Obamacare delayed- To help elect democrats

[ivwshane]

That wasn't the argument I was making.
The point is that the system with the most well off "poor" is ours. You libfucks make it harder for the poor, not the rich ultimately.

You responded to jhhns post which was:

Unfortunately, as national income has shifted radically to the tippy-top, and from work to investment, the ability of all too many people to actually get jobs, earn good money & contribute to that has been diminished. The so-called "Job Creators" ain't that, at all. As the old system of work & reward is further eroded by their efforts, other methods of distribution will be created to provide the population with reasonable shares of the bounty of this great country.

You responded with:

It's a fact that our "poor" is much better off than the "poor" in most countries. I've seen the poor in Cuba and they have it much worse than the poor here. By poor I mean doctors and lawyers. I met a guy who made 30 bucks a month.

Your response was basically; So what? Our poor have it better off than Cuba.

And while that may be true it doesn't address jhnns issue of wealth being shifted to the top which, while not directly related to it, means with the passing of the ACA, we will have more people insured which means less bankruptcies (before the crash medical bankruptcies were the #1 cause of bankruptcy) and because of the mandates costs will be lower because everyone (to use a favorite talking point of the right) will have some skin in the game.

But please do tell how it's liberals who ate destroying the poor and middle class, I'm sure in your mind republicans and the right get a pass because they didn't actually try to solve any problems.

My guess is that fixing the problems isn't your number one concern (ask me how I know this).

 

[Jhhnn]

People who don't want or need full coverage (20 somethings) will have to either get it OR pay increasingly stiff "fines/taxes".

They don't need comprehensive policies for their children? Really?

Seems like you never had children.

You do realize that leaving out younger & healthier people raises costs in insurance pools and will ultimately raise costs for those younger people when they too get older? That lack of preventative care when young can easily lead to health problems down the road?

 

[Incorruptible]

Fuck you.

Best reply to this moron so far. He is one of the most anti-American posters here.

 

[glenn1]

You responded to jhhns post which was:

You responded with:

Your response was basically; So what? Our poor have it better off than Cuba.

And while that may be true it doesn't address jhnns issue of wealth being shifted to the top which, while not directly related to it, means with the passing of the ACA, we will have more people insured which means less bankruptcies (before the crash medical bankruptcies were the #1 cause of bankruptcy) and because of the mandates costs will be lower because everyone (to use a favorite talking point of the right) will have some skin in the game.

But please do tell how it's liberals who ate destroying the poor and middle class, I'm sure in your mind republicans and the right get a pass because they didn't actually try to solve any problems.

My guess is that fixing the problems isn't your number one concern (ask me how I know this).

His point that if your objective is to alleviate poverty, it's basically mission accomplished in the U.S. outside of isolated cases - widespread suffering and hunger as seen in Cuba and the 3rd World is basically non-existent here. However, if your main concern instead is to ensure no one makes too much more money than anyone else, then your attitude becomes like Jhhnn. It seems he'd rather people remain poor with minimal wealth disparities, than the current state of affairs where everyone is better off but some more so than others.

 

[sactoking]

Yeah for the first year. Then by 2016 they will have to pay a fine of $750 OR 2% of their income.

That doesn't really mean much if enforcement is weak or nonexistent.

 

[xBiffx]

That doesn't really mean much if enforcement is weak or nonexistent.

Since when does enforceability mean anything with regards to laws. See: gun laws.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Why do businesses have to be in the business of healthcare insurance? Should businesses also be required to hand food to people?

Why not make it so businesses don't have to supply healthcare insurance? Businesses should be forced to take that extra money and provide it to the employees so that the employees get their own healthcare insurance. Instead, they are being forced to provide the insurance -- and some get exemptions from doing just that.

I know change is needed because the industry is screwed up as it is now. People should get coverage and if they truly can't afford it, it should be provided for them.

I know this is easier said than done.

 

[buckshot24]

They don't need comprehensive policies for their children? Really?

No. But I'm not talking about "children" ass wipe.

Seems like you never had children.

Wrong.

You do realize that leaving out younger & healthier people raises costs in insurance pools

Of course I realize that. That's why Obamacare needs them and why young adults get the shaft.

 

[buckshot24]

Your response was basically; So what? Our poor have it better off than Cuba.

The point was that our system creates the best level of life for the "poor" than any other system tried.

And while that may be true it doesn't address jhnns issue of wealth being shifted to the top which, while not directly related to it, means with the passing of the ACA, we will have more people insured which means less bankruptcies (before the crash medical bankruptcies were the #1 cause of bankruptcy) and because of the mandates costs will be lower because everyone (to use a favorite talking point of the right) will have some skin in the game.

Nice fairy tale.

But please do tell how it's liberals who ate destroying the poor and middle class, I'm sure in your mind republicans and the right get a pass because they didn't actually try to solve any problems.

I don't give credit to people for "trying" to solve problems. I'm sure you believe with all of your heart that your ideas to help the poor are the best way. I don't impugn your motives as has been done against me over and over.

My guess is that fixing the problems isn't your number one concern (ask me how I know this).

Most of our problems come from governmental interference. More of it won't solve problems that it created in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

No. But I'm not talking about "children" ass wipe.

Wrong.

Of course I realize that. That's why Obamacare needs them and why young adults get the shaft.

And that's why you clipped the quote, huh? Of course you did, because you're a shill.

Very poor form. The whole quote-

They don't need comprehensive policies for their children? Really?

Seems like you never had children.

You do realize that leaving out younger & healthier people raises costs in insurance pools and will ultimately raise costs for those younger people when they too get older? That lack of preventative care when young can easily lead to health problems down the road?

You didn't even have the integrity to use the whole sentence.

 

[buckshot24]

And that's why you clipped the quote, huh? Of course you did, because you're a shill.

Very poor form. The whole quote-



You didn't even have the integrity to use the whole sentence.

You're right, I didn't quote the whole thing. That last bit isn't really relevant to the part under discussion. I ignored that instead of being a wise and beautiful woman like you and accuse you of "duh-verting".

 

[First]

So um, did Romney win those 300+ electoral votes last November or what the fuck?

 

[buckshot24]

So um, did Romney win those 300+ electoral votes last November or what the fuck?

One prediction that I did make however was that you'd still be a beautiful being after the election. 1 out of 2.

 

[ivwshane]

The point was that our system creates the best level of life for the "poor" than any other system tried.

Nice fairy tale.

I don't give credit to people for "trying" to solve problems. I'm sure you believe with all of your heart that your ideas to help the poor are the best way. I don't impugn your motives as has been done against me over and over.

Most of our problems come from governmental interference. More of it won't solve problems that it created in the first place.

Lol, ok.

You righties hope and pray the government turns to shit and will do anything you can to see to it that that happens. Everytime something goes wrong you dumb shits are the first to say, "see I told you so!". Lol no shit! What did you expect to happen when you intentionally break government?

As I mentioned earlier, there are no better proposals being made, just more cheering when the wrench you righties throw in the machine breaks.


Hell! There is a whole fucking thread dedicated to what country the righties are going to run to when they perceive America as going to shit! Not how we can fix it or make it better, just running for the next place they plan on turning into a shit hole.

I've never seen such a group of people that are so anti American than the righties. I haven't seen al queda booing when good job numbers come out, I haven't seen terrorists calling for more dark money in politics, I haven't seen a ji had called to stop the president from doing anything since he was first elected, add to that the active pushing of voter suppression and limiting women's rights to privacy and I'd say its clear who is the biggest threat to America is.

But please, continue complaining about how crappy our government is, its funny watching the shit slingers complain about the shit on the walls.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Lol, ok.

You righties hope and pray the government turns to shit and will do anything you can to see to it that that happens. Everytime something goes wrong you dumb shits are the first to say, "see I told you so!". Lol no shit! What did you expect to happen when you intentionally break government?

As I mentioned earlier, there are no better proposals being made, just more cheering when the wrench you righties throw in the machine breaks.


Hell! There is a whole fucking thread dedicated to what country the righties are going to run to when they perceive America as going to shit! Not how we can fix it or make it better, just running for the next place they plan on turning into a shit hole.

I've never seen such a group of people that are so anti American than the righties. I haven't seen al queda booing when good job numbers come out, I haven't seen terrorists calling for more dark money in politics, I haven't seen a ji had called to stop the president from doing anything since he was first elected, add to that the active pushing of voter suppression and limiting women's rights to privacy and I'd say its clear who is the biggest threat to America is.

But please, continue complaining about how crappy our government is, its funny watching the shit slingers complain about the shit on the walls.

At it again...good to see how objective you are now.

 

[ivwshane]

At it again...good to see how objective you are now.

Lol, you have no idea what being objective is, to you it means calling out both sides equally and that's just plain stupid, both parties aren't being equally reckless.


Thanks for stalking me though

 

[Genx87]

Don't see what the fuss is all about, just follow Walmarts example and everything will be alright.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/06/14/obamacare-is-turning-walmart-workers-into-temps/

And what's more amazing is all the fools that defend it because they think Obama care was for the people and not the corporations that wrote it for their benefit.:biggrin:

Walmart also benefits because it can more easily absorb these costs than their competitors. Especially smaller chains or mom and pop shops.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Lol, you have no idea what being objective is, to you it means calling out both sides equally and that's just plain stupid, both parties aren't being equally reckless.


Thanks for stalking me though

Oh good Lord...don't flatter yourself.

Your version of objectivity is to call everyone "righties" while applying an anticipated shock factor flurry of insults once someone doesn't immediately agree with you. You're right there are very few issues that entail a black/white or right/wrong message from either side. the key is to take the good/bad from each and make a determination based on information...better know as being objective. If my flaw is calling both sides equal yours is to take only one side no matter what and make it your ultimate goal in life (or at least while on this forum).

 

[Jhhnn]

You're right, I didn't quote the whole thing. That last bit isn't really relevant to the part under discussion. I ignored that instead of being a wise and beautiful woman like you and accuse you of "duh-verting".

Uhh, no. Looking past the end of our noses just isn't relevant to your dishonest "point", such as it is.

The ACA isn't just about pooling risk across plan participants, but also across the lifetimes of individual participants. Decades ago, the old system did much the same thing, when jobs were plentiful & workers' share of income was much larger, when lifetime employment was more the norm. Employer paid health plans were common, and worker contributions were small, so younger workers had no impetus to not participate.

It's not like workers changed that. Quite the contrary.

 

[Jhhnn]

Most of our problems come from governmental interference. More of it won't solve problems that it created in the first place.
__________________

Blind sloganeering.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol, ok.

You righties hope and pray the government turns to shit and will do anything you can to see to it that that happens. Everytime something goes wrong you dumb shits are the first to say, "see I told you so!". Lol no shit! What did you expect to happen when you intentionally break government?

As I mentioned earlier, there are no better proposals being made, just more cheering when the wrench you righties throw in the machine breaks.


Hell! There is a whole fucking thread dedicated to what country the righties are going to run to when they perceive America as going to shit! Not how we can fix it or make it better, just running for the next place they plan on turning into a shit hole.

I've never seen such a group of people that are so anti American than the righties. I haven't seen al queda booing when good job numbers come out, I haven't seen terrorists calling for more dark money in politics, I haven't seen a ji had called to stop the president from doing anything since he was first elected, add to that the active pushing of voter suppression and limiting women's rights to privacy and I'd say its clear who is the biggest threat to America is.

But please, continue complaining about how crappy our government is, its funny watching the shit slingers complain about the shit on the walls.

It's leftists that hate this country you scumbag. You guys tear up the Constitution whenever it suits you. Leftists like you are nothing but morons who need to remove their heads out of obamas ass.

 

[glenn1]

Uhh, no. Looking past the end of our noses just isn't relevant to your dishonest "point", such as it is.

The ACA isn't just about pooling risk across plan participants, but also across the lifetimes of individual participants. Decades ago, the old system did much the same thing, when jobs were plentiful & workers' share of income was much larger, when lifetime employment was more the norm. Employer paid health plans were common, and worker contributions were small, so younger workers had no impetus to not participate.

It's not like workers changed that. Quite the contrary.

Ahh, yes, the liberal golden days of the post-WW2 boom, where we enjoyed prosperity on the backs of hundreds of thousands of dead American GIs, Europe was in rubble, and lifetime employment in high-growth fields like the garment factories was common. If only we could go back to those halcyon days of yore when conformity was our biggest challenge, negroes knew their place, common infectious diseases removed millions from incurring healthcare expenses later in life, and life expectancy was a dozen or more years shorter. It would be so wonderful to go back to the days when healthcare spending was only 5% of GDP, mainly because cost-of-living expenses were higher in comparison - who can afford fancy doohikkies like "surgery" when basic essentials of life require the majority of your income? For example, most durable consumer goods (e.g. washer, dryer, refrigerator, etc) cost around 80-85% less nowadays in terms of labor hour value than they did back in the 1950s.

Yes, that would be so cool. Because when I'm deciding where to spend my money, I'd much rather see smaller fractions go to quality of life items like discretionary healthcare and higher education, so that I'll have a bigger percentage to spend on essentials things like food, milk delivery, cloth diapers, crutches for my polio, and sewing my own clothes. I'd love that.

 

[werepossum]

Or perhaps because it's going to succeed, just like Medicare & SS.

I want them to recognize that it's the law of the land, achieved through entirely democratic means. I want them to recognize that it was achieved by the legitimate representatives of the people.

People who don't like the ACA are generally convinced of that from sources they trust, not sources who are telling the truth or actually have any expertise beyond reading the script handed to them by their employers. Taken individually, the provisions of the law enjoy widespread support, other than the individual mandate. Oh, wait- we weren't talking about that, were we?

Winning and losing politically? How quaint you'd offer that, given that the ACA is Romneycare, and the personal mandate is from the Heritage institute nearly 20 years ago. It was Repubs' idea in the first place, but now they hate it, because Obama likes it.

Who's playing politics?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obamacare-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheri-and-allan-rivlin/public-opinion-will-swing_b_1643144.html

Delusion and denial are a self fulfilling prophesy on the Right.

Huge difference between implementing something at a state level and doing the same at the federal level. For the former, the state is free to fine tune the program to best suit its population or even drop it completely if it proves unworkable or unaffordable, and other states are free to pick and choose some or all of it as best suits their citizens. For the latter, federal programs almost never go away, and any fine tuning would have to balance the needs of fifty states plus various districts and territories.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Based on a cursory review it would seem to hit the "middle class" the hardest and may be a boon for the "lower middle class" or "working poor".

The employer mandate effectively trumped the individual mandate insofar as an employee receiving the option of coverage was barred from receiving an advance premium tax credit. Since employers often have contribution ratios starting at 50% (meaning the employer pays 50% of the premium) this harmed people who were working but at <400% FPL, since their subsidy may have been more than the employer's contribution.

Without the employer mandate, technically anyone can claim to not get coverage from an employer in 2014 and thus be eligible for a tax credit. (This assumes that the suspension of ACA §1514 on employer reporting also overflows into individual eligibility, which it seems like it will)

If I had to venture a guess I would say that the "lower middle class" or "working poor", those who work but earn <250-300% FPL, will be better off by delaying the mandate since they will be able to claim they don't have employer-based coverage and get a better subsidy plus potentially a cost-sharing reduction variation silver plan. The working "middle class" that's between 300-400% FPL will be slightly worse off since the subsidy may well fall short of the 50% employer contribution. The working "middle class" above 400% FPL will be considerably worse off since the employer wouldn't be making their contribution and the family wouldn't qualify for a subsidy. Of course, the assumption is based on a prior assumption that delay of the mandate will cause some employers to not offer coverage, so their employees are the ones in question. For those employers that continue to offer coverage which is affordable minimum essential coverage, nobody "loses" and the low-wage employees potentially gain.

But the only actual losers are those whose employers drop insurance coverage AND who have an income several times the FPL, correct? I'm not entirely happy considering our huge federal deficits and debt, but in the short term, seems like the number of people who benefit will vastly outnumber those who are actually harmed.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why is it that leftists say obamacare is good yet now obama is delaying obamacare?

 

[bshole]

Why is it that leftists say obamacare is good yet now obama is delaying obamacare?

Could you rephrase that into an actual question? It looks like you just threw some random words together.