Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    The Senate voted 79-20 to call for repeal of the tax, but the resolution is non-binding and will not change the levy. 



    Chimps at the zoo got nothing on this p**p-throwing....

     

    Slow day, Greg...?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    I think this is great - stop talking about throwing the law away or hitting the 'reset' button, and start focusing on making it better.  I'm sure there's a majority that would support repealing the mandate - I'm on board with that!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Hey, even its supporters said it needs to be tweaked.

    If they're going to do that, they're going to end up having to give more spending cuts elsewhere to Republicans.




    Let's tweak it the same way liberals want to tweak gun control...right out of existence.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    A non-binding tweak.  Whoopie



    So, why post it then?

    Nothing good on daytime tv...?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    I'm sure there's a majority that would support repealing the mandate - I'm on board with that!




     

    Repealing the mandate while leaving in the conditions set for insurers could easily break the system.

    Greed isn't the only reason you had them refusing to pick up people with pre-existing conditions, with very expensive diseases, etc. It skews the risk pool so much nobody could afford the insurance - unless you have tens of millions more paying into the insurance pool.



    Exactly - drop the mandate and keep the coditions, and insurers will be lobbying for a public option to offload their sicker customers.  

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    any one who believes the HCR law is about healthcare and not just about creating revenue for the govt is ignorant to the culture of our current federal politicians!

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    any one who believes the HCR law is about healthcare and not just about creating revenue for the govt is ignorant to the culture of our current federal politicians!

    Oh just go back under your bed and hide from the helicopters. YOu aren't adding anything.




    Ok you admit you're ignorant. Cool, admitting your problem is the first step to recovery.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

    I'm sure there's a majority that would support repealing the mandate - I'm on board with that!



    Repealing the mandate while leaving in the conditions set for insurers could easily break the system.

    Greed isn't the only reason you had them refusing to pick up people with pre-existing conditions, with very expensive diseases, etc. It skews the risk pool so much nobody could afford the insurance - unless you have tens of millions more paying into the insurance pool.

    Exactly - drop the mandate and keep the coditions, and insurers will be lobbying for a public option to offload their sicker customers.  

     

     

    I dunno, man.

    An ordinary game of chicken is dangerous enough. Here, we're in the cars but we don't get to drive them. Congress has them on remote controll.

    Look what happened with the sequester, another such game of chicken. Congress supposedly made it tough enough that each side would work together to avert it. But when the time came, they said "eh, F it". And over we went.



    I don't see it as a game of chicken - at least not between the parties.  If any congressman today started a bill to repeal only the mandate, there's no doubt in my mind it could get majority support.  Once the mandate is repealed, many will wait until they are sick to buy insurance - this will drive up premiums and threaten the viability of the insurance companies.  Both businesses and individuals would suffer so you'll have pressure on both parties to act, but now you have more subsidies in place, and previously uninsurable people getting insurance.  So what is the Republican alternative to a public option at that point - kick everybody off their insurance plans and go back to the way things were?  

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Ok you admit you're ignorant. Cool, admitting your problem is the first step to recovery.

    [QUOTE]


    Yeah OK.

    Instead of ramming through a straight-up tax increase, Obama chose to burn his political capital on a massive convoluted health care law. For the purpose of revenue.



    He could not possibly tax this amount with out calling it healthcare that will save us and add 30 million to coverage!

    It was a fake crisis (85% were happy with their insurance) this was supposed to provide BETTER and CHEAPER coverage. Hows that working out for ya???

    duped again is what happened to you!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    It was a fake crisis (85% were happy with their insurance) this was supposed to provide BETTER and CHEAPER coverage. Hows that working out for ya???


    The people who didn't have or couldn't get insurance were definitely not happy with not having any.

    Kinda the point, and not 'fake' at all.

    The primary goal all along was to get MORE people on the insurance rolls.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    It was a fake crisis


    [QUOTE]

    2008: we saw yearly increases in premiums of about 10%. We saw tens of millions uninsured. Employers consistently dropping coverage or offering worse and worse plans. More and more broke people because of health care.

    And because his and his own still had insurance, he calls it a "fake crisis". Is this what morality looks like?



    Look tool boy, I never said the system was perfect or that we didnt need healthcare reform. I said making it out to be an immediate crisis compared to other govt programs is fake crisis!

    Premium went up 30% after the HCR bill was passed and are still skyrocketing. The unions were mostly exempt and it's NOT providing better quality healthcare and not everyone will be covered under this bill. That has been proven numerous times! So we have a bill that has given us HIGHER PREMIUMS, People still uninsured maybe more than before and now grandma gets to die becauser it's not economically feasible to keep her alive.

    So, whats better? Please dont say "without it things would be much worse"!!

    That's the "jobs saved" BS

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Premium went up 30% after the HCR bill was passed



    What was the year by year increase for the years 2000-2013?

     

     

     


    Really, talk about moving the goal posts?

    Did the dems cram this bill through on "premiums will still go up for everyone just a little less initially"?

    geez

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In

    Premium went up 30% after the HCR bill was passed

     

    In other words, your claim that Obamacare increased the cost of premiums by 30% was a stupid lie.

    Thanks.



    We asked for an assessment from Dr. Bradley Herring, a health economist who teaches a course on the history of U.S. health reform at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    "I don’t think it’s fair for one to attribute that slowed growth in healthcare spending to the ACA," Herring said. "Most health economists attribute much of the slowdown (in) the growth in healthcare spending to the recession."

    Even the government study Obama used to make his claim gives credit to the economic downturn -- not the new health care law. It says the recession between 2007 and 2009 had a delayed effect on health care spending. When the economy goes south, high unemployment, losses in private health insurance coverage, drops in household income and companies’ reluctance to hire new employees result in less health care spending, according to the report.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/rising-health-costs-undermine-obama-pledge-to-curb-trend/

    Two new independent studies of health insurance premiums and health care spending indicate both are rising at an accelerated pace, despite President Obama’s 2008 promise to contain those costs and his pledge that his health care legislation would reduce premiums.

    Spending on health care rose 4.6 percent in 2011 — up $4,500 per person, on average — according to the nonpartisan Health Care Cost Institute. That’s up from a 3.8 growth rate in 2010.

    Health insurance premiums for individuals and families also climbed year-over-year, up 3 percent ($186) on average for an individual and 4 percent ($672) on average for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.

    Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.

    Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.

    During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.

    HERE'S THE MEAT:

    Let’s reflect with him. During his first campaign for the presidency in 2008, the president promised that his health reform plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family” by the end of his first term.

    Well, that first term is just about up. And health insurance isn’t any cheaper. In fact, it’s more expensive. Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065. And they’re about to go up even more, as Obamacare takes effect during the president’s second term.

    At the end of 2012, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country, warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock” with the advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average.

    For some people, premiums would double. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as 100 percent,” Bertolini told Bloomberg News.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/01/07/obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insurance-premiums-3000-higher/

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Might not mean anything, but DEMOCRATS just voted to cut Obama-care

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/rising-health-costs-undermine-obama-pledge-to-curb-trend/

    Two new independent studies of health insurance premiums and health care spending indicate both are rising at an accelerated pace, despite President Obama’s 2008 promise to contain those costs and his pledge that his health care legislation would reduce premiums.

    Spending on health care rose 4.6 percent in 2011 — up $4,500 per person, on average — according to the nonpartisan Health Care Cost Institute. That’s up from a 3.8 growth rate in 2010.

    Health insurance premiums for individuals and families also climbed year-over-year, up 3 percent ($186) on average for an individual and 4 percent ($672) on average for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.

    Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.

    Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.

    During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.

    HERE'S THE MEAT:

    Let’s reflect with him. During his first campaign for the presidency in 2008, the president promised that his health reform plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family” by the end of his first term.

    Well, that first term is just about up. And health insurance isn’t any cheaper. In fact, it’s more expensive. Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065. And they’re about to go up even more, as Obamacare takes effect during the president’s second term.

    At the end of 2012, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country, warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock” with the advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average.

    For some people, premiums would double. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as 100 percent,” Bertolini told Bloomberg News.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/01/07/obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insurance-premiums-3000-higher/



    How come the CEO of Aetna can predict the future with absolute certainty, but 95 out of 100 climate scientists are just puppets in Al Gore's pocket?

    The idea of reducing premiums is tied to the mandate.  You can make a judgement either way until the mandate is in full force - more money going to the insurance companies, coupled with regulations on what percentage of revenue they must spend on patient care equals lower premiums, or at the very least a slower rise in premiums.  So the argument goes - only time will tell.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share