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.
Haven't you been paying attention? They say we are moochers and leeches because we don't have access to employer subsidized healthcare. I have been called that many times on this board over the last few years.
That's just crazy. Self-employed folks are the backbone of America and the fastest growing segment of the working population.
A few interesting facts about us:
"About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants."
What I don't understand, however, is why Republicans are so intent on treating self-employed people as second class citizens and denying them the right to purchase insurance on the same basis as government and corporate workers.
Getting out from under that insane "pre-existing condition" ban was a huge gain for millions of us. Self-employed folks are the fastest growing segment of the American workforce. The playing field was finally leveled.
Yet many Republican candidates are running on taking back this very simple and non-controversial matter.
They many not like other aspects of the ACA, but that's just plain inexcusable.
You won't get an explanation from me about why R's or D's didn't address the pec issue before Ocare.
I agree that affordable coverage for people with pec's isn't controversial in the abstract. How to do it is controversial or even in solidly D states they'd have been treated the same as everyone else. Even in my solidly D state, the law allowed health insurer's to refuse insurance for people with pec's on the individual market, thus the high risk pool.
Obamacare allows us self-employed folks to buy insurance on the same basis as corporate employees, instead of being locked out for pre-existing conditions.
That is literally a life-and-death issue for a lot of us and our families.
I understand there are other objections to the ACA but this makes it all worthwhile.
Although I am a conservative on many issues, I will never vote for anybody who is trying to take this away.
Do you believe they needed to spend all these billions of our dollars, and hijack 16% of the economy, and put millions of people at risk, and cause so much division among the people, just to mandate a pre-existing conditions regulation?
It's a good thing, but by no means does it make it all worthwhile.
Do you believe they needed to spend all these billions of our dollars, and hijack 16% of the economy, and put millions of people at risk, and cause so much division among the people, just to mandate a pre-existing conditions regulation?
It's a good thing, but by no means does it make it all worthwhile.
Nope, all they really needed to do was change one minor underwriting matter that insurance companies deal with every day of the week.
However, the Republicans have absolutely refused to deal with this, even when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The fact that they are still vehemently opposed to this is evident from the fact that Republicans in every state are still running against it.
Has even one Republican come forward and said, "Look, I'm opposed to the ACA but I need to make sure my hardworking, self-employed constituents are never again treated as second class citizens and that they will always be able to buy insurance on the same basis as corporate and government employees"?
I have asked several of them that directly and not a single one of them will acknowledge that they will do so.
Anyone who denied Ocare would reduce the uninsured rate was a boob. It had to. Medicaid expansion, taxed for not buying insurance, subsidies, no health condition criterion, multi-million ad campaigns, etc,. had to reduce the rate.
You are flat out trying and failing to re-write history of the stated expectations of conservatives. There were multiple lies coming from conservatives about the ACA after the law was being implemented after October 1st.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the website could not be fixed and was beyond being able to be repaired.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the ACA would actually cause more people to be uninsured due to policy cancellations.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the insurance in the exchanges was too expensive and nobody wanted this program.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the program would fail to sign up enough healthy people and it would enter into a death spiral.
The lie coming from conservatives was that few uninsured people were actually gaining insurance because of the ACA.
This is just a small smattering of recent and continuing conservative lies about the ACA.
So by claiming that anyone who thought the ACA wouldn't reduce the uninsured rate as some sort of boob like claim that no serious conservatives thought, you are attempting to deny the actual position of conservatives on the ACA.
The conservative position was not only that the ACA wouldn't reduced the uninsured after Oct. 1 2013 many conservatives were claiming the uninsured rate would spike because of the ACA.
In other words, all conservatives were boobs using your definition.
What about the "lie" from the liberals that if you like that plan, you could keep it? Somewhere around 5 million lost coverage because it didn't fit the Obamacare guidelines of male coverage (even for women) and female coverage (for males.) Now yes, most have gotten plans through re-instation, new plans, catastrophic coverage plans and only about half of a million TRULY lost any type of plan (didn't sign up for a new) but for many (the re-instated coverage plans) most are only good for the year, 2016 tops (based on executive orders) IF the company offers it going forward.
Both sides lied about the law and mislead people, let's not say one did and the other didn't. Both deserve to be voted out in November. Everyone should vote third party in November. That's what I plan to do. I can't trust the Republicans or Democrats to do anything right in Washington.
You are flat out trying and failing to re-write history of the stated expectations of conservatives. There were multiple lies coming from conservatives about the ACA after the law was being implemented after October 1st.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the website could not be fixed and was beyond being able to be repaired.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the ACA would actually cause more people to be uninsured due to policy cancellations.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the insurance in the exchanges was too expensive and nobody wanted this program.
The lie coming from conservatives was that the program would fail to sign up enough healthy people and it would enter into a death spiral.
The lie coming from conservatives was that few uninsured people were actually gaining insurance because of the ACA.
This is just a small smattering of recent and continuing conservative lies about the ACA.
So by claiming that anyone who thought the ACA wouldn't reduce the uninsured rate as some sort of boob like claim that no serious conservatives thought, you are attempting to deny the actual position of conservatives on the ACA.
The conservative position was not only that the ACA wouldn't reduced the uninsured after Oct. 1 2013 many conservatives were claiming the uninsured rate would spike because of the ACA.
In other words, all conservatives were boobs using your definition.
If all conservatives claimed Ocare wouldn't reduce the uninsured rate, then yes, all conservatives are boobs. If all liberals believed what Obama said about his plan, then all liberals are boobier. He's lied more than anyone.
Ocare had to reduce the uninsured rate. Obama's no political idiot. He knew the policy cancellations caused a furor, so he allowed insurers to reinstate those 'junk' policies for 2 years. He postponed the employer mandate to avoid millions more losing insurance this year. Even if he had not postponed those parts of Ocare, the rate had to eventually go down because of the tax on not buying insurance, expanded Medicaid, covering under age 26'ers, subsidies, ignoring the cost risk of pec's, and a few other things.
Take one thing you call a 'lie' --- "the program would fail to sign up enough healthy people and it would enter into a death spiral." Impartial people [not you] know that despite the multi-million campaign to sign up younger people, they fell way short of the goal. Either way, there won't be a death spiral because Obama made sure insurers who lose $$$ will get a nice bailout.
FYI, the website still isn't working as intended. What's the cost now, close to $1 billion ? With unlimited funds and resources, they're bound to get it done right eventually.
If all conservatives claimed Ocare wouldn't reduce the uninsured rate, then yes, all conservatives are boobs. If all liberals believed what Obama said about his plan, then all liberals are boobier. He's lied more than anyone.
Ocare had to reduce the uninsured rate. Obama's no political idiot. He knew the policy cancellations caused a furor, so he allowed insurers to reinstate those 'junk' policies for 2 years. He postponed the employer mandate to avoid millions more losing insurance this year. Even if he had not postponed those parts of Ocare, the rate had to eventually go down because of the tax on not buying insurance, expanded Medicaid, covering under age 26'ers, subsidies, ignoring the cost risk of pec's, and a few other things.
Take one thing you call a 'lie' --- "the program would fail to sign up enough healthy people and it would enter into a death spiral." Impartial people [not you] know that despite the multi-million campaign to sign up younger people, they fell way short of the goal. Either way, there won't be a death spiral because Obama made sure insurers who lose $$$ will get a nice bailout.
FYI, the website still isn't working as intended. What's the cost now, close to $1 billion ? With unlimited funds and resources, they're bound to get it done right eventually.
Show me one conservative who said the ACA would reduce the rate of the uninsured.
Opposition to the ACA is right now a DEFINING political position for conservatives.
I have never heard or read a conservative elected official say that the ACA would reduce the uninsured. So yes using your definition all conservatives were boobs on the ACA.
Now you are trying to pretend that it was obvious to conservatives that the ACA would reduce the rate of the uninsured. This a flat out not true. The conservative position was that the ACA wouldn't reduce anything, and would fail miserably.
It was obvious to me that the ACA would reduce the rate of the uninsured and I wrote that it would, to a lot of rational policy experts it was obvious that the ACA would reduce the rate of the uninsured, to the Democratic party it was obvious that it would reduce the rate of the uninsured, but not to conservatives.
In terms of the mix of those on the exchanges, All one has to do is read the statements coming from insurance companies about the ACA.
Aetna has added 230,000 paying customers from ACA exchanges, and it projects to end the year with 450,000 paid customers. It said it can't yet draw a "meaningful conclusion" about the population's overall health status. In January, Bertolini said the early enrollment mix had looked better than he expected."
After taking a pretty cautious approach to the launch of the health insurance marketplaces in 2014, the nation’s largest insurer said it’s looking to expand its Obamacare footprint in 2015.
UnitedHealth Group, which is participating in just five public exchanges this year, said it’s likely to join more insurance marketplaces in 2015 but didn't offer specifics.
Executive vice president Gail Boudreaux, on an earnings call with investors Thursday morning, said the company “has a bias to increase” the company’s participation in Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2015 after seeing encouraging trends in the program's first year.
“The size of the overall market is positive,” Boudreaux said. She said consumers’ large interest in “silver” health plans – mid-level insurance plans in which insurers cover 70 percent of the care costs – is another positive sign for the young exchanges.
Almost two-thirds of customers selecting health plans through the exchanges have chosen silver plans.
But a strong March enrollment surge, along with indications that younger and healthier people had begun signing up, has changed their attitude. Around the country, insurers are considering expanding their stake in the Obamacare exchanges next year, bringing their business to more states and counties. Some health plans that skipped the new marketplaces altogether this year are ready to dive in next year.
The ACA not only protects the access to health care for additional millions, it protects the wealth accumulation from being eaten up by an illness of even more millions of people.
The ACA not only protects the access to health care for additional millions
You've already been duped. The ACA only covers access to health insurance, not access to actual health care.
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.
