Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,828,087 times
Reputation: 35584

Advertisements

I can't believe how surprised some people are about this. Not to mention the added expense of allowing those with pre-existing conditions to sign on, did they not foresee the ramifications of requiring that every policy have a set number of components that the subscriber didn't even want or need? Regardless, this is what people voted for.

Along with everything else we don't need, we're all paying for Sandra Fluke's recreational sex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:17 AM
 
59,053 posts, read 27,306,837 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
The writer is an idiot. The couple in the story isn't paying for anyone's healthcare, except for old people. The insurance premiums went up because old and sick people can't be denied or charged more, no lifetime caps are allowed, and the high deductible plans aren't legal anymore. People making more than $400K had their taxes raised to provide subsidies and people making more than $200K had their medicare tax raised. The couple in this article only makes $80K.

Btw, the republican plan also banned excluding people with preexisting conditions and capped the amount insurers could charge.

Oh god, apparently the woman is 3 months pregnant too... It would be nice when people with low incomes stop having kids.
"The writer is an idiot". Nothing else needs to be said.

we now know that you are the smartest person on the planet aND anyone WHO HAS DIFFERENT OPINION THEN YOURS IS "AN IDIOT".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:19 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,544,279 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Now I know it's just human nature for those who think, for whatever reason, the sun rises and sets on Obama to try to defend the ACA at all costs but at what point do certain elements of it become indefensible to anyone but a fool?
The Bots are mainly brainwashed cult members. They would still be shouting support if the legislation required their execution.

There's one poster that has a decision tree of comments she can make for every post about Obamacare. She's probably being paid to post this BS and I'll bet it's with taxpayer money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:21 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,678,440 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Paying lower taxes because of marital status is a subsidy.
No it is not, it's a tax deduction on the income you already earned, it is your money. A subsidy is free money given to you, it's money that you did not earn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,703,250 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
I wonder how many people were faked out by Obama and the Democrats...because I'm dealing with people like this every day. They thought they would fill out a form, be given a card and they could just start hitting up doctors. People are shocked that not only do they have to pay for healthcare, they're paying for everyone else's healthcare too. Like this gal, from the LA Times, who'd been paying $90 a month -

"Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined."

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

LA Times

The LAT assures us that of course "The federal government picks up much of the tab", but where the hell do they think that money comes from.

They also explain where most of the pain is going to fall - "But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law."

The middle class is being rolled again. Thanks Democrats. I hope you are enjoying your rate increase.
She and her husband make a combined $80,000 a year and they cannot afford $238 per month for insurance?
WTH?
I paid that much per month towards employer-sponsored health insurance two jobs ago.

I have no sympathy for these idiots. None.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:23 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,678,440 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
The Bots are mainly brainwashed cult members. They would still be shouting support if the legislation required their execution.

There's one poster that has a decision tree of comments she can make for every post about Obamacare. She's probably being paid to post this BS and I'll bet it's with taxpayer money.
As Sibelius said, "some people live, and some people die."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:27 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,444 posts, read 7,016,699 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
I wonder how many people were faked out by Obama and the Democrats...because I'm dealing with people like this every day. They thought they would fill out a form, be given a card and they could just start hitting up doctors. People are shocked that not only do they have to pay for healthcare, they're paying for everyone else's healthcare too. Like this gal, from the LA Times, who'd been paying $90 a month -

"Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined."

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

LA Times

The LAT assures us that of course "The federal government picks up much of the tab", but where the hell do they think that money comes from.

They also explain where most of the pain is going to fall - "But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law."

The middle class is being rolled again. Thanks Democrats. I hope you are enjoying your rate increase.
This would be funny if we weren't all negatively impacted by the dems' incompetence. Ok, it's still funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:28 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,123,773 times
Reputation: 9409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
From that link:



Yes, insurance companies are cancelling policies that they can no longer sell because they don't meet the specifications of the ACA and replacing them with policies that DO meet those specifications - and the policies are comparatively priced.

What's the complaint again?
From the link:

"The arithmetic is inescapable."

That's the complaint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:29 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,262,817 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"The writer is an idiot". Nothing else needs to be said.

we now know that you are the smartest person on the planet aND anyone WHO HAS DIFFERENT OPINION THEN YOURS IS "AN IDIOT".
No, just the writer. I expect a certain standard from journalists and when they can't even get basic facts right I have no choice but to question their intellect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 10:29 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,678,440 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostly1 View Post
I think the real issue is that the people were promised that if they liked their existing health plan they could keep it. That was false at the time for people independently/individually insured and it's false now. It makes me wonder what other lies were told. Was the promise that those of us insured through employers could keep what we have also a lie, and what about those of us on Medicare with supplements provided by our pension plans? Are either or both of those going to be changed to conform with ObamaCare and result in additional costs to us or decreased access and services, not to mention fewer doctors willing to provide them?

Now I know it's just human nature for those who think, for whatever reason, the sun rises and sets on Obama to try to defend the ACA at all costs but at what point do certain elements of it become indefensible to anyone but a fool? The entire plan is predicated on the presumption that we're all lemmings and therefore, one size fits all. That's foolish. It's insulting! It's worse than foolish because it denies the fact that being human, we're all different and have different needs.

Here's a prime example. My wife and I are 65 and 67 respectively. Our children are long grown and on their own. Were we in the market for health insurance the last things we'd be looking and wanting to pay for would be potential coverage for children 26 and under and reproductive services and coverage. Yet ObamaCare would give us no choice.

Sorry, Washington, you do NOT know best regarding our specific needs and wants and we resent being forced to not just walk lock-step with everyone else but have to be financially penalized for it as well. Most of all, we resent being lied to.
That's the bureaucracy's one-size-fits-all despotic plan. Some bureaucrat decided you should be mandated to purchase an expensive plan that pays for free sex change operations, free tattoo removal, free hair transplants, free birth control, abortions, reproductive sterilization procedures, children under 26, etc.. whatever... etc... and if you dare to get a plan that does not cover all useless crap like that, then you'll be a violator of federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top