverages fall into the Cadillac levels, then the lies told ala Jonathan Gruber would apply. "Someone" is getting taxed on the plan, be it your employer and/or provider. They are getting screwed. 

See? it all averages out. Under ObamaCare everyone is getting screwed.


----------



## jimbo

MrLiberty said:


> Man, did this thread get personal........



Welcome to the world of FF.


----------



## waybomb

Kane said:


> It's probably just me, but you may need to clarify a couple things.
> 
> Explain "withholding tax" comment. How does this impact your HC costs?
> 
> However, if you are providing basic coverages for yourself, you're probably right: not fair.  But  your  premium costs are deductible, I believe, if total HC costs exceed 2% of AGI.
> 
> And if  employer-provided coverages fall into the Cadillac levels, then the lies told ala Jonathan Gruber would apply. "Someone" is getting taxed on the plan, be it your employer and/or provider. They are getting screwed.
> 
> See? it all averages out. Under ObamaCare everyone is getting screwed.




And in addition,

WTF is "fair"? You want fair - quit your stinkin job with that cheap ass employer and get a job with a good owner. Pretty soon, the jackwad will have to cough up the money or only hire low grade people.

Why do I have to pay more just because you are lazy and can't get a better job, or, content and secure with your work conditions and will work for less, or for any other number of reasons. But why should *I* pay for *your* choices??????????????????


----------



## ki0ho

jimbo said:


> Welcome to the world of FF.



If it is so bad........why are ya here????? on the other hand...if ya like it here ...why do ya bitch about it so much??

If there is only a post per hour.....gives ya time to think before ya type and post....

that mite make the mods job easer!!!!! they wouldnt have to be sitting right on the ban key all day....they could  sit back and relax...

But to keep it Naut---ity  a bitching sailor is a happy sailor!!!
by that we have some HAPPY sailors around here....and the one sea going bell hop


----------



## Danang Sailor

Kane said:


> *It's probably just me, but you may need to clarify a couple things.
> 
> Explain "withholding tax" comment. How does this impact your HC costs?*
> 
> However, if you are providing basic coverages for yourself, you're probably right: not fair.  But  your  premium costs are deductible, I believe, if total HC costs exceed 2% of AGI.
> 
> And if  employer-provided coverages fall into the Cadillac levels, then the lies told ala Jonathan Gruber would apply. "Someone" is getting taxed on the plan, be it your employer and/or provider. They are getting screwed.
> 
> See? it all averages out. Under ObamaCare everyone is getting screwed.



When healthcare insurance is paid for in pretax dollars - ie, before any taxes are figured and withheld - it lowers the
amount on which taxes are calculated.  For example:

Income subject to normal taxes = $1000.00
*Pretax* health insurance = $200.00
Amount on which taxes are actually computed = $800.00
FICA on $800.00 = $61.20
FITW on $800.00 = $97.50
Take home pay = $641.30

Income subject to normal taxes = $1000.00
Amount on which taxes are actually computed = $1000.00
FICA on $1000.00 = $76.50
FITW on $1000.00 = $154.00
*After Tax* Health Insurance = $200.00
Take home pay = $569.50
_*
Loss *_of take home pa_y_ due to after tax insurance deduction = $71.80

I hope this clears things up.


----------



## ki0ho

I bet that the 71.80 sure would help at times if it was back in his budget!!!

I can remember in years past when 70.00bucks sure would have bought som kids shoes...or paid a repair bill ect........


----------



## SShepherd

ki0ho said:


> I bet that the 71.80 sure would help at times if it was back in his budget!!!
> 
> I can remember in years past when 70.00bucks sure would have bought som kids shoes...or paid a repair bill ect........



ah, but that's not your fair share any more


----------



## Big Dog

What's a fair share? Etal..... Paying $1000/mo and never using it or paying little or none and using it for hangnails?


----------



## JEV

Big Dog said:


> What's a fair share? Etal..... Paying $1000/mo and never using it or paying little or none and using it for hangnails?


The liberals feel they know what's your fair share better than you do. Of course, they exempt themselves from ObamaCare because they know it's a scam on you, by them, not for them. They maintain their non-penalized Cadillac plans. Fuck the liberals and the horse they rode in on. JMHO


----------



## SShepherd

Big Dog said:


> What's a fair share? Etal..... Paying $1000/mo and never using it or paying little or none and using it for hangnails?



and that's the rub

 fair is subjective


----------



## jimbo

SShepherd said:


> and that's the rub
> 
> fair is subjective



Fair is not subjective.  Fair goes something like this:

 10 people decide they want some candy.  Each chips in 1 buck to buy a big bag of candy.  The bag is broken down into 10 equal portions.  Everybody benefits from the volume discount on the big bag if candy.

 Libro fair goes like this:

 10 people decide they want some candy.  6 of them decide the other 4 should pay for the candy since the 4 have more money.  The  bag is then broken down into 6 equal portions, and distributed to the non paying six.  The other 4 can buy their own candy since they still have more money.


----------



## SShepherd

jimbo said:


> Fair is not subjective. Fair goes something like this:
> 
> 10 people decide they want some candy. Each chips in 1 buck to buy a big bag of candy. The bag is broken down into 10 equal portions. Everybody benefits from the volume discount on the big bag if candy.
> 
> Libro fair goes like this:
> 
> 10 people decide they want some candy. 6 of them decide the other 4 should pay for the candy since the 4 have more money. The bag is then broken down into 6 equal portions, and distributed to the non paying six. The other 4 can buy their own candy since they still have more money.


it's only fair when everyone agrees,forcing someone to comply with what others feel is fair is robbery. That's how it applies in the context of this discussion.

 "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."


----------



## ki0ho

SShepherd said:


> it's only fair when everyone agrees,forcing someone to comply with what others feel is fair is robbery. That's how it applies in the context of this discussion.
> 
> "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."





That is why they gave us a REPUBLIC.....not a democracy........


----------

