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

  1. 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:

    The penalty needs to be higher. See now that's something Republicans could suggest to help make the health care law work.

     

    But they'd much rather try to tear it down and cry that the Dems won't help repeal their own f'ing bill. And people cheer them on here. Go figure. What a circus.



    What I'd rather have is the government get out of my health coverage.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  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 A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    The penalty needs to be higher. See now that's something Republicans could suggest to help make the health care law work.

     

    But they'd much rather try to tear it down and cry that the Dems won't help repeal their own f'ing bill. And people cheer them on here. Go figure. What a circus.

     

     

     




    It does rise over time to 1% or 2% of earnings or something like that.

     

     

     

     

     



    Still too low

     

     

     



    I'm sorry.  you are right:

     

    "If you don’t buy your health insurance during open enrollment, you’ll have to wait until next year’s open enrollment for another opportunity. If you get sick in the meanwhile, you’ll probably be out of luck."

    So tell me:  How is Obamacare fixing this?

     

     

    Oh, wait, I'm right:

     

    "There's actually a good cost reason for some young people not to sign up for health plans under Obamacare. If you're 23 and healthy and rarely go to the doctor, you can pay a penalty of $95 in 2014 or a few hundred dollars in years after that and effectively have an option on health coverage if you ever need it in the future.

    Obamacare provides a big advantage to people who don't have health insurance: a rule called "guaranteed issue" that forces insurers to sell you a health plan that covers your illness even if you're already sick. But if enough healthy people decide they might as well wait until they get sick to buy insurance, it could become a significant problem for the health insurance exchanges, as the pool of insurance buyers becomes sicker and therefore more expensive to cover.

    The individual mandate is supposed to stop that from happening, but the penalty associated with the mandate is so low that some people may find it advantageous to forego insurance even if they have to pay it.



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-some-young-people-shouldnt-buy-health-insurance-2013-9#ixzz2ggRojeAZ"

     

    So, all one has to do ifthe y get sick is wait until the next open enrollment.

    Nice.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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:

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

     

     

     

     



    How so?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    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.

     

     

     

     

     



    Huh? What are you talking about? Could you repeat that in English please?

     

     

     



    You just want to drag this into some arcare discussion about underwriting. Not playing that stupid game.

     


    OK, I'll bite...

    Which stupid game are you playing...?!

     

    Even without talking about underwriting (which you admit you don't understand), your logic is still broken.

     



    Show me how it is broken, please.



Look up "open enrollment period".

If you get sick at work without insurance, you can't just sign up for the group plan, you have to wait until next year's enrollment period.

And you must understand that both the individual mandate and guaranteed issue are interdependent.  Employer-based policies are guaranteed issue because they only pay for the number of insureds. 

The ACA changes the individual market (plus exchanges) to behave more like the employer market already does.  

 

 
  • 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 UserName9's comment:

     

     

     


    Delaying the employer mandate leaves nearly nobody uninsured.

    Delaying the individual mandate would leave millions uninsured.

    duh!!

     

     



    After this comment, conservatives still think this question has gone unanswered.  Very telling.

     

     

     



    Because the comment is completely false.

     

    Even the DailyKOS has some clue, for once.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1227909/-Employer-mandate-delay-will-keep-about-500-000-uninsured#

     And, check this out.

    http://betsymccaughey.com/delaying-employer-mandate-clobbers-taxpayers/

    Why don't you share with us how delaying the inidvidual mandate leaves millions uninsured?

    But, I won't wait for a factual response.  youu don't want facts.  you want to feel good about trying to help people while failing misrerably.



    Are you asking how delaying a law requiring people buy insurance leaves people uninsured? 

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

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

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    ...beginning Jan. 14, the charge for not obtaining health insurance will be $95 or 1 percent of household income, whichever is larger, The Hill reported. The penalty will increase to $695 per person or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is larger, in 2016

     



    Still too low

     



    I tend to agree with you.

    But I also think this might end up varying depending upon enrollment stats.

    If one assumes that the most likely to sign up early are those priced or written out of the market, then most of those who are left will be only the younger, healthy folks willing to take the risk of avoiding a minor illness or injury.

    That said, I know a lot of younger, active, healthy people (skiing, climbing, running, biking, etc.) who understand that even a minor slip or fall could be devastating to them financially...much less their families.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    ...beginning Jan. 14, the charge for not obtaining health insurance will be $95 or 1 percent of household income, whichever is larger, The Hill reported. The penalty will increase to $695 per person or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is larger, in 2016

     

     

     



    Still too low

     

     

     

     

     



    I tend to agree with you.

     

     

    But I also think this might end up varying depending upon enrollment stats.

    If one assumes that the most likely to sign up early are those priced or written out of the market, then most of those who are left will be only the younger, healthy folks willing to take the risk of avoiding a minor illness or injury.

    That said, I know a lot of younger, active, healthy people (skiing, climbing, running, biking, etc.) who understand that even a minor slip or fall could be devastating to them financially...much less their families.

     

     



    The penalty should be high enough that it makes people get insurance. Otherwise what's the point? Might as well have no penalty given how low it is. Granted I think the number who will opt out will be miniscule compared to the number of people who will be insured over all but still....go big or go home : )

     



    Again, I'm down with that.  If it's going to be about personal responsibility, it should sting a little.

    Not sure exactly how much the penalty in Mass., but I know the number paying it is very small compared to the population.

    In any case, the results don't lie: 98% covered...99.8% of children covered.

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • 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

     

     

     
  • 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/

     

     
  • 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.

     

     
  • 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:

     

     

    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?

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • 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 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? 

     



    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.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • 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:

     

    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.

     

     
  • 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:

     

    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!!

     
  • 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:

     

    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.

     

     

     
  • 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 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? 

     

     

     

     

     



    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.

     



    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?



    Many.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts