2.5 million more Americans insured due to Obamacares

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So who is paying for it?
.

It's private insurance, purchased from private insurance companies, as you've been told twice before. The people who purchase the insurance pay for it.

All the ACA did was allow kids to stay on their parents insurance until 26, instead of 21.

Duh.

Geeshus cripes.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's private insurance, purchased from private insurance companies, as you've been told twice before. The people who purchase the insurance pay for it.

All the ACA did was allow kids to stay on their parents insurance until 26, instead of 21.

Duh.

Geeshus cripes.

So what happens with this requirement:
Does the private insurance company keep the cost the same since they are forced to allow this? or do they raise the cost of the insurance because of this requirement?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

So what happens with this requirement:
Does the private insurance company keep the cost the same since they are forced to allow this? or do they raise the cost of the insurance because of this requirement?

Wow. This law passed two years ago? You'd think people would take a little self-initiative, and take advantage of the pages and pages of accurate public information available to learn the facts about it.

Rather than doing a Cannon, and screaming that they have to pay for this, when they do not, etc.

Getting more people to purchase and pay for their own health insurance from a private company, as lobbied for by these very private insurance companies when the ACA was written - what a socialist, despicable thing!

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. This law passed two years ago? You'd think people would take a little self-initiative, and take advantage of the pages and pages of accurate public information available to learn the facts about it.

Rather than doing a Cannon, and screaming that they have to pay for this, when they do not, etc.

Getting more people to purchase and pay for their own health insurance from a private company, as lobbied for by these very private insurance companies when the ACA was written - what a socialist, despicable thing!

I live in the real world and have seen the increases of health insurance from mandates like the one above. In the fantasy land that you seem to come from everybody gets everything and no one pays for it

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

I live in the real world and have seen the increases of health insurance from mandates like the one above.

Well, perhaps you should have lobbyied the private insurance carriers not to get that mandate in the ACA. They are very upset that they have gained 2.5 million more paying customers .... oh, wait. Never mind.

In the fantasy land that you seem to come from everybody gets everything and no one pays for it

Not at all. But don't let that affect your desire to make the silly snarky comment.

He's right and you're wrong. But you're always wrong. Doesn't stop you though.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

He's right and you're wrong. But you're always wrong. Doesn't stop you though.

But this particular lobby is OK because it was approved by the King.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

But this particular lobby is OK because it was approved by the King.

Right - that's why I was so angry at Obama for taking single payer off the table, and passing health care reform that mostly, for all the 40 million it newly ensures, is a giveaway to the lobbyists of the insurance companies and PhARMA

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Right - that's why I was so angry at Obama for taking single payer off the table, and passing health care reform that mostly, for all the 40 million it newly ensures, is a giveaway to the lobbyists of the insurance companies and PhARMA

if it insures 40MM why is the headline 2.5MM and the graph show rapid decline in those who really need insurance (baby making ages)?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

if it insures 40MM why is the headline 2.5MM and the graph show rapid decline in those who really need insurance (baby making ages)?

Because the headline of 2.5 million is obviously (if you had bothered to read the article) referring only the response to one single provision within the ACA regarding the 2.5 million insured that are 21-26 allowed to stay on their parents insurance. Yup. It worked. They are insured.

Without the ACA, they would have been part of the rapid downward line for those who can no longer afford insurance, or lost their jobs, or no longer get insurance through work. These are not covered, now, by any provisions in the ACA, and will not be until the state insurance exchanges are up and running. Then, their line will go back up, too.

In other words, 2.5 million of the massive uninsured in their 20's have been insured now due to ACA provisions.

How many additional outside those kids have been temporarily insured through the goverment website? Through the changes to SCHIP, Medicaid? Will be when the exchanges are fully operational within the states (unless idiots like Gov. Haley continue to try and subvert them).

Every senior on Medicare has now had the "donut hole" fixed, and has cheaper Rx drugs, and less expensive preventive visits. The average senior has received $800-$1000 a year in lower healthcare costs due to provisions in the ACA.

The Republicans worse nightmare was to see all the ACA provisions kick in before the 2012 election. It's coming true.

[Honu]

I thought people were considered adults when they turned 18 and were no longer the responsibilty of their parents. To refer to someone in their 20's as a "kid" just seems a little ridiculous.....they are old enough to vote.They are old enough to go to war and fight and die for their country.
If a person over 18 commits a crime the police dont come after their parents they come after the adult who did the crime.
Its another step into the nanny state that is the agenda of some of the leaders of this country.
Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill. Yeah they had a good 50 to 60 year run but now there isnt any money left to keep supporting the masses and their needs, LOL f uckers are gonna have to get jobs and pay for insurance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

I thought people were considered adults when they turned 18 and were no longer the responsibilty of their parents. To refer to someone in their 20's as a "kid" just seems a little ridiculous.....they are old enough to vote.They are old enough to go to war and fight and die for their country.
If a person over 18 commits a crime the police dont come after their parents they come after the adult who did the crime.
Its another step into the nanny state that is the agenda of some of the leaders of this country.
Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill. Yeah they had a good 50 to 60 year run but now there isnt any money left to keep supporting the masses and their needs, LOL f uckers are gonna have to get jobs and pay for insurance.

I think that's Obama's fault.

And the "nanny state" is not forcing any one of those "young adults" to be insured. Not a one. It is their own decision, their parents decision, and they are paying 100% for it.

When I worry about the "nanny" state, I worry about the constant unending Republican fight to take my rights as a woman away. To take birth control away. To dictate who I can marry. To tell you that you do not have the same rights I do to marry who you want. To dictate my religion and what religions are "allowed" and "supported". To dictate who can and cannot build houses of worship, there. Who want to start wars because they just don't like the other country.

Open your eyes, Honu. If you really worried about a "nanny" state, look who is doing that very thing to you.

Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill.

How's Germany doing?

[Honu]

Germany is doing very well for themselves I agree to that.
You get me wrong, I am conservitive fiscally and socially I am liberal. I will not vote for anyone for any position who brings their religion or their ideal of what they think is moral to any office.
I also will not support any candidate who suggests that we should all be equal and all should have the same things because when that is suggested what gives people a motive to do better and to be better?
I am for free enterprise and for capitalism I am for social freedoms void of any religous point of view. Im am not for any public employee who's salary is funded with my tax dollars going on strike and causing hardships on other people to further the agenda of a Union.
Im for giving people who came to this country illegally the option to join the armed forces for 4 years and become citizens or they will be sent back to the **** hole they come from.
I do not think health insurance is a right neither is driving a car, they are privilages and it is not the federal governments role to provide it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

Germany is doing very well for themselves I agree to that.
You get me wrong, I am conservitive fiscally and socially I am liberal. I will not vote for anyone for any position who brings their religion or their ideal of what they think is moral to any office.
I also will not support any candidate who suggests that we should all be equal and all should have the same things because when that is suggested what gives people a motive to do better and to be better?
I am for free enterprise and for capitalism I am for social freedoms void of any religous point of view. Im am not for any public employee who's salary is funded with my tax dollars going on strike and causing hardships on other people to further the agenda of a Union.
Im for giving people who came to this country illegally the option to join the armed forces for 4 years and become citizens or they will be sent back to the **** hole they come from.
I do not think health insurance is a right neither is driving a car, they are privilages and it is not the federal governments role to provide it.

You sound like what Republicans used to be like I agree with much of what you say.

I think, that in a first world country, being healthy and having food on the table is a right, in the sense that society wants to ensure that every citizen has that. Rather than leaving everyone alone to fend for the basics themselves.

Does that mean it should be "given away for free"? No. But yes, to the poor and destitute. And it should be made affordable for everyone else to purchase. Nobody, in a first world country as rich as ours, should starve, or not get health care, or not get the chance for education.

Although, the 2010 Census indicates that our middle class is indeed virtually gone, with 1 of 2 of us living within or just above poverty levels. That's a shame, as the country is wealthier than ever.

Does that mean I think money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor? Not at all. Keep what you earn. But the rules have to be the same for every citizen. Not just the plutocracy that rule us.

And this is me :-)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

How's Germany doing?

When are you moving? Soon we all hope.

BTW my relatives still living in Germany will dislike you as much as I do!

Greece is calling you

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When are you moving? Soon we all hope.

BTW my relatives still living in Germany will dislike you as much as I do!

Greece is calling you

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You sound like what Republicans used to be like I agree with much of what you say.

I think, that in a first world country, being healthy and having food on the table is a right, in the sense that society wants to ensure that every citizen has that. Rather than leaving everyone alone to fend for the basics themselves.

Does that mean it should be "given away for free"? No. But yes, to the poor and destitute. And it should be made affordable for everyone else to purchase. Nobody, in a first world country as rich as ours, should starve, or not get health care, or not get the chance for education.

Although, the 2010 Census indicates that our middle class is indeed virtually gone, with 1 of 2 of us living within or just above poverty levels. That's a shame, as the country is wealthier than ever.

Does that mean I think money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor? Not at all. Keep what you earn. But the rules have to be the same for every citizen. Not just the plutocracy that rule us.

And this is me :-)

We (the country anyway) are not "rich" we are in debt, enormous debt and that is why the complaints come in about social programs from one side and expensive wars from the other. Perhaps the tax-cuts that everyone is making such a huge deal out of right now (which actually amount to an average of $20 per week/per person) should be ended and applied elsewhere. If I had any faith that my money would be put to good use I would gladly sacrifice my $20.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I need this sign for my house!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

We (the country anyway) are not "rich" we are in debt, enormous debt and that is why the complaints come in about social programs from one side and expensive wars from the other. Perhaps the tax-cuts that everyone is making such a huge deal out of right now (which actually amount to an average of $20 per week/per person) should be ended and applied elsewhere. If I had any faith that my money would be put to good use I would gladly sacrifice my $20.

First, the country will never be unable to pay it's debts. Why? It simply has to print the money to pay them (yes, we all know about inflation, so why this final option would never be used).

Secondly, a sink of billions per year has just been ended (Iraq).

Third, when the Bush tax cuts expire, the debt is cut in half in 10 years, doing nothing else. No cuts to programs, no sacrifices, nothing.

The truth is, that if this country does zero about "the debt", if congress takes zero actions, if the President takes zero actions, the debt is automatically cut in half in 10 years. They know that in Washington.

Don't fall for the "we're broke!" scare tactic. Yeah, we have to deal with the debt. Bush killed this country financially, ran the charge card up and well over the limit. But it is only a disaster if we refuse to take responsibility, raise taxes back to where they were when cutting that income put us in debt, and retire it readily.

The "we're broke" is the excuse for some politicos to eliminate social programs they don't like. It's a deliberately created argument, not based in completely true reality (you'll notice the very same now-panicked people didn't worry about it at all the previous 8 years). It's a SQUIRREL !

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

First, the country will never be unable to pay it's debts. Why? It simply has to print the money to pay them (yes, we all know about inflation, so why this final option would never be used).

Secondly, a sink of billions per year has just been ended (Iraq).

Third, when the Bush tax cuts expire, the debt is cut in half in 10 years, doing nothing else. No cuts to programs, no sacrifices, nothing.

The truth is, that if this country does zero about "the debt", if congress takes zero actions, if the President takes zero actions, the debt is automatically cut in half in 10 years. They know that in Washington.

Don't fall for the "we're broke!" scare tactic. Yeah, we have to deal with the debt. Bush killed this country financially, ran the charge card up and well over the limit. But it is only a disaster if we refuse to take responsibility, raise taxes back to where they were when cutting that income put us in debt, and retire it readily.

The "we're broke" is the excuse for some politicos to eliminate social programs they don't like. It's a deliberately created argument, not based in completely true reality (you'll notice the very same now-panicked people didn't worry about it at all the previous 8 years). It's a SQUIRREL !

oh boy