RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance???

RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 10:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Well, Tazzy, SCOTUS will have to decide if the mandate is legal or not. I won't bet a nickel on that outcome. Nor would I. I don't like the HCL and I have made no bones about that. I also don't like the current system... too many are left without. I see the exchanges as a step... a baby step... in the right direction. What I see businesses contemplating is nothing more than bottom line management... seeing only the green. Which I also see that hurting them in the end when it comes to recruiting the best and the brightest... and in retention of that same crew. Health care isn't a right... nor is it a privilege.

Owner59 -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 10:49:34 PM)
Your bush-economy = fewer people with jobs = fewer people with healthcare. Thanks neo-cons, for alllll your help. You fucking cunts.[8\|]

BitaTruble -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 10:52:15 PM)
H.R.3590.ENR Just in case anyone else is a complete masochist and wants to read the actual text of the bill.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 10:57:07 PM)
lol.. then I am a masochist.

DomKen -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 10:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather quote: is that it isn't intended to fix anything. of course it isn't, it's intended to sell more fucking insurance policies. The conspiracy theory that Obamcare was designed to help insurance companies is ass backwards. Insurance company profits on group policies are much greater than individual policies because of lower marketing costs and lower overall risk. The exchanges are just aggregations of individual policies. There is no way that is good for insurance companies in the long run. aggregating lots of individuals together is good when its an employer but bad when its managed by the government? Your logical failures know no bounds.

Owner59 -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:08:26 PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/michigan-health-care_n_935559.html "Michigan GOP Lawmakers Move To Limit Health Care Coverage For Public Employees" The always helpful cons,helping out with healthcare too.....[8\|]

DecadentDesire -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You always could have beat us to the punch, Tazzy... Would they really be losing, though? Unless the individual mandate is struck down by SCOTUS (fingers crossed for that), those employees will then be required by federal law to buy the product on their own, on an individual basis. At least some of those buyers are sure to be clueless suckers, who will get screwed. That ought to more than make up for the ones the insurance companies lose. My issue with the individual mandate is that it doesn't leave room for people like me who would prefer to use tax exempt savings account if he was still self employed. However, if I didn't have that preference and I wanted to exploit the system, the mandate is the best part of the whole deal. Since in the new plan, insurance companies can no longer turn down medical coverage based on medical conditions, I can pay the tax or fine or whatever word you want to use (which is relatively minor in comparison to the cost of an individual insurance plan), enjoy my youth, and then purchase an insurance plan when I actually need it. If I were to follow a similar model currently, I would be screwing myself in the ass. Therefore, to be smart, I am forced to pay hefty premium in order to ensure I have insurance when I actually need it. Also, the last time I checked, there wasn't any penalty for not paying the fine. Unless that has changed, then I don't really see what the big deal is about it's existence.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:20:10 PM)
quote: Also, the last time I checked, there wasn't any penalty for not paying the fine. Unless that has changed, then I don't really see what the big deal is about it's existence. i thought i read somewhere that they just tacked the fucker onto the income tax you owe and enforce it that way.

Owner59 -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:24:24 PM)
Great post. I little knowledge goes a lot farther than all the republican fear mongers put together.

DecadentDesire -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather quote: Also, the last time I checked, there wasn't any penalty for not paying the fine. Unless that has changed, then I don't really see what the big deal is about it's existence. i thought i read somewhere that they just tacked the fucker onto the income tax you owe and enforce it that way. Supposedly, they can't put a tax lien against it or throw me in jail for not paying it. At the most, I just have to deal with harsh letters from the IRS if I don't choose to pay it. I'll try and cite that when I am not so sleepy.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:28:17 PM)
no that's fine, if you're wrong somebody will come along and dispute it soon enough. [:D] so they are using the irs to collect it but not enforce it. fucking strange.

Owner59 -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/24/2011 11:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather quote: Also, the last time I checked, there wasn't any penalty for not paying the fine. Unless that has changed, then I don't really see what the big deal is about it's existence. i thought i read somewhere that they just tacked the fucker onto the income tax you owe and enforce it that way. Nope. The "penalty" is a small tax break you don`t get. The "thrown in jail"-frightened child narrative is tea flavored cool-aid.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You always could have beat us to the punch, Tazzy... Would they really be losing, though? Unless the individual mandate is struck down by SCOTUS (fingers crossed for that), those employees will then be required by federal law to buy the product on their own, on an individual basis. At least some of those buyers are sure to be clueless suckers, who will get screwed. That ought to more than make up for the ones the insurance companies lose. No need. I tend to be able to debate with the two of you, so its all good. If its not struck down... then they will have to buy their own or go to the exchanges. I pondered then, and its becoming more than a wonder now, that this was the plan all along. LMAO. Its about time you listened to me!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I dont think the convoluted "monkey wrench" theory is needed. The express intent of Obamacare was to do exactly what the effect has been...termination of employer health coverage to drive people to the exchanges. Once the exchanges reach critical mass they become the only viable option remaning....ie single payer. I dont think 10% is what we can consider "termination". Those who offer it will have the upper hand in term of benefits over those who do not offer it. It becomes part of a premium employment package. Its just the beginning. And you are assuming anybody will offer it. The only companies that will continue to offer health insurance are those big enough to self insure, and as the exchanges grow the threshold number of employees that make self insuring viable rises.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:23:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You always could have beat us to the punch, Tazzy... Would they really be losing, though? Unless the individual mandate is struck down by SCOTUS (fingers crossed for that), those employees will then be required by federal law to buy the product on their own, on an individual basis. At least some of those buyers are sure to be clueless suckers, who will get screwed. That ought to more than make up for the ones the insurance companies lose. No need. I tend to be able to debate with the two of you, so its all good. If its not struck down... then they will have to buy their own or go to the exchanges. I pondered then, and its becoming more than a wonder now, that this was the plan all along. LMAO. Its about time you listened to me! Listening to you? I have been hinting at this since the bill was proposed.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather quote: is that it isn't intended to fix anything. of course it isn't, it's intended to sell more fucking insurance policies. The conspiracy theory that Obamcare was designed to help insurance companies is ass backwards. Insurance company profits on group policies are much greater than individual policies because of lower marketing costs and lower overall risk. The exchanges are just aggregations of individual policies. There is no way that is good for insurance companies in the long run. aggregating lots of individuals together is good when its an employer but bad when its managed by the government? Your logical failures know no bounds. Your stupidity knows no bounds. GROUP policies spread risk, a lot of INDIVIDUAL policies dont. DUCY? Didnt think so. And in general .... anything done by employers is better than when its done by the government.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:25:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I dont think the convoluted "monkey wrench" theory is needed. The express intent of Obamacare was to do exactly what the effect has been...termination of employer health coverage to drive people to the exchanges. Once the exchanges reach critical mass they become the only viable option remaning....ie single payer. I dont think 10% is what we can consider "termination". Those who offer it will have the upper hand in term of benefits over those who do not offer it. It becomes part of a premium employment package. Its just the beginning. And you are assuming anybody will offer it. The only companies that will continue to offer health insurance are those big enough to self insure, and as the exchanges grow the threshold number of employees that make self insuring viable rises. Since group plans are the bread and butter of the insurance industry... what will happen to them?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:28:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DecadentDesire Since in the new plan, insurance companies can no longer turn down medical coverage based on medical conditions, I can pay the tax or fine or whatever word you want to use (which is relatively minor in comparison to the cost of an individual insurance plan), enjoy my youth, and then purchase an insurance plan when I actually need it. And thats why the whole plan falls apart without the individual mandate.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:33:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DecadentDesire quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather quote: Also, the last time I checked, there wasn't any penalty for not paying the fine. Unless that has changed, then I don't really see what the big deal is about it's existence. i thought i read somewhere that they just tacked the fucker onto the income tax you owe and enforce it that way. Supposedly, they can't put a tax lien against it or throw me in jail for not paying it. At the most, I just have to deal with harsh letters from the IRS if I don't choose to pay it. I'll try and cite that when I am not so sleepy. If by some miracle the individual mandate survives and there is widespread avoidance then they will just increase the penalties. The experience in Mass. is overwhelming compliance.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obamacare = Fewer people with health insurance??? (8/25/2011 12:35:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You always could have beat us to the punch, Tazzy... Would they really be losing, though? Unless the individual mandate is struck down by SCOTUS (fingers crossed for that), those employees will then be required by federal law to buy the product on their own, on an individual basis. At least some of those buyers are sure to be clueless suckers, who will get screwed. That ought to more than make up for the ones the insurance companies lose. No need. I tend to be able to debate with the two of you, so its all good. If its not struck down... then they will have to buy their own or go to the exchanges. I pondered then, and its becoming more than a wonder now, that this was the plan all along. LMAO. Its about time you listened to me! Listening to you? I have been hinting at this since the bill was proposed. Hinting? Nice cop out. Ive been explicitly saying it since then.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875