Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.



     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     



     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/



    awesome

     

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    New research from the Manhattan Institute estimates that insurance rates for young men will rise by 99 percent. Rates for younger women will rise between 55 percent to 62 percent, according to the right-leaning New York think tank.


    The precise impact of the new health law is likely to vary markedly from state-to-state, however. That's largely because different states have had different requirements for what had to be included in health insurance policies in the past. The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, overrides these rules and sets a federal overlay that demands a wide array of mandatory coverages. The Manhattan Institute has drawn up an interactive map that may help forecast the rise in cost for individuals.

    These differences mean men will get hammered in North Carolina with an average 305 percent rate hike, while women will suffer in Nebraska, paying an average of 237 percent more. For most people, subsidies in the law will not counteract the rate shock, says co-author of the study Avik Roy, a health care expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

    "You hear all these excuses from the [Obama] administration -- that people are exaggerating the effect of the law," he says. "But real people are getting notices from their insurers now. My blog is flooded with comments from people saying that they just got a huge premium hike."

    The Department of Health and Human Services put out a press release this week forecasting that Obamacare premiums would be 16 percent less than projected. However, the projected costs were estimates that attempted to project the cost of a policy in 2016. Consumers are receiving the real costs in notices from their insurers now only a few weeks before the law is set to go into effect. For healthy consumers who have existing policies, many of the premium hikes are proving massive. 

    Additionally, the promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory. My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that "At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act." My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.

    What made my plan too substandard to survive under Obamacare? It did not provide maternity benefits. I'm 53 years old. I figure pregnancy would require an act of God. (Incidentally, maternity benefits will be covered on men's policies too. Let's hope medical science comes a long way so you guys can use those benefits.) My policy also did not cover substance abuse treatments or psychiatric care.

    "Every one of those provisions sound nice -- they sound like you're protecting the sick and making sure that everyone is covered," Roy said. "But they drive up the cost structure."

    Meanwhile, the things that mattered to me -- that I would be able to limit my out-of-pocket costs if I had a catastrophic ailment -- got worse under my new Obamacare policy. My policy, which has always paid 100 percent of the cost of annual check-ups, had a $5,000 annual deductible for sick visits and hospital stays. Once I paid that $5,000, the plan would pay 100 percent of any additional cost. That protected me from economic devastation in the event of a catastrophic illness, such as cancer.

     Kaiser's Obamacare policy has a $4,500 deductible, but then covers only 40 percent of medical costs for office visits, hospital stays and drugs. Out-of-pocket expenses aren't capped until the policyholder pays $6,350 annually.

    Sure, that's only another $1,350. But it adds to the additional $1,663 that I'm paying in premiums, making my personal cost for Obama care add to $3,018 annually. This, by the way, is the bare-bones policy under Obamacare -- the Bronze plan. Premiums for plans that offer lower deductibles and premiums would cost almost twice as much, according to the Kaiser booklet.

    "This is a redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, from the people who have always had insurance to the uninsured," Roy said.

    A standard policy for wellness and catastrophic coverage for an unexpected, unavoidable ailment or accident could have been provided for a fraction of what Obamacare coverage costs, Roy added. "Obama care forces insurers to offer products that carry all sorts of bells and whistles that most people don't want but everyone will now need to pay for."

    "Imagine if Congress passed a law that required every car to have a hybrid engine," Roy said. "If you were an environmentalist, you might like that. But you would be dramatically driving up the cost of transportation."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

     

     

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

     

     

     

    It is not insurance.

     

     



    No, no...your explanation makes no sense. Health insurance still exists. Never went away

     

     

     


    That is EXACTLY how Obamacare works if you are uninsured.

     

     

     

     

     



    How many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

     

     

     



    That's a silly question.  Just read tvoters post.

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     



     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

     

     

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

     

     

     

    It is not insurance.

     

     



    No, no...your explanation makes no sense. Health insurance still exists. Never went away

     

     

     


    That is EXACTLY how Obamacare works if you are uninsured.

     

     

     

     

     



    How many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

     

     

     



    That's a silly question.  Just read tvoters post.

     



    Why is it silly? 

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

     

     

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

     

     

     

    It is not insurance.

     

     



    No, no...your explanation makes no sense. Health insurance still exists. Never went away

     

     

     


    That is EXACTLY how Obamacare works if you are uninsured.

     

     

     

     

     



    How many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

     

     

     



    That's a silly question.  Just read tvoters post.

     

     



    Why is it silly? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is it your assumption that youngsters are going to line up to give money they don't have for health care insurance they can't afford?

    i admire your belief that young people will sign up because Obama told the, so.

    well, I guess we will have to wait and see.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

     

     

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

     

     

     

    It is not insurance.

     

     



    No, no...your explanation makes no sense. Health insurance still exists. Never went away

     

     

     


    That is EXACTLY how Obamacare works if you are uninsured.

     

     

     

     

     



    How many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

     

     

     



    That's a silly question.  Just read tvoters post.

     

     

     



    Why is it silly? 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is it your assumption that youngsters are going to line up to give money they don't have for health care insurance they can't afford?

     

    i admire your belief that young people will sign up because Obama told the, so.

    well, I guess we will have to wait and see.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course I never said any of what you are assuming I said. YOU'RE the one who's arguing about youngsters not taking insurance until they are sick, so my question is a legit question to ask.

    So I'll ask again....how many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     



     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

     

     

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

     

     

     

    It is not insurance.

     

     



    No, no...your explanation makes no sense. Health insurance still exists. Never went away

     

     

     


    That is EXACTLY how Obamacare works if you are uninsured.

     

     

     

     

     



    How many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

     

     

     



    That's a silly question.  Just read tvoters post.

     

     

     

     



    Why is it silly? 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is it your assumption that youngsters are going to line up to give money they don't have for health care insurance they can't afford?

     

     

    i admire your belief that young people will sign up because Obama told the, so.

    well, I guess we will have to wait and see.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course I never said any of what you are assuming I said. YOU'RE the one who's arguing about youngsters not taking insurance until they are sick, so my question is a legit question to ask.

     

    So I'll ask again....how many people do you expect to not get coverage and wait till they get sick?

    [/QUOTE]

    Many.

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

    [/QUOTE]


    You missed the point.

    The point was that you were 100%, completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong when you said "If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!"

     

    $78/mo may be high deductible, but it means he is covered if he gets hit by a bus, and you & me don't have to pay for it.

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

     

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You missed the point.

     

    The point was that you were 100%, completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong when you said "If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!"

     

    $78/mo may be high deductible, but it means he is covered if he gets hit by a bus, and you & me don't have to pay for it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't say that, another poster did.

    Nor do I deny that said person will be covered.

    I merely pointed out doubt that young people will sign up in the droves the liberals expect.

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

    [/QUOTE]

    In 2014 they have the choice, and a lot of young people will chooe the fine.  By 2017, they either pay $78 / month for a gold plan, or $58 / month in fines.  Either way, they are paying into the system, so if they get do get hit by a bus, they aren't draining your wallet or my wallet.

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

     

     

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

     

     



    In 2014 they have the choice, and a lot of young people will chooe the fine.  By 2017, they either pay $78 / month for a gold plan, or $58 / month in fines.  Either way, they are paying into the system, so if they get do get hit by a bus, they aren't draining your wallet or my wallet.

     

     

     

     



    That's your opinion.  

     

    Mine is that, I suspect two things:

    The government will continue with six month open enrollment windows into the future.  I mean, why stop now with the freebees when there are elections to win?

    Young people will assess the risk of having to wait a few months for insurance coverage, worst case,  to be an acceptable risk.

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEATTLE—As debate continues in Washington over the funding of President Obama’s health care initiative, sources confirmed Thursday that 39-year-old Daniel Seaver, a man who understands a total of 8 percent of the Affordable Care Act, offered a vehement defense of the legislation to 41-year-old Alex Crawford, who understands 5 percent of it.

    “First of all, Obamacare will reduce insurance premiums for most people, and no one can be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions and stuff like that,” said Seaver, displaying over half of his 8 percent grasp on the sweeping health care reform policy. “Which means a whole bunch of uninsured Americans—I’m talking millions of people here—will finally have access to health care. How can you not get behind that?”

    “And Medicare has nothing to do with this, by the way—that’s a separate thing,” continued Seaver, adding one of the few remaining facts he knows about Obamacare. “This just deals with the private insurance companies and makes sure they can’t, you know, drive up costs through the roof.”

    According to reports, Seaver mounted an impressive case given his severely limited knowledge of the actual law itself, bolstering his 8 percent understanding of the Affordable Care Act with his 6 percent awareness of the nation’s current economic landscape. Crawford, meanwhile, demonstrated just about the full extent of his understanding of Obamacare by claiming that its provisions could potentially kill jobs.

    Sources confirmed that, if asked, neither man would actually be able to correctly define the term “HMO” or coherently explain what a health care exchange actually is and how such a thing would actually work on a regional basis.

    “If you get insurance through your job, you can keep it, so this won’t affect a lot of people,” said Seaver, failing to incorporate roughly 90 percent of the bill’s actual groundwork into his semi-accurate assertion. “It’ll really only change things for really poor people who live below the poverty line. That’s it.”

    “Saying this is somehow a government takeover of the healthcare industry is, quite frankly, a flat-out lie,” added Seaver, forcefully and passionately summarizing what he remembers from an informed person’s opinion he read on a website recently. “All this does is offer a public option.”

    Over the course of the next half hour, the two men used their full comprehension of what reportedly amounts to several sentences at best of the Affordable Care Act to debate many facets of the 906-page piece of legislation. On separate occasions, sources said Seaver and Crawford both claimed to have done “a lot of research” on the subject.

    “Okay, I hear your points, but I think there are a lot of other factors to consider,” said Crawford, boldly countering Seaver’s 8 percent knowledge of the subject with his own 5 percent familiarity with it. “It’s actually going to raise insurance costs for most people. The way it actually works is, see, there are different tiers. And these different tiers, or levels or whatever, have different co-payments. And then there’s the individual mandate, which means you’re required by law to get insurance, otherwise you pay higher taxes. So, you see, there are all these other things to think about.”

    “Are you starting to get it?” Crawford added, after almost completely emptying his accumulated knowledge on the subject in one fell swoop. “It’s complicated, for sure.”

    The two men, whose collective net understanding reportedly makes up, in a generous estimate, little more than one one-tenth of the entire Affordable Care Act, then repeatedly volleyed back and forth over the constitutionality of the law—a matter that sources confirmed they have a roughly 0.000001 percent knowledge of.

    Sources also confirmed that the two men independently opted not to introduce at all the subjects of prescription drugs, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the law’s effect on small business owners, exemptions, state costs, specific penalties for opting out, effects on the marketplace, the nation’s existing overall quality of health care, any specific statistic whatsoever, and the federal budget.

    “Hold on, Alex, let’s go back to the premiums for a second, because I feel like I need to drive this point home for you: they’ll get lower for most people,” said Seaver, straining the very limits of his 8 percent comprehension of the bill to the point of utter collapse. “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, and no denial of coverage to people with preexisting conditions.”

    “Way lower premiums,” Seaver added.

    At press time, both men’s understanding of Obamacare had dropped to 3 percent as a result of the debate.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Good point.  I understand a full 15% of Obamacare.  That's more than the average bear, becasue I actually read the law.  I fully admit it is confusing.  But, my main point is that the government has no authority to do such a law, despite the supremes finding it consitutional.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    But, the point is well taken.  You don't know the law completely, either, neither does 42.  No one does.  The people who wrote it don't understand it.  Heck, they passed it to read it.  How stupid is that?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    You're capable of understanding more, but you shut out everything that makes sense to you.  Like 'youngsters' paying a $95 fine - if they aren't on their parents plan (I don't know if a 27-year-old is a 'youngster') and they are not on medicaid, then they can pay a $95 fine instead of being covered.  In 2014.  By 2016, that fine is going to be close to $700, which is about the cost of nine months coverage for a healthy 27-year-old.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    There - one paragraph.  Not 2500 pages.  Not hard to understand.  Young people will get insurance.  Maybe not in 2014, but very soon.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    If, you think anyone will get good medical coverage for less than 100.00 a month you are in fantasy land!!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Go here ... https://www.coveredca.com/fieldcalc/

     

     

     

     

    You're 26 years old, making $25K / year.  

    A bronze plan from Anthem / BlueCross costs $78/month.

     

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

    Wht's deductible? Pretty high, I imagine.

    $78 is a lot of money to so one pulling in around $2,000 a month gross.

    i suspect most young people would rather buy food, pay rent, etc. and roll the dice on getting sick.

    i am not saying they should, just that it is my opinion they will.

     

     



    In 2014 they have the choice, and a lot of young people will chooe the fine.  By 2017, they either pay $78 / month for a gold plan, or $58 / month in fines.  Either way, they are paying into the system, so if they get do get hit by a bus, they aren't draining your wallet or my wallet.

     

     

     

     



    That's your opinion.  

     

    Mine is that, I suspect two things:

    The government will continue with six month open enrollment windows into the future.  I mean, why stop now with the freebees when there are elections to win?

    Young people will assess the risk of having to wait a few months for insurance coverage, worst case,  to be an acceptable risk.



    And what, cancel their coverage each year at the beginning of the enrollment window, and then re-up at the end to avoid a tax penalty?

     

     

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

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

     

     


    That's your opinion.  

     

    Mine is that, I suspect two things:

    The government will continue with six month open enrollment windows into the future.  I mean, why stop now with the freebees when there are elections to win?

    Young people will assess the risk of having to wait a few months for insurance coverage, worst case,  to be an acceptable risk.

     

     



    And what, cancel their coverage each year at the beginning of the enrollment window, and then re-up at the end to avoid a tax penalty?

     

     

     

     

     



    No.  they will gladly pay the $95 penalty.

     

    Also don't underestimate how much the Democrats are tied to this demographic.  They will flex the rules just like they have for:

    Big Business

    Unions

    Abortionists

    Illegal immigrants

     

    Call me skeptical.  I've seen this movie before.

     

Share