Surprise! Obamacare is going to cost most people way, way, way less than expected.

[BainsBane]

Eat this Ted Cruz

With the start of open enrollment in Obamacare a week away, HHS today released a report summarizing the cost of premiums in states where the exchanges will be run by the federal government. In general, the news was pretty good. As with most of the state exchanges, the premiums are coming in below the predictions of the Congressional Budget Office:

Individuals will have an average of 53 qualified health plan choices in states where HHS will fully or partially run the Marketplace.

....Premiums before tax credits will be more than 16 percent lower than projected. The weighted average second lowest cost silver plan for 48 states (including DC) is 16 percent below projections based on the ASPE-derived Congressional Budget Office premiums.

....Tax credits will make premiums even more affordable for individuals and families. For example, in Texas, an average 27-year-old with income of $25,000 could pay $145 per month for the second lowest cost silver plan, $133 for the lowest cost silver plan, and $83 for the lowest cost bronze plan after tax credits. For a family of four in Texas with income of $50,000, they could pay $282 per month for the second lowest cost silver plan, $239 for the lowest silver plan, and $57 per month for the lowest bronze plan after tax credits.

I don't suppose Ted Cruz will be mentioning any of this in his speechifying on the Senate floor tonight. But it's worth taking a look at those numbers. After tax credits, that family of four in Texas will pay $3,384 per year for the second lowest-cost silver plan. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family with employer health coverage pays $4,565 per year in contributions. Those aren't directly comparable, but they're close. What it means is that although Obamacare is hardly free, it does allow individuals to buy coverage for roughly the same amount they'd have to pay with an employer plan. No one is shut out of the market any longer.

The entire report is here. An excerpt of one of the tables is below, showing how much coverage will cost for individuals and families in various states.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/obamacare-premium-federal-exchange

[pipoman]

1. Most people aren't 27...

Is this akin to life insurance companies proclaiming 100k life insurance for $12 per month...read the fine print and find that the premium is for a 22 year old non-smoker...check for a 40 year old non-smoker ant the premium is $100? Why 27 and why no reference to say, 40 year olds?

[BainsBane]

2. So Ted Cruz is right?

Did you click through to the report? You do realize this is just an excerpt?

[pipoman]

4. The report is about 27 year olds...

pardon my incredulity, 48 years of government fucking me whilst telling me they love me tends to breed that..Six years of watching a democratic administration do exactly the same shit as the previous rethug administration has convinced me that my incredulity is just..

[BainsBane]

5. So you oppose Obamacare

You oppose the Democratic Party on guns. If I recall correctly, you said in another thread you hated government and saw it as capable of doing no good. You don't sound as though you like much of anything about the Democratic Party.

[pipoman]

7. LOL

I oppose TPP, I oppose tar sands pipeline, I oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I oppose war with Syria and Iran, I oppose drone strikes, I oppose drone surveillance inside the US, I oppose the NSA having unfettered access to citizens private communications, I oppose the federal government taking traditionally state authority on every issue, I support the Constitution and ALL of the rights enumerated in the BoR...I do not support any administration or party which does all of these rethug things pretending they are Democratic.

"you said in another thread you hated government and saw it as capable of doing no good"....that is a lie.

[BainsBane]

8. Okay, perhaps I mis-phrased it. Let me check the precise wording

BTW, why is it you gunners insist on insulting people as liars all the time? Are you clairvoyant? How can you claim to know what is in someone's mind?

Here is the quote

you anti-constitutionalists, pro-government power types just don't get it...good thing most people understand the need to keep Washington out of their backyard as much as possible.

Sounds to me like someone who sees government as a source of ill rather than good. If it were good, why would you be so anxious to keep it out of your backyard? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3694639

I know you've been a member of this site for a long time so I trust you are indeed a Democrat. I'm just trying to figure out why. Your list included many things a Democratic President has done. I certainly do not think one needs to support a president on anything, but generally there are some things one supports. I have never heard a Democrat insult someone as "pro-government" and go on about needing to keep "Washington out of their backyard." I just haven't.

[pipoman]

10. I am a 'labor party' Democrat

I am a Democrat who opposes the things I stated above. I believe if one supports those things they are not a true Democrat at all...and if the Democratic party continues to blur the line between Democrats and Rethuglicans on these issues and many others there is really no need for a democratic party at all..

I ask again, since you (presumably) had me locked out of the thread you are linking to before answering there, do you defend the NSA and their collection of data on everyone in the US?

[BainsBane]

12. No, I don't. And that was a nasty attack

Just because I don't see killing as a virtue and care more about human life than property doesn't mean I sanction NSA spying. I do think people have a right to health insurance. I don't believe the money you resent paying in taxes is worth more than the lives of those who die because of lack of access to health care, just as I don't think your right to have military assault weapons and ensure criminals have the same matters more than the lives of those in my community.

I care about human life more than property. I vote Democrat because there are only two choices and I despise what the Republicans stand for, and some of what they stand for like private wealth over the public good seems to be something you share, as reflected in your statement about government screwing you over. I despise the idea that some care so much more about their stuff than the lives of other human beings. I consider it profoundly immoral. So no, I don't 'give a fuck about your guns or the fact you don't want to pay taxes to enable Americans to have access to medical care or basic food. To me there are basic issues of right and wrong, and forsaking human life and human rights for the acquisition and maintenance of stuff represents a grave social ill. I see it as an issue of basic human decency and social responsibility. So no, I do not respect the Ayn Rand view of the world. I see it as profoundly immoral.

Plus, I find that most of the people who whine about keeping government off their backs live off Social Security or some other government subsidy. They somehow see themselves as entitled but others as moochers. I don't get it, but it does seem to be a common theme.

[pipoman]

17. So it's OK for you to oppose

the President and administration but not me?

More made up shit?

I don't believe the money you resent paying in taxes..

Where did I ever say I resented paying taxes?

I don't think your right to have military assault weapons and insure criminals have the same..

Where did I ever say such swill?

private wealth over the public good seems to be something you share

Direct me to were, in the 8 years I have been here, I have made any such statement?

the fact you don't want to pay taxes to enable Americans to have access to medical care or basic food.

Where, again, have I ever said any such thing? Why do I call you a liar? Because of lies you tell, maybe that, eh?

Why must you lie about me?

Oh, wait, I am sure you are on the alert button crying about name calling to avoid retracting this huge pile of steaming dung you just tossed, eh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I heartily wish you good luck.

[BainsBane]

21. So what exactly does keeping government off your back mean then?

If it's not resentment toward paying taxes?

You have said you oppose national health care. You don't like government in your backyard. You love your guns. You don't want to support expanded background checks, meaning you are willing to allow felons to access weapons. If you oppose background checks I'm' guessing you oppose an assault weapons ban. Is that wrong?


If you oppose national health care, than means you are willing to allow people to go uninsured, which means they die. If you oppose expanded background checks and an AWB, than means you are willing to allow the continued casualties that result. Now you can pretend you don't support those things, but when that is what results from the policy you advocate, you are in fact supporting them.

Now if I have misunderstood your views on any of these policies, correct me. That does not mean accusing me of lying. Lying means purposefully misrepresenting. It does not mean getting something wrong. Check out a dictionary. I don't know why that is so hard for gunners to figure out.

If you don't want a post hidden, stop hurling insults. Quit accusing people of lying.

[pipoman]

22. Just more lies..

You have said you oppose national health care.

Lie

You love your guns.

Lie

You don't want to support expanded background checks, meaning you are willing to allow felons to access weapons.

Lie

If you oppose national health care, than means you are willing to allow people to go uninsured, which means they die.

Lie

Now if I have misunderstood your views on any of these policies, correct me. That does not mean accusing me of lying. Lying means purposefully misrepresenting.

How about you show proof before hurling lies? You are the one who wishes to lie and pretend you are not doing it purposefully.

Quit accusing people of lying.

I call them as I see them.

[BainsBane]

42. I am asking your views

I am trying to read what you have written and understand your position. You are obviously far more interested in being nasty than having a discussion so I will end this now. It's clearly pointless.

[pipoman]

73. No, you haven't asked me anything

you have accused me of vile, nasty things. When you ask someone something it is followed by a question mark...like when I asked you above:

I ask again, since you (presumably) had me locked out of the thread you are linking to before answering there, do you defend the NSA and their collection of data on everyone in the US?

If I were responding as you do, it would have been worded more like, 'You love the NSA and their collection of data on everyone in the US'.

See the difference? Show me where you have 'asked' me anything. No, you have made vile falsehood after vile falsehood about me in this thread all the while trying to pretend it is me who is nasty...you have demonstrated true nastiness in this exchange.

[BainsBane]

75. I suggest you review the meaning of the question mark

Your own behavior had you locked out. A jury of your peers voted that your post was inappropriate. Time to assume responsibility for your own actions.

Anyway, I stopped caring what you think several hours ago.

[whatchamacallit]

24. +1

[geek tragedy]

25. In other words, you stand with Rand except for the pipeline. Nt

[pipoman]

26. So you support these things? n/t

[geek tragedy]

31. I support a robust and active federal government

I support the ACA, and think the people trying to sabotage it on the national and state levels should go fuck themselves.

If one supports Ted Cruz and the ACA-defunding, Medicaid expansion -rejecting governors, that person is neither a Democrat nor a progressive nor a decent human being.

[pipoman]

37. You got that..

a federal government bent on carpet bombing another nation, a federal government bent on spying on every US citizen, a federal government selling blue collar labor to multi-national corps, If I must support this bullshit to be a good democrat then fuck the Democratic party. I don't for an instant believe good Democrats support these things, I believe DNCers do and are attempting to take over the party.

As for Medicaid, my livelihood depends on a strong medicaid, many of my friend's lives depend on it too. I have spent much of the last 2 years fighting medicaid cutbacks. Why do people on this board make shit up to alienate other Democrats? Retug 'divide and conquer' maybe?

[BainsBane]

48. Okay, so you like big government as long as it benefits you

but not the rest of us. You've just confirmed my earlier post. Amazing how often these things prove to be true.

No body here likes war, though I find it odd you care since so many more people die from gun violence inside the US.

I'm realizing this isn't about actually policy is it? I am not usually on in the morning because of work, which I should be doing now, but I see the mornings attract a very different crowd. The comments about about bombing are gratuitous. Who do you think here is for bombing and a big military? I haven't seen it, but the fact is it's a constant in American society, and surely you must have noticed that.

The person doing the alienating here is you. you are consistently rude and attack instead of discussing. You clearly have a lot of time to waste engaged in a lot of nothing here.

[tridim]

29. Just because he is almost perfectly aligned with Rand Paul politically...

Doesn't mean he stands with Rand!!!11

That would be the logical conclusion... Unfortunately RW libertarians don't believe in logic.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. Okay, so you're a libertarian.

Gotcha.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. +1

Tommy_C hits the nail on the head.

[pipoman]

34. LOL

[frylock]

72. the fuck?!

if all those things make one a libertarian, then sign me up as well, I guess.

[pipoman]

74. Truth is stranger than fiction, eh?

Incredible what a mere 6 years can do to a party. I am beginning to think I really don't belong here...

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. yes

[Romulox]

40. Just wanted to let you know that this exchange was pathetic. Terrible thread!

[BainsBane]

45. One thing I can count on.

If I have a day where I feel okay about myself, I can sign on to DU and people will knock that right down.

[Romulox]

60. Poor you :( nt

[onehandle]

3. The inevitable move to free universal health care is going to be an easy next step.

Wise up, America. Sweep Democrats in.

[stevenleser]

9. I understand what you mean, but I do want to point out 1 thing. Not free...

One of the misconceptions I see from the single payer folks who have a beef with Obamacare (Most of their beefs I agree with. I am in favor of a form of single payer) is that it is 'free'. You still pay for insurance. It's just that the payment is via taxes and the insurer is the government. You will still get a significant additional monthly decrease in take home pay via withholding.

[Yo_Mama]

16. Yes, but the cost-sharing is not so extreme

that people literally cannot access health care, and in the end this holds down cost. Even if there are nominal copays, that's entirely different in impact than the ACA structure, which imposes such severe copays that it essentially locks out many from accessing the health care system.

It's not just cost - it's cost plus access. Just addressing the cost factor totally ignores the purpose of the system.

ACA for the non-well-off is as if you went to the car dealership and they told you "we have a deal for you for only $2,500! A clean low-mileage pre-owned vehicle! Look at this baby! Bucket seats, a beautiful sound system, etc." But when you turn the key in the ignition, nothing happens! Perplexed, you inquire what's wrong, and are told that for only another $1,700 CASH, you can have an engine installed in this priceless gem with a 75K mile warranty. Well, that still may be a deal, but it is utterly useless to those who can't ante up the $1,700 cash.

[stevenleser]

28. There is a lot of supposition/speculation there.

For one thing, the exchanges are not open yet. There is a lot of speculation on how much insurance will cost from the exchanges. I've seen incredibly low estimates and incredibly high estimates. There is also a lot of speculation as to exactly what bronze and silver plans will cover. I'm waiting to see exactly how that all plays out.

There is also the supposition that single payer, or a derivative of it, will work as expected if implemented here. I think it will and that is why I am in favor of it. But I'm not 100% sure.

I'm not in favor of a pure single payer system. I prefer the French or Singapore models which are technically dual-tiered systems.

[Yo_Mama]

71. I have been looking at details for various states that have already published plan details

And they are worrisome. CA's has been available for months already.

[alarimer]

69. And it's likely to be a lot cheaper for the individual.

Which is why I don't understand the opposition to single-payer.

Yes, you will pay for it through your taxes (or possibly an insurance premium), but because the insurance companies and their profit-taking are out of the loop, what once was $300 a month for an individual will be a lot less than that.

Medicare has 3-4% overhead. Private insurance is, what 40% overhead or some ridiculous amount.

[Romulox]

41. Nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. nt

[Old and In the Way]

53. There is no free lunch, but

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

a single payer will reduce my $1400/mo, ridiculously high deductable private insurance coverage by a considerable amount. And Bonus! I won't have to deal with a for-profit bureaucracy (that's backed up by an army of lawyers and lobbiysts) that is incentivized to decline/delay my claims.

[Lee-Lee]

6. Except what do you get for that money?

But what does Bronze cover? Only 60% of costs. The other 40% they still pay out of pocket.

When I broke my arm and had to have surgery a few years ago, the bill was right at $14,000. I am sure even more now. If I was on the Bronze plan here I would still be on the hook for $5600, and while missing work. For just the one simple injury.

Still enough to bankrupt most working people.

Like many things, it sounds great to get cheap insurance, until you see what you get.

Just brink single payer and be done. People shouldn't have to pay for what is needed to stay alive.

[Yo_Mama]

19. And even worse, what about people with chronic health problems?

I took some numbers from the CA exchange and started running them - people with chronic problems are going to be in medical poverty, and frequently unable to access health care. It's no use for a poorer person to be able to get a free annual health exam if they then can't afford to address their health problems, and that's what's going to happen to many.

I am literally sick at what's happening to the millions of struggling people in our society. No one in the establishment appears to give a shit about them, and I refuse to pretend that ACA in most states is going to do the job.

It's like the ACA feature of allowing younger people to stay on their parents' insurance until 26. That's a great feature for families with the incomes who can afford to pay the monthly premium, and no help at all for the tens of millions who simply can't. So many things about ACA are good for those who have decent incomes, but don't extend to poorer people.

It's also bullshit to claim that we can control costs this way. Costs are controlled by ensuring that your population has access to basic health care needs, so controllable medical problems stay controlled.

[jeff47]

50. You're ignoring several major parts of the law.

The ACA has many parts. You can't ignore some of those parts in order to try and make a point.

people with chronic problems are going to be in medical poverty, and frequently unable to access health care.

No, they'll hit Medicaid first.

It's no use for a poorer person to be able to get a free annual health exam if they then can't afford to address their health problems, and that's what's going to happen to many.

You don't provide an income threshold for "poorer person", but again Medicaid steps in for those who are "poorer".

It's like the ACA feature of allowing younger people to stay on their parents' insurance until 26. That's a great feature for families with the incomes who can afford to pay the monthly premium, and no help at all for the tens of millions who simply can't.

Which is why the ACA includes subsidies.

The ACA is no panacea. It solves some short-term problems and provides the framework under which we will get single-payer (pass "Government Options" in blue states. It will crowd out the private companies and you get de-facto single payer. Lack of corpses in those blue states destroy the FUD about single-payer, so it will expand to the other states)

The people screwed by the ACA are not the poor - the law has explicit benefits to help them. The people screwed by the ACA are the "young, healthy and wealthy" - they go from not buying insurance, or buying "hit by a bus" insurance to "real" insurance with no subsidy. And I'm rather comfortable screwing them over in order to benefit everyone else.

[Lee-Lee]

11. For another perspective, instead of "It will cost less than we expected", compare to last years cost

Looking for more data on actual comparative costs, I found this article on Forbes. I don't fully trust Forbes, but I followed the data and it looks legit.

The MJ figures say it will "cost less than expected". The Forbes article points out that is a bit of an artificial figure, and compares it to actual previous costs.

[img][/img]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/?partner=yahootix

I am just digging in now and researching, since they waiting until the last minute to release premiums, but it does appear if I want to keep coverage equal to what I have now through my employer, payed 100% by me as I am part time, I will pay more.

[stevenleser]

14. Forbes is usually OK, but the writer is from the WSJ. I don't trust this at all.

Everyone else seems to be saying the exact opposite.

[geek tragedy]

39. This is part of the ALEC misinformation campaign. The Manhattan Institute produced this article.

The Manhattan Institute's Senior Fellow and Director of its Center for Medical Progress, Paul Howard, spoke at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Conference in a Workshop titled "Rationing By Any Other Name: Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board." He co-led the panel with the Pacific Research Institute's Director of Health Care Studies, John Graham (the Pacific Research Institute is also a State Policy Network member).[8]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

From that Forbes blog: cheerleading for ALEC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/20/are-we-meant-to-believe-that-mckinsey-co-and-cisco-think-that-corporate-executives-should-waive-their-rights-to-confer-with-legislators/

[progressoid]

23. Jesus, that's depressing. n/t

[geek tragedy]

33. Why are you barfing up that discredited garbage from Forbes?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/24/20674838-how-not-to-argue-against-obamacare

It's based on 'research' from a rightwing think tank.

[Lee-Lee]

35. Umm, different article, different author, different numbers.

Not the same one Racheal discussed.

Did you even click the link or just see Forbes and rush to attack me for posting it?

[geek tragedy]

36. No, same rightwing shit, different rightwing pile. More rightwing filth from you.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

Who is Avik Roy?

Avik Roy
Avik Roy is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of the Forbes blog The Apothecary. He has stated he is an "outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues

What is the Manhattan Institute?

The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1] It is an associate member of the State Policy Network.

Stop posting rightwing swill here. Of course, you won't because your pro-ALEC agenda is pretty goddamn clear.

[geek tragedy]

43. But, go ahead and post that piece of sh!t article from Forbes as an OP and see how long it lasts nt

[phleshdef]

51. This has been debunked...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/23/2666391/anti-obamacare-article/

[jeff47]

52. That's because they are comparing apples and drywall.

"Apples and Oranges" are too similar for a metaphor for what they are doing.

They are comparing insurance products with massively high deductibles and co-pays to the best insurance under the ACA. Such as a plan with a $15,000 deductible and 50% co-pay to the "Platinum" plans available on the exchanges.

They ignore the existence of "bronze" and "silver" plans, and also ignore just how horrifically bad the old insurance products are. But it's fantastic propaganda that people repeat without bothering to investigate.

[Yo_Mama]

13. But when you look at the cost of actually getting medical care, things change

Look, I never thought ACA was the way to go. I thought a transition to a universal single-payer system funded by a payroll tax was a far better option that ultimately would accomplish far more of the goals that the population wanted. So I cannot call myself an ACA supporter.

But I am also not an ACA opponent. We will have to make this thing work, though, or the Democratic party is going to take a beating at the polls.

Ignoring the reality of what is going to happen and is happening to many lower/moderate income people is not going to help us or the party. Urgent changes are needed.

The problem is not the insurance premiums so much as the copays/deductibles for many of these plans. People are literally not going to get medical care because they won't be able to ante up the cash.

As things stand now, the rate of medical BKs is going to skyrocket, the economy is going to be hurt, and many people will be severely disappointed at what they are getting. Medical costs will rise because people who are theoretically insured will not in fact have access to basic medical care, and hospital emergency rooms are going to fill up quickly as the untreated ear infections/UTIs and bronchitis cases become severe infections that require emergency intervention.

However the first and most important crisis with ACA is the shift to part-time employment it enforces, and the impact upon many American workers, the failure to enforce the employer mandate, and the failure to even provide exchange coverage for many families of workers.

The easiest way to fix the basic problems is to shift to an employer payroll tax of 9.5%, which the employer would not have to pay if the employer provided ACA qualified coverage for the worker for no more than 9.5% of his pay. Part-timers would not be excluded, which would eliminate the incentive to destroy full-time jobs. That payroll tax would create a larger funding pool for the exchanges, and then we could afford to rewrite the rules to get the families of workers qualified to receive exchange subsidies.

[BainsBane]

18. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees

Look, the law has been passed. I don't know if you actually pay attention to how government works, or doesn't, at the current time, but they aren't passing anything. Whatever you come up with really is irrelevant because the only thing the House wants to do is defund Obamacare.

I don't think there should be an exemption for part time employees either. So what? it has never mattered what I think. I can't imagine why it should now. I often have the feeling I am talking to people used to getting everything in life. It never occurred to me to sit on my computer and decide what I think a law should be. I don't understand this hypothetical view of the world has. We could all dream up an ideal healthcare plan. It means fuck all. What matters is what can get passed and this was it.

Your entire scenario about rising costs is rejected by everyone but right wingers. Co pays are a hell of a lot better than no insurance. The poorest won't have copays, and the rest of us manage.

I don't know what BK refers to and I don't know why you assume I should.

[enlightenment]

44. Bankruptcy,

which is easy to tell within the context of the sentence.


Criticism of a poorly written law does not equate to a desire to "defund Obamacare". That's nonsense designed to shut down discussion.

There are many, many people concerned about the long-run costs of the ACA - and a lot of them are liberals. Again, you attempt to shut down discussion by suggesting that anyone concerned with this is a "right-winger".

Allusions to how you live in the "reality-based" community while others are just fantasists is another method of shutting down debate - a pretty popular method on DU, though not very effective.

Co-pays are better than no insurance? Perhaps - unless those co-pays mean that you can't afford to use the insurance you have dutifully purchased. Given that there are plenty of insured people NOW who avoid medical treatment because they can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, it's hard to imagine that will change next year. That's not fantastical thinking - that's fact. If you choose to dismiss it, that's your choice but it doesn't make it less real.

The "poorest" will have co-pays - even Medicaid enrollees are obligated to pay not only co-pays but sometimes premiums and cost sharing (varies by state and is dependent on how much they make). In January of this year, the government proposed those co-pays should go up, even for the poorest, to accommodate the expanded Medicaid pool. States are already raising the cost-share on some non-emergency care for Medicaid patients, as well.

Four dollars per visit, per procedure, per test may not seem like anything to you, but why not ask someone living below the federal poverty line ($11,170) what it means to them.

[BainsBane]

46. Try reading. I said the only thing the HOUSE wants to do is defund Obamacare

Jesus. When the first line is an attack based on a misreading, what's the point of reading further.

[enlightenment]

54. You're a real piece of work.

If you spent as much time discussing as you do telling people they're wrong, you might be worth the time.

So I agree, there is no point in continuing to attempt dialogue.

[BainsBane]

56. Jesus

Is it really too much to expect you to engage with what I actually say? Instead of blaming your own misreading on ME?
You accused me of derailing the conversation because you coudln't be bothered to read what I said, and now you're mad at me?

[enlightenment]

57. Good grief.

Seriously?

You admit that you couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote because I presumably "misread" a single sentence in your post - and then suggest that I'm the one who can't be bothered?

Like I said, you're a real piece of work.

[BainsBane]

58. you didn't read what I wrote, you accused me of trying to shut down conversation by accusing someone

else of wanting to defund Obamacare. You get mad and the post wasn't even to you. I said that is all the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES wants to do. Then you again attack me, as you did in your first post, because you can't be bothered to follow the point.

You're obviously more interested in fighting that anything else. so enjoy yourself. I did read your post. I read your accusations based entirely in your own misreading. The nastiness is entirely your doing from start to finish. I am not usually here in the morning and now I see why. The only point seems to be to dump on others. What I say is obviously meaningless since you're going to make up what you want regardless. So start your own thread and rail away at the world.

[jeff47]

55. Sure, as long as you pretend the ACA only consists of the exchanges.

The problem is not the insurance premiums so much as the copays/deductibles for many of these plans. People are literally not going to get medical care because they won't be able to ante up the cash.

If they are in a situation where they can't afford a $25 co-pay for an office visit (and ignoring the free annual visit), then they're poor enough that they'll be on Medicaid.

"OMG! WHAT ABOUT THE 40% COPAY!!!" It doesn't apply to office visits.

However the first and most important crisis with ACA is the shift to part-time employment it enforces, and the impact upon many American workers, the failure to enforce the employer mandate, and the failure to even provide exchange coverage for many families of workers.

Except that there's more to the law than the exchanges.

As for part-time, how's that working out for Wal-Mart? Big story yesterday about how their shift to part-time employees has screwed the company. There's plenty of idiots who happen to own businesses, who are unable to think beyond an Excel spreadsheet. They're going to do dumb things like reduce everyone to part-time. Then they're going to claim it was "Obamacare" that ran them out of business, instead of their dumb decision to go with all part-time.

The easiest way to fix the basic problems is to shift to an employer payroll tax of 9.5%

You have an odd definition of "easy". You might want to take a moment and review the current makeup of the House of Representatives.

That payroll tax would create a larger funding pool for the exchanges

Doubtful. Those part-time workers are most likely going to be on Medicaid, not the exchanges.

[BainsBane]

59. Thank you for a dose of reality

I don't know why the issue of what can actually be done is so inconsequential to so many. I've concluded it isn't really about the law but some abstract mental gymnastics. I also think most of these folks are on Medicare anyway.

[Romulox]

38. Mandatory, for-profit health insurance is a disaster. nt

[BainsBane]

47. Well the GOP may very well grant you your wish

[Romulox]

61. Poor, poor for-profit insurance industry! :(

[BainsBane]

65. Actually, poor dead 25K Americans a year who die because of lack of access to health care

Not that that matters in comparison to abstract imaginings. But you have your Medicare, so that's what really counts.

[Romulox]

70. That's like blaming the hostage for what the gunmen did.

"But you have your Medicare, so that's what really counts."

In a few decades, I will.

[Old and In the Way]

62. If the current FPHI isn't reformed or abolished altogether....

can you imagine the costs of their policies - 10, 15,20 years from now?

If we continue to elect House Republicans, not only will these policies continue to escalate in costs, but there will be new Republican laws that will simply shut you out of the HC system if you can't pay those premiums. One way to reduce the population of moochers, right?

[Romulox]

63. Corporate profit compelled by government's authority can't end well. nt

[William769]

49. Kick & recommended.

[Rex]

64. Surprise!

Much to the chagrin of some.

[BainsBane]

66. many of them

in this very thread.

[Rex]

67. I see that WTF!?!

Oh noes! My health insurance is only $100 a month...DAM YOU OBAMA!

[BainsBane]

76. I'm not usually in GD in the morning

I'm typically working. So I think there is a different, slightly more ornery graphic on weekday mornings. What do you think? Seems like a lot of people on Medicare upset that the healthcare plan isn't exactly as they would right it. It appears to be an abstract discussion to them more than anything.

[Rex]

77. I remember a few people telling me a year

before ACA went into effect that it had already changed their healthcare. Which of course it had nothing to do with. Every year it private rates change, but we will see what happens if it is made for under $100 dollars a month to everyone that can afford it at that price.

People and change don't always do well together in the beginning.

[alarimer]

68. My premium jumped $40.

From $21 to $63. That's a big chunk of take-home pay for me. I suspect it's related to what is now covered for "free."

However, they will lower the premiums IF we sign up with a preferred provider (not a big deal), attest (but not prove?) that we are tobacco-free, and fill out a health self-assessment (in which I lied my ass off). So maybe they wanted people to do all that and figured people would if you threatened them with much higher premiums. I don't know.