Obamacare, 4 years later, an attitudinal approach

I'm just going to slip this under the door here....

Feds lack the data to determine how well key Obamacare provisions are working

[sneaks away quietly]

a reply to: Indigo5

Yeah, what's the price tag for the taxpayer again???

For not only 0bamacare as a whole, but for the failed website............that still isn't secured.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Yeah, what's the price tag for the taxpayer again???

For not only 0bamacare as a whole, but for the failed website............that still isn't secured.

The CBO predicts it will cost taxpayers 1.3 Trillion over the next 10 years (2023)

Or about 2 years of military spending in the USA.

It also predicts it will cut the deficit by 1.2 Trillion over the 20 years.

originally posted by: Indigo5

The CBO predicts it will cost taxpayers 1.3 Trillion over the next 10 years (2023)

Great. So instead of people paying for their own services, others are forced to pay for them.
Fantastic.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Or about 2 years of military spending in the USA.

My 5 year old uses the same logic. If someone else does it, why can't he??

originally posted by: Indigo5
It also predicts it will cut the deficit by 1.2 Trillion over the 20 years.

Yea, what was the first "prediction" of costs again???

The "prediction" is just that.

Nothing like taking from some, giving to others and claiming this has lowered costs.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Not sure what to do with someone who substitutes the g-word for Vietnamese, with the "uninsured"?

Ah, you're familliar with that movie, Excellent! Then I have to assume you're also familliar with Joker's dichotomy of man "Born to kill" statement? How then are you failing to grasp the dichotomy of this administration trying to spend their way to fiscal solvency or overtaxing the middle class for the sake of prosperity?

It seems pretty damn elementary to me. Hell, ask most grade schoolers "If that bully takes your lunch money are you better off than you were before he stole it?" and they will say "NO!" You can try to rationalize it all you want, even by pointing out that the bully used the money to buy himself a lunch... none of that changes the fact that the kid was left with less than he/she OWNED at the start of the day.

I can understand toll roads, taxes for infrastructure, consumer taxes, etc. All of those get the payer something in the long run. Redistributive taxation and forcing the earners to pay their share plus the takers' shares I do not understand. That may be because I am not an entitled taker. I work for a living... yet it is considered greedy to have the expectation of keeping the largest percentage of your own earned wealth as possible? Explain that one for me, bud. How is having your hand out going "gimme gimme" held as pitable and needy whereas trying to keep your own earnings is considered greed?

On your earlier post, I can think of better reasons than pesky entitlements to be grateful you limited reproduction in your youth.

Do share your thoughts on this, oh great Oracle of the poorly concealed insults. I'm seriously intrigued by how you will lay this one out. Be warned, however, the offspring of producers and earners tend to also become producers and earners, so be carefull what you wish for. A society of entitled sit n' beg citizens who twiddler their thumbs waiting on others to provide for them will eventually find themselves in a self made Atlas Shrugged...

a reply to: buster2010

She would have had a better chance of survival if she would have been allowed a colonoscopy when it was suggested. Also, do you know that if you have Medicare or Medicade health care institutions are not allowed to take cash for treatment. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Indigo5
Not sure what to do with someone who substitutes the g-word for Vietnamese, with the "uninsured"?

Ah, you're familliar with that movie, Excellent! Then I have to assume you're also familliar with Joker's dichotomy of man "Born to kill" statement?

Ahh...the duality of man through Joker in Full Metal Jacket. Duality..not Dichotomy..BTW

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


How then are you failing to grasp the dichotomy of this administration trying to spend their way to fiscal solvency or overtaxing the middle class for the sake of prosperity?

Your premise fails...this administration is not over-taxing the middle class, at least no more so than previous administrations?


Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows

www.cbpp.org...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


I can understand toll roads, taxes for infrastructure, consumer taxes, etc. All of those get the payer something in the long run.

Any healthcare system where a disease can immediately bankrupt an entire family or previously productive "earners" as you put it and then still allow those "earners" to die is broken and effects everyone. Healthcare bills was the number one cause of personal bankruptcy for the previous 10 years ...even during the housing crisis. If you don't get how that effects all of us...well, can't help.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

That may be because I am not an entitled taker.

Sure you are. More so than most....You just haven't figured out how yet.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Be warned, however, the offspring of producers and earners tend to also become producers and earners, so be carefull what you wish for.

To the contrary...multi-generational wealth tends to create flaccid and atrophied work ethics.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
A society of entitled sit n' beg citizens who twiddler their thumbs waiting on others to provide for them will eventually find themselves in a self made Atlas Shrugged...

Atlas Shrugged was a fiction written by a bitter and mentally unstable woman...good read though..

a reply to: Indigo5

Your premise fails...this administration is not over-taxing the middle class, at least no more so than previous administrations?

Ahh, so we're back to Obamacare not being a tax, then? Hooray, somebody call the SCOTUS and tell them they need to re-adress their decision based on yet another narrative change.

Any healthcare system where a disease can immediately bankrupt an entire family or previously productive "earners" as you put it and then still allow those "earners" to die is broken and effects everyone. Healthcare bills was the number one cause of personal bankruptcy for the previous 10 years ...even during the housing crisis.

So a slow bleed out that saps the upper half of the working class of their funds to buttress everybody else is the answer? It's funny, because the "solution" still completely fails to address Obama's prime statement in the beginning of all of this. The issue of bankruptcies was a later topic from his camp. The initial narrative revolved around people lacking the funds to go to the hospital in the first place. Now let's look at bare bones Obamacare... Those folks are still dealing with $6,000+ in out of pocket expenses. $6,000 to a person with nothing may as well be $600,000. All the ACA did was grant insurance companies an excuse to take previously manageable premiums, deductables, and max out of pockets and quadruple them all PLUS mandating that giant bollus be swallowed or else recieve an IRS penalty because,a fter all, it's a tax dontchaknow?

Sure you are. More so than most....You just haven't figured out how yet.

I've figured out one way I take... I take it in the shorts everytime I have to pay my blood money to the bastards in DC to cover their goddamned dependant voter base... but I somehow doubt that's where you were going there.

To the contrary...multi-generational wealth tends to create flaccid and atrophied work ethics.

There's a duality/dichotomy for ya! A lack of cognition on the differences between wealth and earnings. I'm not talking old money there, I'm talking work ethics. Those who watch their parents WORKING grow up to be productive workers, well, at least they used to. Now we've got a generation watching their parents WORKING only to see so much of their parent's earnings fly out the window while their friends' parents who greedily live a tax payer subsidized life ultimate end up with more income that we're bound to see a shift there. When you can sit back and allow someone else to take responsibility for your food, clothing, housing, entertainment, all you bills what fool would work for it?

Atlas Shrugged was a fiction

So was 1984... look around and tell me that stayed fictitious, or are you too afraid of violating the laws of thought crime?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The more applicable here is "the Forgotten Man".

Tax some, to give to others, all the while claiming to have cut costs......

Indigo and Buster are fine when the shell game is hustled by Dems and Progressives. When other people come to run the game, they cry..............

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Indigo5

Your premise fails...this administration is not over-taxing the middle class, at least no more so than previous administrations?

Ahh, so we're back to Obamacare not being a tax, then? Hooray, somebody call the SCOTUS and tell them they need to re-adress their decision based on yet another narrative change.

You said this administration was over-taxing the middle class...I demonstrated that middle-class taxes are near historic lows and provided direct data of the same.

Once you opt to put words in my mouth and morph your argument ..it is pretty clear your original claim fails.

So..let's follow your dancing goalposts...what portion of the middle class is subject to the Obamacare penalty? and what does that penalty represent as a tax?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Now let's look at bare bones Obamacare... Those folks are still dealing with $6,000+ in out of pocket expenses. $6,000 to a person with nothing may as well be $600,000.

You seem entirely unaware of the specifics of Obamacare and what your hypothetical 6K in out of pocket expenses can be applied to? There is an umbrella of check-ups and screenings that is mandatorily covered at no out of pocket expense..and deductibles are not applied to all expenses. Each time someone goes to the doctor or their GP they pay a co-pay..usually between $10 and $30 dollars for lessor plans..they don't pay the full bill, only a tiny portion of it and many screenings they pay nothing. If they have real issue and are referred to specialists, then the co-pay can go as high as $60 for a visit...the 6K is what you are LIMITED to annually...not required to pay...Nothing personal Burd, but it is difficult to debate someone unaware of the basic mechanics of how a deductible works.

A lack of cognition on the differences between wealth and earnings. I'm not talking old money there, I'm talking work ethics. Those who watch their parents WORKING grow up to be productive workers,

Agreed on that...now explain to me how the working poor don't actually work? Actually scratch that...not so much interested in your world-view of the uselessness of the poor and how medical treatment should be reserved for the wealthy. The discussion feels like a visit to a dark view of humanity and your fellow travelers. I am under no illusions that I might convince you that the poor child stricken with cancer is "entitled" to treatment the same way a wealthy man is...

Good day Burd..

a reply to: Indigo5

2 simple points/corrections.

1. The SCOTUS deemed that the ACA was a tax. The ENTIRE ACA, thus the presumed legality of the mandate and IRS administered penalties. In that regard, it absolutely represents the largest tax increase in the history of the US. It is not, however, reflected on that link you posted, so I can only assume the narrative now is that the ACA isn't a tax. The penalty for not following the mandate is small potatoes compared to the cost of actually purchasing a plan, paying more for various materials thanks to the device tax, and the increased tax burden of covering all those damn subsidies.

2. You sure forget you own arguments quickly and conveniently, friend. You just jumped from bankruptcies to co-pays. Say what? Co-pays aren't what bankrupted people... Apples to apples here, if you end up hospitalized, you end up generally meeting your deductable. My argument is that for the truly poor, it doesn't matter whether that deductable bill is 10% of what it was before when they had zero insurance, 10% of "way more money than I have to spend" is still way more money than I have to spend. We will still see bankruptcies, only they will be much more nefarious Chapter 11-style bankruptcies that essentially force people into debtor's hell versus the past more common Chapter 7 that hurt like hell but at least freed the person from their debt.

And yes, it is a good day.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Indigo5

2 simple points/corrections.

1. The SCOTUS deemed that the ACA was a tax. The ENTIRE ACA, thus the presumed legality of the mandate and IRS administered penalties. In that regard, it absolutely represents the largest tax increase in the history of the US.

No...the SCOTUS ruled no such thing. They specifically ruled that the "mandate" aka penalty for not purchasing health insurance was a tax...so said the Supreme Court, so said any legal scholar of consequence that reviewed the ruling. You can claim otherwise and cite Rush Limbaugh et al's opinion..but that does not make it so.
www.cnn.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.nytimes.com...

etc. etc. etc.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
2. You sure forget you own arguments quickly and conveniently, friend. You just jumped from bankruptcies to co-pays. Say what? Co-pays aren't what bankrupted people... Apples to apples here, if you end up hospitalized, you end up generally meeting your deductable.

Again Burd...research out of pocket maximums and aca and pre aca as well as pre-existing conditions.

Bankruptcies resulted from egregious or limitless out of pocket maximums or outright lack of insurance, now dramatically limited/lowered under ACA...another significant contributing factor to bankruptcies before ACA was insurance companies "dropping" people who were sick with expensive to treat diseases like cancer, a practice that is now illegal to do under ACA.

More than willing to debate further once you research or understand what ACA actually does.