So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Unabogie]

Check ehealthinsurance.com for 40 year old male in LA. Again this is the source that my cite used. I can believe some may pay less. Many people will pay more.

Oh and earn less. But, if they are not totally thrilled with their now worse off situation, they just must be greedy scum.

But let's take that logic further. Everyone should be forced to buy motorcycle insurance to make sure that all the motorcycle riders pay a bit less for their insurance.

Your source discussed OREGON. And since I know Oregon's rates because I pay them, I proved that your source was wrong.

Goal posts moved to LA are still moved.

 

[Neally]

Do they earn little enough to go below the poverty line? If so, they can get welfare.

Some do, some don't and simply are forced to pay more for health insurance.

Aw, c'mon, not everybody has a motorcycle. But everybody has a body that sooner or later will get sick or injured.

Not everyone wants or needs the essential coverages dictated by Obamacare. Oh, and how do you know if one day someone might want to get a motorcycle, or someone in their family might?

And although ehealthinsurance does show higher rates starting in 2014 for the lowest cost policies (which cover more than the cheapest present policies, like office visits), it does not show the subsidies that are available to lower income people.

Not everyone wants or needs the essential coverages dictated by Obamacare.

Your source discussed OREGON. And since I know Oregon's rates because I pay them, I proved that your source was wrong.

Goal posts moved to LA are still moved.

Unless you combine all areas within a state and get an average, there is no such thing as a single rate in Oregon.

CLACKAMAS, OR /Male /40yrs /Non-smoker - cheapest policy:
Pre Obamacare: $73.00
Post Obamacare: $187.64

My claim that thousands will pay higher insurance cost because of Obamacare has been clearly supported. My claim that thousands will have less income because of Obamacare has been clearly supported. The important thing to Travis is that he comes out ahead. Others aren't so fortunate, but tough for them.

 

[Unabogie]

Unless you combine all areas within a state and get an average, there is no such thing as a single rate in Oregon.

CLACKAMAS, OR /Male /40yrs /Non-smoker - cheapest policy:
Pre Obamacare: $73.00
Post Obamacare: $187.64

My claim that thousands will pay higher insurance cost because of Obamacare has been clearly supported. My claim that thousands will have less income because of Obamacare has been clearly supported. The important thing to Travis is that he comes out ahead. Others aren't so fortunate, but tough for them.

Nuh, uh. That's not going to fly. I already posted that the cheapest policy in Oregon is with MODA and it's $165, not $187. And that's state-wide, not specific to any county. And I just bought health insurance this year, going through Pacific Source, United Health Care, and MODA, and there are no policies for $73, and certainly none that would insure my wife.

Where are you getting those numbers, since you didn't post a link?

Are you comparing actual insurance to some ******** catastrophic plan? You think you'd get away with that kind of lying?

Show your work.

 

[Bob001]

...
Not everyone wants or needs the essential coverages dictated by Obamacare.
...

The key problem is that we all end up paying for the treatment of people who "didn't need" health coverage. Over time, it's reasonable to expect that total health care costs will decline as newly covered people schedule appointments with doctors rather than crawl into emergency rooms and as they catch and treat potentially serious illnesses earlier.

Throwing out a question here for Massachusettsans: "Romneycare," the model for "Obamacare," has been up and running 2006. How has it worked out?

 

[elbe]

Not everyone wants or needs the essential coverages dictated by Obamacare.

Not everyone wants or needs auto insurance. I've never been in an accident, but luckily I know that, even though I drive almost daily, I will never get in a car accident, right? It's not like I could afford to pocket that expense if I did, but I won't.

 

[uke2se]

Some do, some don't and simply are forced to pay more for health insurance.

Are you saying that the ACA will bring people below the poverty line? If so, please cite.

 

[uke2se]

The important thing to Travis is that he comes out ahead. Others aren't so fortunate, but tough for them.

The important thing to Travis is that he gets medical insurance. The people you talk about can also get medical insurance. Most if not all of them probably could even before the ACA. That's why the ACA is so great. Now Travis and others like him can be as fortunate as the people you talk about. Isn't that great?

 

[Neally]

Where are you getting those numbers, since you didn't post a link?

Wow, I've posted it several times. Do pay attention: ehealthinsurance.com

Are you comparing actual insurance to some ******** catastrophic plan? You think you'd get away with that kind of lying?

Like my example showed, the cheapest plan before and after Obamacare.

Show your work.

I've mentioned it several times as did my original cite. Once again ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com. Get it?

The key problem is that we all end up paying for the treatment of people who "didn't need" health coverage. Over time, it's reasonable to expect that total health care costs will decline as newly covered people schedule appointments with doctors rather than crawl into emergency rooms and as they catch and treat potentially serious illnesses earlier.

The not everyone needs or wants the "essential benefits" forced upon everyone by Obamacare. Now they have to pay more for health insurance for stuff they don't want or need.

Not everyone wants or needs auto insurance.

Correct, like those that don't drive, or those that can self insure. But using the logic of the "well you need to help keep the costs down for everyone by paying for it even though you don't need or want it...", everyone should be forced to buy motorcycle insurance.

Are you saying that the ACA will bring people below the poverty line? If so, please cite.

I'm saying some people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place.

The important thing to Travis is that he gets medical insurance. The people you talk about can also get medical insurance. Most if not all of them probably could even before the ACA. That's why the ACA is so great. Now Travis and others like him can be as fortunate as the people you talk about. Isn't that great?

Sure, thousands of people now pay more for insurance and have less income. It's just great! Everyone loves it! Seriously, what part of "there are winners and losers" do you not understand?

 

[marplots]

The difference is that the Affordable Care Act was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and then in 2012 the President campaigned on it and won re-election by more than five million votes, and the side that wants to defund/abolish it consists of about 30 right-wing extremists in one party in one house of one branch of government who are preventing a clean budget resolution from being voted on by the full membership of the House, which would surely approve it. If 30 congressmen lay down in the highway to, say, stop ambulances from taking uninsured people to hospitals, no one would say "let's negotiate, let's find something in the middle." In this case, "my way or the highway" is the legislative equivalent of laying across the highway to keep sick people from getting care.

Is the highlighted part correct? And if so, how does that actually work?

 

[uke2se]

I'm saying some people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place.

And I asked if some of those would go below the poverty line because of it, to which you replied "some do". I want to know if I have understood you correctly and you are saying that the ACA has brought people below the poverty line, in which case I am asking you for a cite.

 

[uke2se]

Is the highlighted part correct? And if so, how does that actually work?

Read the newspapers and you'll find out.

Basically, the speaker feels threatened by the extremists in his party, so he will not allow any clean budget resolution to be voted on.

 

[Kestrel]

Is the highlighted part correct? And if so, how does that actually work?

The correct figure is 80. The number of Republicans who signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner back in August demanding that Affordable Care Act be defunded as a condition for passing any appropriations bill.

It works because Speaker Boehner has decided that he will not allow a vote on any bill that requires Democratic help to pass. If a bill doesn't have 218 Republican votes, no vote will be allowed.

ETA: At least 17 Republicans have said they would vote for a clean Continuing Resolution if a vote was held today. Combined with the Democrats in the House, that would be enough to pass. The impediment is Speaker Boehner.

 

[elbe]

Correct, like those that don't drive, or those that can self insure. But using the logic of the "well you need to help keep the costs down for everyone by paying for it even though you don't need or want it...", everyone should be forced to buy motorcycle insurance.

You're really bad at this analogy thing, aren't you? Everyone drives, few people can afford to self insure. But obviously no one will ever actually need insurance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is the highlighted part correct? And if so, how does that actually work?

Technically, it only takes one, Boehner. All he has to do is not put the bill on the calendar for a vote.

It's another abused procedural rule that really needs to be stopped.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed, a lot of the problem is both the House and Senate are governed by a lot of antiquated procedures that are inviting trouble.
Irony is these rules often go completly against the spirit of classic Parlaimentatry procedure, which is designed to give all sides a fair chance of debate. It is a sort of bastard Parlaimentary procedure that governs the congress.

 

[Biscuit]

NEALLY, people like Travis and I just want a chance to participate. If you have better solution then the heritage plan please go to the thread I started about the GOP plan for healthcare and contribute. Otherwise your only plan is "you got yours so screw Travis and biscuit".

Of course this plan ignores that you will eventually pay for Travis and I and under the ACA Travis and I get the opportunity to pay for ourselves and others. There are no losers. Some people will get expanded coverage and pay more some will get expanded coverage and pay less and some will get coverage and pay. Who is losing?

 

[Biscuit]

This whole argument that the ACA forces more coverage than some people need is rubbish. No one knows what they need in terms of health care that's why the smart countries go UHC and pay less for better results.

 

[Unabogie]

Wow, I've posted it several times. Do pay attention: ehealthinsurance.com

Like my example showed, the cheapest plan before and after Obamacare.

I've mentioned it several times as did my original cite. Once again ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com. Get it?

No, I looked at that site, and the lowest plan in my zip code was for $149 and had a whopping $10,000 deductible and only covered 50% beyond that. In other words, it's good if I get hit by a bus but that's it. And it won't cover my wife.

So wasn't able to find your magic $73 policy. But go ahead and give us more details. Here's what we need, at a minimum, to compare plans.

1. Zip code you used to price the plan.
2. Age you inputted.
3. Deductible of the plan.
4. Percentage of additional costs.
5. Name of insurer.
6. Total monthly premium.

Should be easy, since you gave us the $73 dollar price, right?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

he not everyone needs or wants the "essential benefits" forced upon everyone by Obamacare. Now they have to pay more for health insurance for stuff they don't want or need.

I keep hearing people put forward this argument, but it's such an obvious non-starter.

Remember that the whole reason for requiring people to buy the minimal level of health insurance is because that is the only way you can make it viable to require health insurance companies to offer coverage regardless of prior conditions. Otherwise a lot of people will wait to buy health insurance until they actually have a problem they need treated, and then they'll just dump the coverage as soon as they're healthy again. Obviously that isn't going to work.

So, it stands to reason that any particular procedure or item that we are going to require insurance companies to offer coverage for without regard to prior conditions, is a procedure or item that needs to be included in the minimal level of health insurance. If it's not in that list of things people are required to buy coverage for, we cannot realistically demand that insurance companies be willing to offer coverage for it to people with pre-existing conditions.

So it really doesn't make any difference if you don't think you'll ever need it, or if you are willing to take the risk for yourself that if you do need it you will have to pay out of pocket for it. It doesn't even matter if you are so filthy rich that you can afford to pay for everything out of pocket, and skip health insurance entirely. The reason you have to get coverage that includes things you don't want or need is because this is the only way to make sure that other people who do need it and who can't afford to pay for it out of pocket, can be assured of still being able to get coverage.

 

[marplots]

Read the newspapers and you'll find out.

Basically, the speaker feels threatened by the extremists in his party, so he will not allow any clean budget resolution to be voted on.

What is the nature of the threat?

ETA: Never mind, it was explained well by another poster.