• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Emily Cat said:
Well, he is making sweeping decrees that [...] So much as I dislike the asinine term... the implication captured by it isn't all that far off.
Click to expand...

Seriously? A king isn't elected and is not restrained by two houses of elected officials and a court. Do you honestly think there is any similarity between the office of president and a hereditary king who is accountable to no one?

Seriously, every time he makes one of these last minute, poorly thought out changes, it makes the entire system riskier and more likely to fail. At the moment, Obama is Obama's biggest enemy
Click to expand...

Oh, come on; you can write more hyperbole than that. For example: One more bad change in regulation and the entire planet will explode and humanity will be extinguished!! The truth is that in spite of all the nonsense about the sky falling (any minute now), the rollout of ACA is going better than the rollout of Medicaid.
 
bynmdsue said:
I know, your king loves you and you love him. Maybe he will dole you out an indulgence as well when he returns from his 17 day vacation in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Wait, an even better idea. You could ask John Boehner after he rests up from his exhausting 240 days off in this session.

President G.W. Bush over his 8 years in office, spent 490 days vacationing at his Texas ranch and 487 days at Camp David. So, if Obama starts now and takes all of 2014 and 2015 off, he'll be in the running.

You are aware that indulgences were granted by the Pope, right? Kings didn't grant indulgences.
 
Last edited:
Someone forgot to tell Obama what affordable means:

A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan.
Click to expand...

And of course, there, the New York Times (an exceptionally right wing and degrading source) forgets to tell you that's 19 percent of his pre-tax income; after tax it's probably in the 25% range. Given the numbers, that 60-year-old would be well-advised to tell his employer to pay him $45,000 instead of $50,000; he'd save about $7600 on health insurance alone, more than making up for the $5000 in lost income.

I'm still amused that people think that this is somehow going to reduce the deficit.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Someone forgot to tell Obama what affordable means:
Click to expand...

Your article cites Wisconsin. I hope you're aware that Wisconsin has nearly double the rates of its neighboring states.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_8e584b76-c03b-55f5-a44d-13a4867e92ed.html

A consumer advocacy group said Wednesday that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s rejection of federal Medicaid money and the state’s hands-off approach to rate regulation has pushed health care exchange rates up to 99 percent higher than in neighboring Minnesota.

Robert Kraig, the executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, said a report he co-authored shows that “rates are much higher in Wisconsin than in Minnesota, despite having similar geographies and similar underlying medical costs.”
Click to expand...

This is hardly an endorsement of a more hands off approach. It's twice as expensive to live in a state run by Teabaggers.
 
Brainster said:
I'm still amused that people think that this is somehow going to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

I'm still amused that some believe that the General Accounting Office is staffed with people who don't really understand accounting.

It is even more amusing when people cite sources like Glen Beck, Breitbart, and Fox as more accurate. I recall back when Beck had a TV show and he (as he so often did) went into his circus act about the budget and the debt by using water bottles. I had no trouble noticing that he inflated the figure by a factor of three. So, how was it that I caught this while he was doing it live and he didn't catch it with hours to prepare his visual stunt? Is Glen Beck just stupid or is he a chronic liar?
 
barehl said:
I'm still amused that some believe that the General Accounting Office is staffed with people who don't really understand accounting.

It is even more amusing when people cite sources like Glen Beck, Breitbart, and Fox as more accurate. I recall back when Beck had a TV show and he (as he so often did) went into his circus act about the budget and the debt by using water bottles. I had no trouble noticing that he inflated the figure by a factor of three. So, how was it that I caught this while he was doing it live and he didn't catch it with hours to prepare his visual stunt? Is Glen Beck just stupid or is he a chronic liar?
Click to expand...

The more important dishonesty is that he's using Wisconsin as his example. In that state, the Teabagger governor did everything in his power to make the law fail. He refused Medicaid expansion. He refused to adjust rate prices even though the law allowed him to make premiums cheaper. He refused to run his own exchange.

You put all that together and rates are double what they are in neighboring Minnesota. It takes a brass balls to then turn around and say "HA! YOU SAID IT WOULD BE CHEAPER, LIBTARDS!"

Yeah, he made sure it wouldn't be so now he doesn't get to gloat over an implementation that he purposefully botched, right?
 
barehl said:
I'm still amused that some believe that the General Accounting Office is staffed with people who don't really understand accounting.

It is even more amusing when people cite sources like Glen Beck, Breitbart, and Fox as more accurate. I recall back when Beck had a TV show and he (as he so often did) went into his circus act about the budget and the debt by using water bottles. I had no trouble noticing that he inflated the figure by a factor of three. So, how was it that I caught this while he was doing it live and he didn't catch it with hours to prepare his visual stunt? Is Glen Beck just stupid or is he a chronic liar?
Click to expand...

False dilemma.
 
Brainster said:
And of course, there, the New York Times (an exceptionally right wing and degrading source) forgets to tell you that's 19 percent of his pre-tax income; after tax it's probably in the 25% range. Given the numbers, that 60-year-old would be well-advised to tell his employer to pay him $45,000 instead of $50,000; he'd save about $7600 on health insurance alone, more than making up for the $5000 in lost income.
Click to expand...
So you propose more subsidies?
Brainster said:
I'm still amused that people think that this is somehow going to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. First you complain about people not getting subsidies, then you whine about negative effects on the US budget?

Also: you are wrong about the deficit, here's the CBO:
Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
Click to expand...
You should do some research before making a fool out of yourself.

Protip: stop watching Glenn Beck and Fox News, and start consulting some proper sources. This is a forum for skeptics.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan.
Click to expand...

I noticed they left out the fact that because the insurance plan would be more than 8% of the person's income, that person would be allowed to buy catastrophic insurance. And, if this is still higher than 8% then he would have no requirement at all.
 
A few years back a book was written called "The Imperial Presidency".

It's topic was how the power of the presidency had grown far beyond its original role.

The Executive branch exists to run things.

The Legislative branch passes and amends the laws.

And the Judicial interprets the laws.

So, it was congress who passed the ACA, whether or not they had read it.

What should bother those on both sides of the aisle is this President ruling by decree. If the terms of the act need to be modified, it should be congress doing so.

But we just have an Executive ruling by fiat, and apparently on a whim.

When did this power pass from the Legislative to the Executive? I know Executive Orders are the prerequisite of the president, but I don't think those are meant to circumvent the Legislative - which they seem to be doing.

Does anyone here actually support what's going on here?
 
Anyone know where the projections of the net gain of people newly insured is going to be in relation to people losing their insurance can be found?
 
Brainster said:
Someone forgot to tell Obama what affordable means:



And of course, there, the New York Times (an exceptionally right wing and degrading source) forgets to tell you that's 19 percent of his pre-tax income; after tax it's probably in the 25% range. Given the numbers, that 60-year-old would be well-advised to tell his employer to pay him $45,000 instead of $50,000; he'd save about $7600 on health insurance alone, more than making up for the $5000 in lost income.

I'm still amused that people think that this is somehow going to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

It might over the long run, relative to doing nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom