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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Advertisements
I read this thread earlier in the day, and decided to go out to dinner tat our favorite Mexican place tonight to check it out. We have not been there since about November, but everything was about $2 more than last time. No itemization of anything like the ACA, so it may have been for other reasons
like higher rent or food costs I suppose, and still decent prices for the quality,
at $32 for the two of us.
I would avoid places that do this. I don't need anyone's political anything's on my food bills. I don't care what form it takes. ACA is here to stay so deal or get out of business.
...We may be paying more on our bill, but the cost was being defrayed by us anyway by high health care charges that covered the uninsured.
No, we won't be paying less for the uninsured, to offset this new charge. The "CBO found, about one million fewer people would end up with employer health insurance. And while some of them would find other forms of coverage, like Medicaid and insurance from the new exchanges, overall the net bill’s net effect would be to increase the number of people without any insurance by about half a million." CBO on House Obamacare BIll: More Uninsured, Higher Deficits | New Republic
Unfortunately, "The law isn’t designed to save money...Some have suggested that expanding insurance coverage could actually save money for the states on balance by reducing their costs of treating the uninsured...it appears likely that expanding Medicaid coverage would add substantially to state budget costs." Wasn't Obamacare Supposed to Save Money? | National Review Online
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
The word "affordable" in Affordable Care Act means affordable for the totally destitute that qualify for Medicaid. For the rest of us it means paying more to cover them.
No, we won't be paying less for the uninsured, to offset this new charge. The "CBO found, about one million fewer people would end up with employer health insurance. And while some of them would find other forms of coverage, like Medicaid and insurance from the new exchanges, overall the net bill’s net effect would be to increase the number of people without any insurance by about half a million." CBO on House Obamacare BIll: More Uninsured, Higher Deficits | New Republic
Unfortunately, "The law isn’t designed to save money...Some have suggested that expanding insurance coverage could actually save money for the states on balance by reducing their costs of treating the uninsured...it appears likely that expanding Medicaid coverage would add substantially to state budget costs." Wasn't Obamacare Supposed to Save Money? | National Review Online
The ACA is going to reduce that number by half which is why the ACA is expected to save over a trillion dollars over a decade since those people being insured aren't going to cost the taxpayer a ton of money when they get sick as a dog.
The word "affordable" in Affordable Care Act means affordable for the totally destitute that qualify for Medicaid. For the rest of us it means paying more to cover them.
Nothing new.
Affordable housing is affordable housing. It's housing afforded by someone else.
The ACA is going to reduce that number by half which is why the ACA is expected to save over a trillion dollars over a decade since those people being insured aren't going to cost the taxpayer a ton of money when they get sick as a dog.
Bingo...much like Papa John's, McDonald's, Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC) Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn, Seasons 52, and Bahama Breeze) for instance. Rather than provide for their employees and raise prices around fifty cents they opted to reduce hours to part-time where possible to avoid having to provide health insurance, and despite 45% profit increases the past few years in the case of Yum Brands for instance. Scumbags....
Of course--take it out on the employees. We already subsidize restaurant employees' salaries with tips. Now the customers should also take care of their benefits. Those employers are scumbags. Their shareholders must have big profits--and screw everyone else. Some day the worm will turn and those employers will have to actually provide a living wage for their workers.
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.
