Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Affordable Care Act

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just want to address the opposition here. I am not debating at this point, but just asking some questions and saying what I know. Feel free to discuss.

- Nations with Universal or Controlled health premiums, on average, receive credit boosts.

- Millions of people who weren't previously paying for health care, are now doing so.

- The CBO (The same office conservatives quote against the minimum wage), and congressional research service, both show that Obamacare will lower spending deficits.

- Everyone in the nation over 25 now is insured.

- About every nation that controls premiums has boosted health insurance profits.

- On average, insurance credits outweigh what citizens put back into the economy
(The citizen pays 15$ for insurance, and the government pays off 10$ through credits)

Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

Before the ACA, there was millions of citizens who could afford insurance and weren't paying for it. Before ACA, there was millions of citizens who couldn't afford healthcare,
and are now not only insured, but helping the economy.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:31:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

ACA lower premiums? No. Premiums have doubled with the ACA (Obamacare), less people pare paying for health insurance, which is also leading to the rest of us paying more.
Ashton
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:04:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I just want to address the opposition here. I am not debating at this point, but just asking some questions and saying what I know. Feel free to discuss.

- Nations with Universal or Controlled health premiums, on average, receive credit boosts.
Not sure what this means. What is a "credit boost"?

- Millions of people who weren't previously paying for health care, are now doing so.
This is misleading without the proper data to confirm.
Millions of people who either:
1. Didn't need insurance due to wealth/income is not something to celebrate
2. People whose premiums do not cover the costs (i.e. Medicaid)

I'd be interested to know if there is a net gain or loss given these specific new entries.

- The CBO (The same office conservatives quote against the minimum wage), and congressional research service, both show that Obamacare will lower spending deficits.
Given that there was front loading expenses that are over, of course spending deficits will be lower. (plus, isn't the economy improving, so the deficit should be less)
Creating a new bureaucracy costs money.

- Everyone in the nation over 25 now is insured.
False.
Me, nor my wife, have insurance.

- About every nation that controls premiums has boosted health insurance profits.
Interesting, and irrelevant.
First, don't care about corporate subsidies.
Second, I find this a bit difficult to believe in the U.S., since profits have a cap. 80% of revenue must be used on services, so there is a cap. (not sure if that includes labor)

- On average, insurance credits outweigh what citizens put back into the economy
(The citizen pays 15$ for insurance, and the government pays off 10$ through credits)
Explain this better, please.
It sounds like the government is paying $10, and the citizen is paying $5.

Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.
The core problem is, that in America, which is founded in individual liberties, the federal government (not even state, but fed) is forcing people to buy a product or pay a penalty (tax).
That is fascism, to my understanding.

Further, the issue is this doesn't fix one of the major issues of affordability. Employers still choose the plan, and refuse to pay wages instead.

We would have been better off with disallowing insurance benefits as business deductions, and allowed an individual tax deduction for the expense (up to X amount).

Before the ACA, there was millions of citizens who could afford insurance and weren't paying for it. Before ACA, there was millions of citizens who couldn't afford healthcare,
and are now not only insured, but helping the economy.

Before the ACA, people could still get healthcare.
Health insurance =/= health care.
Give me a policy that doesn't pay for my prescriptions or have a co-pay for visits. Just cover my medical bills for something serious....you know, like any other insurance policy does.
My work here is, finally, done.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:20:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:31:22 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

ACA lower premiums? No. Premiums have doubled with the ACA (Obamacare),

False, the whole point of the ACA was to lower premiums. They lowered the cap for every bracket, and only 10% of people had their rates go up.

less people pare paying for health insurance,

Also false. Everyone is forced to buy insurance with obamacare.

which is also leading to the rest of us paying more.

False, because your first and second premise was wrong.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 1:44:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 12:04:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:

Thanks for the long responce

I just want to address the opposition here. I am not debating at this point, but just asking some questions and saying what I know. Feel free to discuss.

- Nations with Universal or Controlled health premiums, on average, receive credit boosts.
Not sure what this means. What is a "credit boost"?

Nations have credit ratings. The majority of nations with universal or controlled premiums have an AAA credit score.

- Millions of people who weren't previously paying for health care, are now doing so.
This is misleading without the proper data to confirm.
Millions of people who either:
1. Didn't need insurance due to wealth/income is not something to celebrate

Fortunately, everyone can apply for HI credits, which have always existed, and still buy health insurance.
2. People whose premiums do not cover the costs (i.e. Medicaid)

Again, HI credits. The ACA also expanded medicare eligibility, and lowered collateral expenses. This was thought out beforehand.

I'd be interested to know if there is a net gain or loss given these specific new entries.

- The CBO (The same office conservatives quote against the minimum wage), and congressional research service, both show that Obamacare will lower spending deficits.
Given that there was front loading expenses that are over, of course spending deficits will be lower. (plus, isn't the economy improving, so the deficit should be less)

Yes, but the CBO ran a study on spending deficits and their relation to the ACA. The ACA will lower spending deficits for both medicaid and medicare, and save the US billions.
Creating a new bureaucracy costs money.

Tasks were distributed to existing bureaucracies.

- Everyone in the nation over 25 now is insured.
False.
Me, nor my wife, have insurance.

No, you're right, there are still a few without insurance. The ACA requires all people over 25 to purchase health insurance. Were you given a due?

Or what is your age? I believe that not all people over 25 have to buy health insurance, but I know everyone who crosses the age line is given 6 months to get it.

- About every nation that controls premiums has boosted health insurance profits.
Interesting, and irrelevant.

No, it isn't. The fact that these laws have boosted the insurance corporations profits, mean its working. That is NOT irrelevant.
First, don't care about corporate subsidies.

What subsidies? Forcing income based premiums isn't a subsidy.
Second, I find this a bit difficult to believe in the U.S., since profits have a cap. 80% of revenue must be used on services, so there is a cap. (not sure if that includes labor)

This is outrageously false. Health Insurance corporations do not have a cap. They can sell and adjust however they want within their premiums. Its competition as always, and health insurance companies are already soaring in profits.

Did you know that many of the insurance companies wanted this? They had to boost premiums to compete with their competitors, which before obamacare, many companies were being crushed on the market.

- On average, insurance credits outweigh what citizens put back into the economy
(The citizen pays 15$ for insurance, and the government pays off 10$ through credits)
Explain this better, please.

The government will give you credits if you can't afford health insurance. The average spending on credits has been less than what they can afford to spend.
It sounds like the government is paying $10, and the citizen is paying $5.

Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? BTW, only a fraction of people are using credits, although the GOP claimed the poor leaches would drain the economy from credits, but it didn't happen (This was 90% of the arguments they had)

Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.
The core problem is, that in America, which is founded in individual liberties, the federal government (not even state, but fed) is forcing people to buy a product or pay a penalty (tax).

Liberty is subjective. I argue that millions now have the liberty to afford health insurance. There was a saying that said.....

"Granting one liberty is taking away another"

That is fascism, to my understanding.

I don't think you understand fascism. Mussolini claimed its "rule for corporations". Some hated it, and others loved it.

Further, the issue is this doesn't fix one of the major issues of affordability. Employers still choose the plan, and refuse to pay wages instead.

That's unbelievably silly. This is why their are minimum wages. Workforce is slim in the corporate world. Employers have had to choose a plan for as long as I can remember. Now their plans are cheaper.

Nothing has changed, except allowing health benefits cost 25% less.

We would have been better off with disallowing insurance benefits as business deductions, and allowed an individual tax deduction for the expense (up to X amount).

No, credits are a much better and fiscally responsible option. Most corporations have not needed any reimbursement for expenses, and as I understand, you can apply for a tax deduction.

Before the ACA, there was millions of citizens who could afford insurance and weren't paying for it. Before ACA, there was millions of citizens who couldn't afford healthcare,
and are now not only insured, but helping the economy.

Before the ACA, people could still get healthcare.

You're not getting it. People couldn't AFFORD healthcare (Sorry for cap emphasis)
Health insurance =/= health care.
Give me a policy that doesn't pay for my prescriptions or have a co-pay for visits. Just cover my medical bills for something serious....you know, like any other insurance policy does.

Did you know obamacare was proposed by conservatives? They argued it was fiscally responsible. Instead of medicare, where we give people free insurance, people are forced to pay for their own healthcare (They still can get medicare if they really can't afford it, but haven't much, which is why spending for medicare will drop billions)

It costs no money, gives millions the right to health care, and actually saves the US budget a couple dozen billion.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
BasicLogic
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:43:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

Ah HAH.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 11:57:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 1:44:25 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:04:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:

Nations have credit ratings. The majority of nations with universal or controlled premiums have an AAA credit score.
Correlation =/= causation
Pretty sure a nation's wealth has more of a factor in credit rating.
America appears to be AAA, so a credit boost is irrelevant (and we were there much before he had ACA), while Cuba is Caa2.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

- Millions of people who weren't previously paying for health care, are now doing so.
This is misleading without the proper data to confirm.
Millions of people who either:
1. Didn't need insurance due to wealth/income is not something to celebrate

Fortunately, everyone can apply for HI credits, which have always existed, and still buy health insurance.
Hmmm, to my knowledge, I don't qualify for any credits, nor am I aware of their "always existing".
Elaborate, with sources.
2. People whose premiums do not cover the costs (i.e. Medicaid)

Again, HI credits. The ACA also expanded medicare eligibility, and lowered collateral expenses. This was thought out beforehand.
Explain how people on Medicaid are categorically "paying" for their services.
I was on the expanded Medicaid program (I'm assuming, it's all rather confusing), paying $66 for me and Mrs. Mage. That's $792 for insurance for two people.
If a doctor's visit costs approx $200 (with Rx), that's four visits a year and I am NOT paying enough in. Whose story is more likely? After all, healthcare is expensive, and they are poor.

- The CBO (The same office conservatives quote against the minimum wage), and congressional research service, both show that Obamacare will lower spending deficits.
Given that there was front loading expenses that are over, of course spending deficits will be lower. (plus, isn't the economy improving, so the deficit should be less)


Creating a new bureaucracy costs money.

Tasks were distributed to existing bureaucracies.
Then why did Obama care add $1 trillion to budget, which, over time, is less and less.
Where were these existing exchanges, ran by the states, before now?



No, you're right, there are still a few without insurance. The ACA requires all people over 25 to purchase health insurance. Were you given a due?
I anticipate paying a tax. This is the first year the mandatory tax takes effect. (funny, it got pushed back to after an election year...)
Also, about 25 million or so still don't have insurance.

Or what is your age? I believe that not all people over 25 have to buy health insurance, but I know everyone who crosses the age line is given 6 months to get it.
31.

First, don't care about corporate subsidies.

What subsidies? Forcing income based premiums isn't a subsidy.
Forcing citizens to patron a business IS a subsidy.
80% of revenue must be used on services, so there is a cap. (not sure if that includes labor)

This is outrageously false. Health Insurance corporations do not have a cap. They can sell and adjust however they want within their premiums. Its competition as always, and health insurance companies are already soaring in profits.
Unless the law has been amended, 80% of revenue MUST be for services provided or given as refunds.
Ergo, there is a de facto cap. It is illegal for the profit to be 21%.

Did you know that many of the insurance companies wanted this? They had to boost premiums to compete with their competitors, which before obamacare, many companies were being crushed on the market.
This makes no sense. If they are competing, why would premiums raise?
Also, I don't care if they wanted it.

The government will give you credits if you can't afford health insurance. The average spending on credits has been less than what they can afford to spend.
If I am given credits, that is an expense from the government.
It sounds like the government is paying $10, and the citizen is paying $5.

Not at all. Where did you get this idea from?
From you.
BTW, only a fraction of people are using credits, although the GOP claimed the poor leaches would drain the economy from credits, but it didn't happen (This was 90% of the arguments they had)
Don't care what their arguments are/were.
The credits are a cost to government, and need to be added to the cost of the program.


Liberty is subjective. I argue that millions now have the liberty to afford health insurance. There was a saying that said.....

"Granting one liberty is taking away another"


That is fascism, to my understanding.

I don't think you understand fascism. Mussolini claimed its "rule for corporations". Some hated it, and others loved it.
Don't care.

Further, the issue is this doesn't fix one of the major issues of affordability. Employers still choose the plan, and refuse to pay wages instead.

That's unbelievably silly. This is why their are minimum wages. Workforce is slim in the corporate world. Employers have had to choose a plan for as long as I can remember. Now their plans are cheaper.
What does minimum wage have to do with affording healthcare via the plan the company chooses?
Most people work for corporations, somewhere around 70%.
Employers, in my experience, offer only ONE plan, with 1-3 levels of payment (deductable vs. premium). This is not choosing a plan with the coverage you desire.
The fact that they are cheaper is irrelevant to the issue.

Nothing has changed, except allowing health benefits cost 25% less.
You said somewhere that 10% of people are paying more, so it doesn't cost them, does it.
Further, health benefits would cost me infinitely more, since I am to pay for insurance I likely won't use. For what I desire, before the ACA, I could get insurance for about $100/month on my own. Now, I'm assuming it is the same.

We would have been better off with disallowing insurance benefits as business deductions, and allowed an individual tax deduction for the expense (up to X amount).


No, credits are a much better and fiscally responsible option. Most corporations have not needed any reimbursement for expenses, and as I understand, you can apply for a tax deduction.
Forcing insurance forces insurance.
If I quit my job and don't have insurance, then I am to be taxed. That is a reason to stay employed....and pay insurance. It benefits the employer.
You can apply for a tax deduction, but it is rare, and only the middle class would likely ever qualify.


You're not getting it. People couldn't AFFORD healthcare (Sorry for cap emphasis)
You're not getting it. That's not my argument.

Health insurance =/= health care.
Give me a policy that doesn't pay for my prescriptions or have a co-pay for visits. Just cover my medical bills for something serious....you know, like any other insurance policy does.

Did you know obamacare was proposed by conservatives? They argued it was fiscally responsible.
Did you know I don't care? Are you suggesting I am some party hack that would have supported this if Bush had done it? I wouldn't have.

Instead of medicare, where we give people free insurance, people are forced to pay for their own healthcare (They still can get medicare if they really can't afford it, but haven't much, which is why spending for medicare will drop billions)

It costs no money, gives millions the right to health care, and actually saves the US budget a couple dozen billion.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
If medicare is going to the wayside because the elderly need to have insurance, then it costs them more money.
If this is mitiga
My work here is, finally, done.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 12:30:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:31:22 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

ACA lower premiums? No. Premiums have doubled with the ACA (Obamacare), less people pare paying for health insurance, which is also leading to the rest of us paying more.

That is a very, very misleading statistic. The premiums that have possibly increased (according to forbes) are individual market premiums- people buying directly from insurance companies. These insurance plans make up about 5% of total plans (mostly for young people). So saying that premiums have doubled is really misleading, because premiums for 5% of people may have doubled, but premiums for the majority of people haven't or won't. And those people had alternatives for plans anyway, the main reason (as I understand it) these costs would have gone up is because super cheap bad plans are no longer allowed, so they had to buy more expensive plans and the cost of plans went up.

Basically it is too soon to say whether or not obamacare is really affecting costs overall, but saying that it doubled all premiums is really, really wrong.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Chosen,
here is info about tax credits.
http://www.irs.gov...

You DO NOT qualify if you are offered insurance through your employer.
So, buy it from them, or receive no credit.
This is how it protects businesses. The individual cannot opt to out of insurance to get something else with any aid (credits). Nor will the employer give any concessions for saving the company money.

For example, where I work, I declined the insurance as I can't afford it (too much debt). The employer would have paid over $200/month for my insurance, but will not pay me $1/wk more as a concession (they'd still come out ahead).
A similar situation occurred at my wife's employer last time she had been offered a plan.

This protects employers.
It would be much better, for the individual, to force employers (by eliminating the business deduction) to pay the higher wages, and have people buy insurance they like.
Then, have a statutory deduction that allows the first $X amount of health insurance to be deducted form taxes.
That would be reform.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evidence of the de facto cap on profits.
http://www.cms.gov...

80% of premiums must be used on services or off-set.
Then, administrative costs out of the remaining 20%.

I don't know if this is any hindrance to SOP, but a windfall year of low claims can be used to invest for future large claims. That is how insurance works.
My work here is, finally, done.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:34:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 11:57:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/17/2014 1:44:25 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:04:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/16/2014 9:56:42 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:

Let me start by saying, these were some pretty weak rebuttals. Do not try to waste my time, and disregard points with "I don't care"
Correlation =/= causation
Pretty sure a nation's wealth has more of a factor in credit rating.
America appears to be AAA, so a credit boost is irrelevant (and we were there much before he had ACA), while Cuba is Caa2.

Do you know what your talking about. Our credit has been AA+ since 2011.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

This is misleading without the proper data to confirm.

So you want a source war. Estimates from the White House publication say 6 million, but the CBO and congressional research say 7-8 million.

Here, you can read the bill and publications by the CRS here.
http://beta.congress.gov...

If you need the CBO report, that is fine also.
Millions of people who either:
1. Didn't need insurance due to wealth/income is not something to celebrate

Everyone needs health insurance. People have just had their premiums lower to a place where they can afford them. That is something to celebrate.

Hmmm, to my knowledge, I don't qualify for any credits, nor am I aware of their "always existing".

Maybe its because from the information you have given me, you're middle bracket. Credits are for those who can not genuinely afford health care.
Elaborate, with sources.

http://www.healthedeals.com...
Explain how people on Medicaid are categorically "paying" for their services.

That's the problem. You BS said they were cutting into medicare spending, which is a good thing. Medicare is free insurance, and fiscally responsible obamacare was able to move millions on medicare to start paying for their own insurance.

I was on the expanded Medicaid program (I'm assuming, it's all rather confusing), paying $66 for me and Mrs. Mage. That's $792 for insurance for two people.

I was talking about Medicare. Don't get me started with medicaid, that program is a joke. The reason why obamacare is so popular right now, is because most of the middle class was paying around 200$ for insurance, Obamacare capped the prices at 152$, which made about 2 million more buy into it.

If a doctor's visit costs approx $200 (with Rx), that's four visits a year and I am NOT paying enough in. Whose story is more likely? After all, healthcare is expensive, and they are poor.

Not quite. Your average doctors visit costs about 500$ for most people now a days, with my last visit to the vet costing me 1000$. Healthcare is important, and most people are willing to pay the costs if premiums are lowered.

I will grant you some merit on this contention, but I don't think it comes close to outweighing all the good that comes.


Then why did Obama care add $1 trillion to budget, which, over time, is less and less.
Where were these existing exchanges, ran by the states, before now?

The CBO says the budget will negate into profit. By a couple billion in the next couple years.


No, you're right, there are still a few without insurance. The ACA requires all people over 25 to purchase health insurance. Were you given a due?
I anticipate paying a tax. This is the first year the mandatory tax takes effect. (funny, it got pushed back to after an election year...)

Lol, the 21 taxes that the conservatives keep bitchin bout, are all directed towards the medical companies, who once again, are making more profit than ever.
Also, about 25 million or so still don't have insurance.

Or what is your age? I believe that not all people over 25 have to buy health insurance, but I know everyone who crosses the age line is given 6 months to get it.
31.
You must have special circumstances, and if you're somehow evading buying healthcare, you could be arrested.


Forcing citizens to patron a business IS a subsidy.
I guess in a hyper specific way. So? Subsidies are good in economic downturn.


Unless the law has been amended, 80% of revenue MUST be for services provided or given as refunds.

This still doesn't make any sense. I'm not arguing the statistic, but your claim that health insurance companies can't grow. They grow with the populous, and by covering more services, they can make more profits.

This makes no sense. If they are competing, why would premiums raise?
Also, I don't care if they wanted it.

You should. From what I've provided, it seems the corporations and the people both want and are benefiting from this.

You haven't been able to address this. Your defending the 10% although 90% are up in arms.

If I am given credits, that is an expense from the government.

Your not listening. There is a spending deficit. The government puts less money in than the payer, therefore, net gain. If this doesn't happen, then we just give a tax deduction.

The credits are a cost to government, and need to be added to the cost of the program.

Further, the issue is this doesn't fix one of the major issues of affordability. Employers still choose the plan, and refuse to pay wages instead.

This argument is very silly. Sorry, it just is.

What does minimum wage have to do with affording healthcare via the plan the company chooses?
Most people work for corporations, somewhere around 70%.
Employers, in my experience, offer only ONE plan, with 1-3 levels of payment (deductable vs. premium). This is not choosing a plan with the coverage you desire.
The fact that they are cheaper is irrelevant to the issue.

People still have to pay into their corporations plan. And, the liberty and free country we live in, doesn't force people to use their employers plan.

It's a service to the worker, which before the ACA, they weren't even required to give.

You said somewhere that 10% of people are paying more, so it doesn't cost them, does it.

Collateral damage to the 90%. They could afford the rates they had before.
Further, health benefits would cost me infinitely more, since I am to pay for insurance I likely won't use. For what I desire, before the ACA, I could get insurance for about $100/month on my own. Now, I'm assuming it is the same.

We would have been better off with disallowing insurance benefits as business deductions, and allowed an individual tax deduction for the expense (up to X amount).

We also do that. People are deducted taxes like I said earlier.


Forcing insurance forces insurance.
If I quit my job and don't have insurance, then I am to be taxed. That is a reason to stay employed....and pay insurance. It benefits the employer.
You can apply for a tax deduction, but it is rare, and only the middle class would likely ever qualify.



Health insurance =/= health care.

Did you know I don't care? Are you suggesting I am some party hack that would have supported this if Bush had done it? I wouldn't have.

No, I am suggesting that your brotherhood of wealthy white Americans would of. Are you saying, honestly, that if the three original supporters (Bush, Mccain, AND Romney), of lowering premiums, tried to propose this, than this would still not pass?

People were cheering for Romneycare, which was a carbon copy of obamacare with a different name on it.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I have read the bill multiple times, studied 100's of articles, and related economic trends. I say this is quite a cheap blow to discredit a educated opposition.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:36:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:30:14 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/17/2014 6:31:22 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
Look, I'm no specialist here, but what exactly is the problem. Its basic logic. Lower premiums to peoples income, and boom, health care companies have 100,000's of new clients.

ACA lower premiums? No. Premiums have doubled with the ACA (Obamacare), less people pare paying for health insurance, which is also leading to the rest of us paying more.

That is a very, very misleading statistic. The premiums that have possibly increased (according to forbes) are individual market premiums- people buying directly from insurance companies. These insurance plans make up about 5% of total plans (mostly for young people). So saying that premiums have doubled is really misleading, because premiums for 5% of people may have doubled, but premiums for the majority of people haven't or won't. And those people had alternatives for plans anyway, the main reason (as I understand it) these costs would have gone up is because super cheap bad plans are no longer allowed, so they had to buy more expensive plans and the cost of plans went up.

Basically it is too soon to say whether or not obamacare is really affecting costs overall, but saying that it doubled all premiums is really, really wrong.

Yes. I agree. Risen would be a better word choice.
Ashton
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:34:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:34:13 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:57:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Let me start by saying, these were some pretty weak rebuttals. Do not try to waste my time, and disregard points with "I don't care"
Do not waste my time with ad homs, straw men, false flags, appeals to authority, or ad populum, and actually address my arguments.

Do you know what your talking about. Our credit has been AA+ since 2011.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
2/3 of the agencies using letters rate the US at AAA.
I used Moody's, since they rated Cuba.


So you want a source war. Estimates from the White House publication say 6 million, but the CBO and congressional research say 7-8 million.
No, I don't want a source war. In fact, I only asked for two sources to verify two claims.
Also, the number of people helped in your sources are half of what I stated.

Millions of people who either:
1. Didn't need insurance due to wealth/income is not something to celebrate

Everyone needs health insurance. People have just had their premiums lower to a place where they can afford them. That is something to celebrate.
According to you, only about 8 million did, while about 10% of people (which is more than 8 million) pay more than they did.
These are your facts.


Hmmm, to my knowledge, I don't qualify for any credits, nor am I aware of their "always existing".

Maybe its because from the information you have given me, you're middle bracket. Credits are for those who can not genuinely afford health care.
Ad hom
Also, what information have I given you that says I am middle bracket?
Last year, my taxable income was negative $4,000. My AGI was about $35K (for MFJ). How is that middle bracket?
Explain how people on Medicaid are categorically "paying" for their services.

That's the problem. You BS said they were cutting into medicare spending, which is a good thing. Medicare is free insurance, and fiscally responsible obamacare was able to move millions on medicare to start paying for their own insurance.
I never said anything about medicare spending cuts. This is more false flags or straw manning.
And, tell me, if Medicare is free insurance, then why did I (and my employer) pay $16 out of my last check for it?
I'm not on Medicare.

I was on the expanded Medicaid program (I'm assuming, it's all rather confusing), paying $66 for me and Mrs. Mage. That's $792 for insurance for two people.

I was talking about Medicare. Don't get me started with medicaid, that program is a joke. The reason why obamacare is so popular right now, is because most of the middle class was paying around 200$ for insurance, Obamacare capped the prices at 152$, which made about 2 million more buy into it.

So, why is my employer's insurance going to cost me about $400? (of which, my employer is going to pay 65%, so my cost is $162 or so)
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Not quite. Your average doctors visit costs about 500$ for most people now a days, with my last visit to the vet costing me 1000$. Healthcare is important, and most people are willing to pay the costs if premiums are lowered.
I went to a dermatologist and spent $300, including Rx, but then again, I don't go to vets.


Lol, the 21 taxes that the conservatives keep bitchin bout, are all directed towards the medical companies, who once again, are making more profit than ever.
For someone that knows about the law, you should know about the mandate.
The TAX, via Supreme Court, that says this year, I'll pay 1% of my income, or $95/adult, whichever is more. Next year, it will be more.

You must have special circumstances, and if you're somehow evading buying healthcare, you could be arrested.
Or, pay the tax.
It's not evasion in the slightest.


This still doesn't make any sense. I'm not arguing the statistic, but your claim that health insurance companies can't grow. They grow with the populous, and by covering more services, they can make more profits.
I didn't say they can't grow.

You should. From what I've provided, it seems the corporations and the people both want and are benefiting from this.
Ad populum and irrelevant to my argument.

You haven't been able to address this. Your defending the 10% although 90% are up in arms.
Ad populum


People still have to pay into their corporations plan. And, the liberty and free country we live in, doesn't force people to use their employers plan.
No, they don't pay.
Further, you just displayed your ignorance in these two seemingly contradictory sentences. Either I have to pay into my employer's plan, or I don't.

It's a service to the worker, which before the ACA, they weren't even required to give.
Newsflash: a lot of them still aren't. (only those with 50 FULL TIME employees have to offer it)
Kathleen Sabilius even said that the new regulation only applies to 5% of the workforce. (i.e. only 5% of the workforce's employers will be forced to offer insurance who were not currently doing so)


We also do that. People are deducted taxes like I said earlier.
http://www.irs.gov...
Less than 10% of returns have them, for a total of $85 billion.
They are, by and large, not deducted.

No, I am suggesting that your brotherhood of wealthy white Americans would of. Are you saying, honestly, that if the three original supporters (Bush, Mccain, AND Romney), of lowering premiums, tried to propose this, than this would still not pass?
Ad hom
Ad populum
Irrelevant

People were cheering for Romneycare, which was a carbon copy of obamacare with a different name on it.
Ad populum
Also, states rights vs. federal purview

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I have read the bill multiple times, studied 100's of articles...
Clearly, you still don't know it.
Judging by your responses, comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing.
A pity, really, because you might be right about some facts that I was unaware of, but since I can't trust your reading skills, I can't trust your figures about the cost.

Seriously, you can respond to this if you wish, but I will not be responding to you.
You remind me very much of another user. And, like him, you will share a similar fate of me not responding to your posts.
You are either a troll or a horrible reader. In either case, I don't care to bang my head against a wall.
My work here is, finally, done.