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.
When Obama and democrats said the health plans offered better benefits without elaborating what those benefits were... and that the cost to those who are more poor would be minimal without telling them about the 12k deductible they have to pay... the democrats love to talk about the exchanges but intentionally left out the small print...
To be fair, I think for about 2 years, no one had a clue what those health plans were even going to look like . . . so folks just repeated the party line . . .
I think most politicians were just repeating what Obama said.
ACA legislation did not prescribe what the insurance policies would cost, what kind of deductibles, etc.
How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball or somehthing?
What's if that's all they want (or need), not what you think they need?
Actually it is pretty easy to figure out that the insurance policy is a useless policy that doesn't cover anything if the person is 50+ and paying very little, unless they have a great healthcare program from work where the employer covers almost all of it. But these aren't the people having their junk policies canceled.
What huge tax breaks? Have you even looked at the IRS's data on ACTUAL average effective federal income tax rates?
Top 0.1%: 22.84%
Top 1%: 23.39%
Top 5%: 20.64%
And then a HUGE effective tax rate drop-off below the top 5%...
Top 5-10%: 11.98%
Top 10-25%: 8.70%
Top 25-50%: 6.01% (middle class)
Bottom 50%: 2.37% IRS - Latest Federal Income Tax Data
What kind of "huge" tax "breaks" make the top 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate nearly 4 times that of the rate the middle class pays? Given the fact that the actual tax brackets are supposed to have the middle class paying 25% and the top tax bracket rate is 35%, only 40% higher, the ACTUAL effective rates sure look a whole hell of a lot more like the rich are whacked with a huge tax penalty rather than getting any tax breaks. Instead of paying a rate that's 40% higher than the middle class, they pay a rate that's 300% higher.
How does that happen you may wonder? Several reasons... the AMT, and the fact that many tax deductions and tax credits are phased out at higher income levels being just two of them.
As we can all plainly see, the rich don't get huge tax breaks, the middle class does.
Free healthcare is Medicaid. Under the ACA, all people who meet poverty-level income requirements will automatically qualify for free healthcare, Medicaid. On the marketplace website, I remember seeing in the plans that if your income was very low and couldn't possibly afford the premiums for any of the plans, it gives information for applying for Medicaid. My question is where's all this money to pay for 50-70 million people's Medicaid coming from?
Free healthcare is Medicaid. Under the ACA, all people who meet poverty-level income requirements will automatically qualify for free healthcare, Medicaid. On the marketplace website, I remember seeing in the plans that if your income was very low and couldn't possibly afford the premiums for any of the plans, it gives information for applying for Medicaid. My question is where's all this money to pay for 50-70 million people's Medicaid coming from?
Many of us have asked that question, repeatedly. There's ALSO the additional cost of subsidies for those whose income is up to 400% of the poverty level. We can't get an answer from the liberals on who's going to PAY for all that.
I had a very bad skin infection when I was dependant on Medicaid. I got a misdiagnosis of it being ringworm, and the medicine I was prescribed didn't work. I was sent to a specialist I had to wait four months to see. Four months after having had that infection for already for five months. When I saw the specialist, I got a concurrence of five dermatologists that the infection actually was not fungal but was eczema-related and viral.
They told me that I needed a very simple procedure to remove the infection. Medicaid declined to cover the procedure, and at this point, having the infection spreading on my skin for nine months now, I was suffering. The dermatologist was heartbroken that I would have to perform the procedure ...myself. She told me to use a syringe and attempt to dig and scrape my skin, bursting viral blisters, and use alcohol pads afterwards. Of course, I developed a very painful bacterial infection immediately, and once again suffering. The dermatologist put me on oral and topical antibiotics and a corticosteroid ointment. After a week it cleared up. My skin cleared up and was very scarred. Two years later I'm still on corticosteroid cream by prescription, and the scarring has cleared up.
I had a very bad skin infection when I was dependant on Medicaid. I got a misdiagnosis of it being ringworm, and the medicine I was prescribed didn't work. I was sent to a specialist I had to wait four months to see. Four months after having had that infection for already for five months. When I saw the specialist, I got a concurrence of five dermatologists that the infection actually was not fungal but was eczema-related and viral.
They told me that I needed a very simple procedure to remove the infection. Medicaid declined to cover the procedure, and at this point, having the infection spreading on my skin for nine months now, I was suffering. The dermatologist was heartbroken that I would have to perform the procedure ...myself. She told me to use a syringe and attempt to dig and scrape my skin, bursting viral blisters, and use alcohol pads afterwards. Of course, I developed a very painful bacterial infection immediately, and once again suffering. The dermatologist put me on oral and topical antibiotics and a corticosteroid ointment. After a week it cleared up. My skin cleared up and was very scarred. Two years later I'm still on corticosteroid cream by prescription, and the scarring has cleared up.
What a painful experience.
Don't worry, the government knows what is best for you, they don't need to consult doctors, they got papers and the internet and now can act like they know the industry so well without any liability... by the way, the liberals told me it was your fault apparently you didn't understand what they were trying to say when they said it would be better for you...
I had a very bad skin infection when I was dependant on Medicaid. I got a misdiagnosis of it being ringworm, and the medicine I was prescribed didn't work. I was sent to a specialist I had to wait four months to see. Four months after having had that infection for already for five months. When I saw the specialist, I got a concurrence of five dermatologists that the infection actually was not fungal but was eczema-related and viral.
They told me that I needed a very simple procedure to remove the infection. Medicaid declined to cover the procedure, and at this point, having the infection spreading on my skin for nine months now, I was suffering. The dermatologist was heartbroken that I would have to perform the procedure ...myself. She told me to use a syringe and attempt to dig and scrape my skin, bursting viral blisters, and use alcohol pads afterwards. Of course, I developed a very painful bacterial infection immediately, and once again suffering. The dermatologist put me on oral and topical antibiotics and a corticosteroid ointment. After a week it cleared up. My skin cleared up and was very scarred. Two years later I'm still on corticosteroid cream by prescription, and the scarring has cleared up.
What a painful experience.
I am sorry for your terrible experience.
I think many of us are going to be doing more "at home care" and using natural methods and self-medicating. The sad part is - for those with a budget that is going to be really impacted by having to purchase insurance . . . folks won't even go to the doc despite having insurance b/c the deductible is so high. So it is all out of pocket anyway.
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.
make the top 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate nearly 4 times that of the rate the middle class pays? Given the fact that the actual tax brackets are supposed to have the middle class paying 25% and the top tax bracket rate is 35%, only 40% higher, the ACTUAL effective rates sure look a whole hell of a lot more like the rich are whacked with a huge tax penalty rather than getting any tax breaks. Instead of paying a rate that's 40% higher than the middle class, they pay a rate that's 300% higher. 
