- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,760
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Aw, please stop, this is embarrassing on your part. Such indoctrination
Recession began December 2007, Obama took office January 2009 and in January 2011 there were 139 million working Americans. Apparently that is a liberal success story regarding the stimulus
Please note it took until mid 2012 to get back to the numbers Obama inherited and mid 2014 to get back to the December 2007 levels. You keep defending the indefensible, why?
Repeal would be a very bad idea IMO. Given the subsidies will ever increase and the costs therefore of healthy people will ever increase, it will eventually become the failure the SCOTUS saved it from being multiple times now. If only Republicans would be smart and treat it like the collar around American's neck and when that collar becomes too heavy...
...yes, they could repeal it outright if they just paid every american $10,000.... the "if's" on both fronts are equally unlikely.
The PPACA is here to stay. Deal with it, Republicans. Stop living in the past or thinking you can return to the past and start looking forward.
I am not a republican....and I do not have to deal with it. I am exempt from it. Repeal or not...obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....
You have a $30,000 plan.
Who buys a luxury car and then complains about how expensive their car is? Oh right, you.
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....
Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.
Where and when did you get your puffed up idea that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice? What are you, forum qualifications inspector? This is a thread discussing a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, I didn't notice a self-appointed gate-keeper.
Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional - unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared a Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.
There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed that at times Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier with the defense, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.
Perhaps most let their view of Obamacare shape their opinion - rather, my view of law shapes my opinion of the legality of Obamacare.
I'm not an island. I have friends and family who have healthcare needs, or did you think you were the only one? By the way, if healthcare was affordable, I wouldn't need a $30,000 plan. :roll:
Unbelievable.
Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.
Unreal. Is that what the Democrats promised ? That they would slow the increase while increasing deductibles and out of pocket expenses ?
That they would make it more unaffordable ?
"Those of us." You're bitching about your diamond plan, as you always do. New Hampshire is one of the few states with a price transparency tool--how many times have used that to shop for the least expensive health service (since it sounds like you consume a huge amount of health services every year)? I'm guessing never, since your diamond plan doesn't have cost-sharing on your part so why would you care about the price of any given service?
Bending the cost curve and bringing back market dynamics to health care? Yes, that's exactly what I was expecting (and hoping for). What exactly were you expecting?
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....
This has nothing - zero - to do with the cost of insurance. It has to do with the cost of healthcare.
Bringing back market dynamics through government intervention in the marketplace? What?
I have no idea why you think these are unrelated. If your plan had any incentive to encourage rationale behavior in the selection and consumption of health services by members like you--choosing lower-cost or lower-prices services over higher-priced equivalents--it would have cheaper premiums (virtually every single plan on the open market in your state does and is).
The dreaded deductible doesn't exist to penalize you, it exists to make you think about the price of the health service you want to consume. If Provider A offers a scan for $2,500 and Provider B offers the same service for $600, you may have no preference if you have a zero deductible (you may be drawn to Provider A--more expensive must be better! and it doesn't cost you a dime!). If you have a $2,000 deductible, the calculus becomes a little bit different. And far more rational.
The argument that nobody should have deductibles or be price sensitive when shopping for health services has historically been an argument of the left. That the right has now adopted it out of expedience is just dumb.
You still don't get it. Stop wasting my time quoting me about the cost of insurance.
...I'm talking about the price of health services. When is the last time your used your state's transparency tool to shop for the cheapest provider of a given service?
I. Don't. Need. To. It isn't relevant to the cost of my plan. Do you have any clue how employer sponsored insurance works? Apparently not. They will pay for a $5 fee or a $5 million fee. And my employer's negotiated rate won't change.
Good grief. Just stop.
You are arguing against yourself. On one hand you claim the subsidies are not paid by the other insured while on the otherhand you in effect admit that it's not working as well as it should because not enough of the young and healthy are signing up. And how can any human being be proud of making a young and healthy person pay higher rates to subsidize the old and sick many of whom are sick do to unhealthy eating habits, lack of excercise, drug, or alcohol abuse?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?