Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court

03-05-2014 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EYESCREW
Did it ever occur to you that your uncle left himself in the cold by deciding to build houses instead of sit behind a desk?

Is anybody in this goddamn world accountable for anything these days?
Remember this post, dude? GTFO out with this "oh I'm concerned about efficiency" bull****.
03-05-2014 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Non-compliant existing individual ACA plans now extended for two additional years.
Totally not because they were going to end right before the midterm elections.
03-05-2014 , 03:23 PM
Eyescrew, can you please answer my question about your bizarre capitalization? I'm genuinely curious.
03-05-2014 , 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Totally not because they were going to end right before the midterm elections.
Yep.
03-05-2014 , 09:04 PM
lol eyescrew
03-05-2014 , 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Yep.
The sad part is that you seem to actually believe this.
03-05-2014 , 09:09 PM
Wouldn't they have been ending after the midterms?
03-05-2014 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Wouldn't they have been ending after the midterms?
Yeah, but the notices of cancellation would have been going out in October.
03-05-2014 , 09:11 PM
Let me guess, Republicans have shifted seamlessly from "Obummer lied about keeping your plan" to "Lawless president!"
03-05-2014 , 09:11 PM
Again is the concern here that Obama is engaging in poor policy choices? What's the angle here. Obama is letting you keep your plan! Which is what we wanted! But we wanted him to not do it! #BENGHAZI!
03-05-2014 , 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Again is the concern here that Obama is engaging in poor policy choices? What's the angle here.
Well given that you and many democrats itt have argued that these plans are substandard, you'd think you'd want them gone when the law originally required it. Are you admitting that your prior arguments were wrong?
03-05-2014 , 09:17 PM
Ike I would prefer they get canceled. Most informed Democrats would.

Which is, of course completely beside the point. Pretending that Republicans base their healthcare rhetoric on actual policy preferences is not something anyone who is paying attention has believed for, well, 20 years.
03-05-2014 , 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Ike I would prefer they get canceled. The point is, of course, that Republicans are idiots.
Yeah sure man. Break the reach around circle for the briefest of seconds to agree with me that this is a purely political maneuver. Thanks.
03-05-2014 , 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Well given that you and many democrats itt have argued that these plans are substandard, you'd think you'd want them gone when the law originally required it. Are you admitting that your prior arguments were wrong?
Ike, this is your idea of a gotcha? We can point and laugh at Republicans and be disappointed with the decision on policy grounds. At the same time!
03-05-2014 , 09:29 PM
lol ikes
03-05-2014 , 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Yeah sure man. Break the reach around circle for the briefest of seconds to agree with me that this is a purely political maneuver. Thanks.
Again, really crystalizing the whole debate. ikes just wants affirmation. That's all. He has literally no policy views(besides the tangentially related and entirely personal desire for tort reform, increased medicaid reimbursement, etc.).
03-05-2014 , 11:49 PM
We're not talking about a huge number of plans, by the way. What was it, like 6 million? Presumably many of whom have purchased a different plan by now and/or are no longer offered that plan by the insurance company?

There's this weird undercurrent that it's UNFAIR of Obamacare to try to make political decisions. Who does he think he is, President of the United States or something?

But ikesy, baby, if you get this upset at political motivations, wait until you find out about all the states where Republicans are REFUSING FREE FEDERAL MONEY TO EXPAND MEDICAID TO THEIR NEEDY CITIZENS because that money is related to Obamacare.

Millions of Americans will be denied coverage out of spite! Wow you're going to be so pissed you'll be volunteering for the Lousiana Democratic party all summer, working the phones to get those people the care they need.
03-05-2014 , 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EYESCREW
It came from my clumsy fingers...

I meant to say $2500 a year. One of these days I'll learn to proofread.

The post I quoted suggested Obamacare would be a success if fewer people are without healthcare insurance as a result of this legislation and I disagree. Success can only be determined by figuring out the cost of getting the extra people insured and determining if in fact this was the most efficient way of doing so.
How do you propose do to that?
03-06-2014 , 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
The sad part is that you seem to actually believe this.
I was agreeing with you.
03-06-2014 , 02:28 AM
You guys read the 1/2 a million pages so I don't have to

Does anyone know how it works when you move up or down the income ladder?

If I was in school or unemplyed for the first 8 months of 2013, and then I made 3k a month for the last 4 months of the year, then I get asked what I made, and I say 12k......They insta direct me to medicaid, thats cool, almost free insurance.

If my employer (who doesn't offer insurance), gives me a raise to $22.50, and I get all the hours I want (40 during the off season but 60 if I want it during the summer), how does it effect Obama care? Will the Medicaid people tell me when I'm off their plan?

Can I enroll in the exchange plan when I pass the income threshhold in Aprl?

Can the state come back at my with a "claw back" if the only option the website gave me was medicaise, and then I made more money in 2014?

What if I made 60k last yearas a single guy, but I lose the contractor I worked for, that made up for 1/2 the revinue I took in all year?

I made 90k when the building boom was happening. I made 10k during the crash. I can't afford to have the State or the Feds bill me more than a few hundred bucks for the new system.

If I only make 30 this year, I'm busto. Really busto. If I make 42-45 I can survive (with nothing left). I am not going to sign up if the State/Fed is going to send me a bill.

I'm not going to sign up for medicaid because I was rasied different, and I'm pretty healthy. I'm worried about recieving a subdidy, and then a governing body telling me
I have to pay it back. What happens to people that move between medicaide, subsidized, and on your own?
03-06-2014 , 02:38 AM
wat
03-06-2014 , 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
wat
Wat!

What happens when you move from medicaide too non-subsidized in a year?

Wat happens when you receive a 5k subsidy, and by the end of the year, you don't qualify for any subsidy?

From your history you are a hard left dude. Please address how this law deals with people that either don't make money to those that do, OR, address the people that made some money, but not anymore.

If you, as a union schill, can not explain what happens to people moving up and/or down the income ladder, only shows your lack of understanding of the law you promote.
03-06-2014 , 03:43 AM
A challenger appears!
03-06-2014 , 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintman

From your history you are a hard left dude.
Lol @ universal health care being a "far left" position even though most of the planet favors it. Recalibrate plz.
03-06-2014 , 05:58 AM
I found this quote from the guy dubbed the Obamacare architect helpful in understanding the impact of the grandfather provision delay.
Quote:
ZEKE EMANUEL: Policy-wise, it’s probably a toss-up. I actually think what the White House is doing is to say, look, there is a lot of unrest about it, it’s distracting. If we extend it it really doesn’t have that big of an effect. It means that about half a million people won’t go into the exchanges, premiums will go up about 1 percent as a result of the risk pool adjustment, it’s not that big of a deal, it’s pretty small. Those are estimates by the independent think tank Rand. And they think for the political game, it’s worth it to do that. And it certainly isn’t a big deal. I keep saying, you know, they seem to be very strategic at the White House, do some of these things that are good politically but really don’t affect the underlying policy, but defend the underlying policy, like no chance no way are we going to roll back the original mandate or anything like that, and so I think that’s part of the strategy.

      
m