Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After a three year non-stop disinformation campaign waged by the right, you are surprised that people have a low opinion of a program that hasn't even rolled out yet? The House Cons have tried to repeal it so many times that many people think they must have succeeded by now. The law has not yet begun to work. Let's revisit this in a year, after people have had a chance to see the many beneficial things there are in the ACA. That's a scary thought for cons, isn't it?
You mean change the rules on those who have already paid in?
Im paying in. No, you're wrong though. Even raising the retirement age on people 18 and under would make the program solvent. I say people 40 and younger should retire when we are 70. And that hits me.
Both sides have made their case. While a change in opinion is always possible, the fact remains that on the issue of Obamacare the people don't like it and don't want it, which is why defunding it will prove far more popular than the people who have drunk the kool-aid of conventional wisdom can even imagine.
Both sides have made their case. While a change in opinion is always possible, the fact remains that on the issue of Obamacare the people don't like it and don't want it, which is why defunding it will prove far more popular than the people who have drunk the kool-aid of conventional wisdom can even imagine.
People haven't actually seen it yet. They're against "Obamacare" because it's been successfully demonized by the right, yet when asked about individual parts of the law, people like much of what is there. Enjoy your last few months of talking points. Once this rolls out and people who have been uninsured for years find themselves able to buy into the market again, the right will once again find itself on the losing side of history. You guys should be used to that by now.
Im paying in. No, you're wrong though. Even raising the retirement age on people 18 and under would make the program solvent. I say people 40 and younger should retire when we are 70. And that hits me.
Medicare is a much bigger problem than Social Security. The 2.9% tax only covers Part A of Medicare. The government picks up almost all of Part B, C, and D. A married couple has to earn $150,000 before they start paying more for Part B. The ACA is much more means tested. A single person has to pay the full cost of insurance if they make more than 400% of poverty level. Seniors between 65-69 would for the most part be on Bronze plans because that's all the ACA pays for. Go one step further and put all seniors on ACA and you have Paul Ryans plan.
We spend 640 Billion to fund Medicare, Tricare, and VA. That's every year... It cost taxpayers almost $10,000 for each recipient. On the other hand the ACA has high deductibles and it looks doubtful that the subsidies would be more than $3,000 per recipient average. Obamacare looks a lot like Paul Ryans plan for Medicare. Republicans love that plan.
Basically we have two "lifeboats" out there for health insurance. One is loaded with 640 billion dollars and the other has 100 billion dollars in it. The folks in the 640 billion dollar life boat are trying to sink the other lifeboat before it even hits the water. That's compassionate conservatism. Or as Grover Norquist said lets "drown the baby in the bathtub."
Huh? Are you suggesting that Obamacare only costs $100B???? I think you're misinformed.
Medicare is a much bigger problem than Social Security. The 2.9% tax only covers Part A of Medicare. The government picks up almost all of Part B, C, and D. A married couple has to earn $150,000 before they start paying more for Part B. The ACA is much more means tested. A single person has to pay the full cost of insurance if they make more than 400% of poverty level. Seniors between 65-69 would for the most part be on Bronze plans because that's all the ACA pays for. Go one step further and put all seniors on ACA and you have Paul Ryans plan.
I completely agree. Medicare is the major problem with the budget.
We are way off topic, but to sum this up.
People are saying that because popular opinion is against "obamacare" that this means something. My argument against that is that social security was not popular when first enacted, and today its seen as the third rail of politics.
The others started saying it was insolvent, and thats how we went off on a tangent.
Back on topic now We can discuss SSI and Medicare in other threads.
Huh? Are you suggesting that Obamacare only costs $100B???? I think you're misinformed.
The most recent estimate by the CBO is 1.1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Everything changes of course and if employers start dumping health insurance and forcing employees on to the exchange it could raise that. Have you actually looked at the health plans? The Bronze plan is nothing fancy. You have to pay 40% of your costs out of pocket until you hit $6,350. Under the plans the insurance companies have negotiated the rates. Under my wifes current catastrophic plan we have had to pay 100% of our cost out of pocket and negotiate the total cost. Kind of tough to do when you are in an accident though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can discuss SSI and Medicare in other threads.
