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.
"Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct."
Good article that shows that all the rightwing talking points about the ACA have proven to be untrue.
I'm NOT a Repub and I HATE Obamacare. The article itself is disingenuous by bragging that the average Exchange out-of-pocket premium is $86!! The only ones who bought from the Exchanges were those who KNEW that they would qualify for a generous subsidy. That's why the out-of-pocket premium is so low. I'd challenge the article to include the change in rates for the OFF EXCHANGE people OF COURSE, those who have to pay their own premiums. Where's the big break for them? Those whose individual policies did not meet the "essential benefits" were FORCED out of those plans and into higher cost policies despite the fact that didn't need maternity care, children's dental, etc. out-of-pocket for the ON EXCHANGE is Very Little since Government (taxpayers, Medicare Advantage members, various healthcare industries) are heavily subsidizing their coverage so that their precious poor selves could afford it in the first place. It astounds me that a New York paper could boldly print that the subsidy phases out at $46,000 MAGI. Really, how many New York residents can live on that sum? I'll bet that most New York City, East Coast and West coast working folk end up paying full freight while the lazy folk ended up with the subsidies. So not fair.
There needs to be more detail to investigate the article's claim that some of those states have not experienced big increases relative to what they were in past years. I doubt that these companies have seen the true costs of the claims from the new exchange members that will be racked up later this year. The law picked so many winners and losers that I'd also like to see the claims increases broken out by sex because let's not forget that they raised mens' premiums (even though men costs actuarially LESS) to discount the womens' premiums so that they could brag that "Women don't have to pay more than men anymore". That kind of stuff goes way over the low information voters heads since they probably don't understand was a statistical reason for women's higher premiums to justify.
1. Everyone isn't chipping in
Only those making 200k or more are paying extra in medicare surtaxes and it's a double whammy for self employed who get whacked with 40% premium increases or having their max out of pocket deductible double or both.
2. And the exchanges affect the individual market right now. So it has nothing to do with the employer market.
Everyone IS "pitching in" - you either get some form of insurance, or you pay the fee. Before hand, you simply didn't need insurance and there wasn't a fee, so you could pass the costs completely off to somebody else. That meant some people literally got totally free healthcare, which is messed up.
Look, one can debate if the ACA will work out for the best in the long run, sure, but the SINGULAR point I was addressing was the laughable irony in how those on the far-right hated the pre-ACA state because "people could get free health care" and then hated the post ACA-state even though it at least fixed that problem.
How many threads have we had on this forum alone about people screaming with rage about how "the government is going to force me to either pay a fine or buy healthcare insurance!" Funny now how I'm supposed to believe that suddenly this problem went away and people are back to getting "free healthcare" Right...
Yeah... that's called "pitching in" - nobody gets a completely free ride anymore. I'm not saying the ACA is great - it has problems - but that is at least one thing it got right.
"Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct."
Good article that shows that all the rightwing talking points about the ACA have proven to be untrue.
Really? Like how its affordable? Or that you can keep your plan or doctor? Like people are swooning with joy over loosing plans they liked for something more expensive with less coverage?
Everyone IS "pitching in" - you either get some form of insurance, or you pay the fee. Before hand, you simply didn't need insurance and there wasn't a fee, so you could pass the costs completely off to somebody else. That meant some people literally got totally free healthcare, which is messed up.
Look, one can debate if the ACA will work out for the best in the long run, sure, but the SINGULAR point I was addressing was the laughable irony in how those on the far-right hated the pre-ACA state because "people could get free health care" and then hated the post ACA-state even though it at least fixed that problem.
How many threads have we had on this forum alone about people screaming with rage about how "the government is going to force me to either pay a fine or buy healthcare insurance!" Funny now how I'm supposed to believe that suddenly this problem went away and people are back to getting "free healthcare" Right...
Yeah... that's called "pitching in" - nobody gets a completely free ride anymore. I'm not saying the ACA is great - it has problems - but that is at least one thing it got right.
I beg to differ. Anywhere between 3-5 million people getting expanded medicaid are getting a free ride. They aren't "pitching in".
"pitching in" would be a FICA type of tax on almost every one earning income. That's pitching in.
Uninsured people would be sent bills and to collections under the old system.. Whether they could pay it off is a whole different story. But right now there is no "means" test for medicaid expansion in terms of assets.
I could have 10 million in the bank and show "0" income and get free medicaid.
Under the old system, the collections company would go after me and my assets if they found I had money.
I am self employed and pay "full price" and more with the huge premium increases. Yes I can deduct from the business side. But as S corp, I have to re add it back to my W2 wages.
Everyone IS "pitching in" - you either get some form of insurance, or you pay the fee.
Wrong again.
45% or more of the people in this country pay NO federal income tax. Nothing, nada, zero. Not everyone is pitching in. Millions of people were put on the Medicare rolls, they pay ZERO.
1. Everyone isn't chipping in
Only those making 200k or more are paying extra in medicare surtaxes and it's a double whammy for self employed who get whacked with 40% premium increases or having their max out of pocket deductible double or both.
2. And the exchanges affect the individual market right now. So it has nothing to do with the employer market.
That's not completely true; just looking at taxes implemented currently there's the health insurer premium tax that is driving up costs for all insurance across the board being used to partially fund the ACA, and even people on large employer plans are paying for that.
I work full time and get no money from any entitlement programs, and never have. I pay taxes every year (being self-employed, I pay a lot of taxes), but had no employer-based healthcare. I get a subsidy for the healthcare policy that I bought through the exchanges.
There are many people like me out here, who work hard and who pay taxes, who simply don't have access to the employer-subsidized healthcare that you most likely have. (And yes, employer-based healthcare is subsidized, and always has been.)
We are not takers.
If you are self employed and file a schedule "C" all healthcare costs are 100% deducible.
45% or more of the people in this country pay NO federal income tax. Nothing, nada, zero. Not everyone is pitching in. Millions of people were put on the Medicare rolls, they pay ZERO.
Get your facts straight and stop misrepresenting "45% of the people pay no taxes"
"Thanks to payroll taxes, it's nearly impossible to get away completely tax-free today. In fact, "just 14% of households pay neither income nor payroll tax and two-thirds of them are elderly," according to the TCP. And then there are taxes closer to home to consider. You'd be hard-pressed to find households who don't get hit with state or local income, sales, and property taxes.
Of the 43% of households owing no federal income tax this year, about half simply earned too little income to qualify, including many retired workers who live on Social Security. The remaining households likely qualify for breaks via the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. "
Yeah, those old, retired people are such moochers... Oh, but that's right - you were implying that the 43% were entirely poor or "those people." Too bad the facts don't support that.
As for the rest of your outrage over the ACA, again, look up the facts:
45% or more of the people in this country pay NO federal income tax. Nothing, nada, zero. Not everyone is pitching in. Millions of people were put on the Medicare rolls, they pay ZERO.
So? The penalty would still apply to them, and they would be required to file a tax return to pay it.
"Thanks to payroll taxes, it's nearly impossible to get away completely tax-free today. In fact, "just 14% of households pay neither income nor payroll tax and two-thirds of them are elderly," according to the TCP. And then there are taxes closer to home to consider. You'd be hard-pressed to find households who don't get hit with state or local income, sales, and property taxes.
Of the 43% of households owing no federal income tax this year, about half simply earned too little income to qualify, including many retired workers who live on Social Security. The remaining households likely qualify for breaks via the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. "
Yeah, those old, retired people are such moochers... Oh, but that's right - you were implying that the 43% were entirely poor or "those people." Too bad the facts don't support that.
As for the rest of your outrage over the ACA, again, look up the facts:
Do your research before quoting the usual right-wing, hate the poor nonsense.
The ACA is not supported by FICA payroll taxes.
It's supported by Medicare surtax along with other general govt tax revenue.
Unless you are implying we are using FICA payroll taxes paid for by the 43% who don't pay federal income taxes? If that true than the entire social security FICA taxes are a Ponzi scheme. Those payroll taxes are supposed in theory be separate from govt General revenue.
So what's it going to be?
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.
