22 posts in this topic

Posted

Proof that math is part of the fascist liberal commie pinko socialist agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkCf3MCuOLk

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is brilliant".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fascist liberal commie pinko socialist mathemagicians are the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Apparently we need to spend some more on education as well....obviously.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

With enough money you can solve nearly anything. :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is this the fundamentals of Obamacare? This is what I apparently learned from reading about it from others.

post-455563-0-62608600-1382402079.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is this the fundamentals of Obamacare? This is what I learned from reading about it from others.

attachicon.gifobamacare.jpg

 

Except wealthy according to obamacare is anyone that isn't starving in the streets.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ffs

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is this the fundamentals of Obamacare? This is what I apparently learned from reading about it from others.

 

Insurance 101: Returns come from people who pay in, but don't require compensation. So, in car insurance that is: people who are in an accident get compensated by the payments of everyone who wasn't in an accident that month. In health insurance it's wildly different (/s). People who get sick or injured are compensated by the payments of everyone who didn't get sick or injured that month.

 

By the way, aren't those fundamentals in your image the fundamentals of our tax system that helped to create the largest middle class, civil infrastructure, and economy in the history of the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Except wealthy according to obamacare is anyone that isn't starving in the streets.

And since there's far more in the middle class, and the upper class will (and already are) use concierge medicine (private subscription services) or self-insure, the employed middle class gets stuck with the check.

Specifically, ObamaCare depends entirely on young, healthy, employed people to sign up and provide the required cash flow to service everyone else.

Since the fines for NOT signing up are low ($95 the first year) these folks are NOT signing up, putting the plan underwater almost immediately. I've seen estimates that from 25-40% will not.

Even after the fines max out it's still cheaper than buying insurance, and there are provisions for starting it once you get sick - so those who are being expected to pay most of the bill have no incentive to do so until they have to.

A total friggin' cluster f***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And....

http://nydailynews.com/1.1491281

>

Administration officials have no time to waste as they race to find a prescription to heal the sickly exchanges while Republicans, battered by the government shutdown debacle, quickly gear up to tout troubles with the Obamacare rollout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This reminds me of the time I wanted a 2 million dollar house and I had 6 bucks in my pocket... I couldn't understand what the issue was, they wouldn't sell it to me. I mean I had $4 more than the asking price...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

At this rate ObamaCare's going to die the death by a thousand cuts....

http://atr.org/article.php?id=7947

Carney Ducks Obamacare Questions, Walks Out of Press Briefing

Spokesman for

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Much like I posted a couple of years ago, only I estimated only $1 million.

 

$2 million X 300 million people = 600,000,000,000,000 :wacko:

 

No idea where those 600 trillions will come from ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And since there's far more in the middle class, and the upper class will (and already are) use concierge medicine (private subscription services) or self-insure, the employed middle class gets stuck with the check.

Specifically, ObamaCare depends entirely on young, healthy, employed people to sign up and provide the required cash flow to service everyone else.

Since the fines for NOT signing up are low ($95 the first year) these folks are NOT signing up, putting the plan underwater almost immediately. I've seen estimates that from 25-40% will not.

Even after the fines max out it's still cheaper than buying insurance, and there are provisions for starting it once you get sick - so those who are being expected to pay most of the bill have no incentive to do so until they have to.

A total friggin' cluster f***.

 

The fine effects a very small percentage of people, and the IRS has very few legal options to even collect the fine. Also, the fine will be $695 or 2.5% of taxable income up to $2,085 by 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/03/some-tax-few-will-face-obamacare-uninsured-penalty-and-irs-hamstrung-to-collect/

 

I think the one thing that everyone can agree on is that the old healthcare system was absolutely broken, and the ACA isn't perfect. So, if not Obamacare/Romneycare/Heritage Foundationcare, what would you have done to fix the problem? You're extremely critical of the ACA, but do you have a better solution that would still fix the problems of lifetime caps, denial for pre-existing conditions, and exorbitant costs?

 

Going back to the old system is not an option, no matter what happens to the ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The old system wasn'totally broken but needed a few reforms that would have been far so let than this abomination.

Covering the "uninsured" and low income folks likewise could have been easily managed by 1) providing catastrophic coverage for emergencies and major illnesses (cheaper than full coverage), and 2) enlarging health savings accounts so that the yearly employer & employee contribution could accumulate year-to-year tax free. Unemployed/poor etc. got the yearly contribution from the govt. and you make the employer and employee HSA contributions deductible.

The HSA gets used for routine visits etc., the catastrophic coverage covers the rest, and the burauracy is far smaller. Fact is, it probably could work system wide.

My daughter in law had a similar setup where she received $5k/year/person in her HSA and could contribute more herself. She loved it, but ObamaCare regulated it out.

Another "happy" customer :angry:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

HSA's already accumulate year to year tax free, the only time you're taxed on them is for non medical uses.  FSA is the one that expires annually (use it or lose it)..  Employer benefit contributions are also already tax deductible.   HSA's don't count towards your insurance loss of spending more than 7.5% of your income on health premiums, that's about the only disadvantage..

 

so if your employeer contributes 5k a year to an HSA then that money is still non taxable as long as you withdraw it only for recognized spending..

 

Obamacare hasn't changed HSAs one bit.. well, maybe the penalty for early withdrawl for non health expenses.  I knew too many people taking a 10% hit to buy a tv because it was cheaper to use their HSA than to pay 25-33% on payroll taxes..  it was a loophole needing to be closed.. but this changed in 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

First I was corrected that my daughter girly $3100/yr.

I would cap employer contributions at $10k, allow employees under $250k to contribute up to another $10k (both untaxed, more alliwed as taxable) and do a mix of it and catastrophic.

Still more sensible than ObamaCare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The old system wasn'totally broken but needed a few reforms that would have been far so let than this abomination.

Covering the "uninsured" and low income folks likewise could have been easily managed by

 

1) providing catastrophic coverage for emergencies and major illnesses (cheaper than full coverage), and

 

2) enlarging health savings accounts so that the yearly employer & employee contribution could accumulate year-to-year tax free.

 

[3)] Unemployed/poor etc. got the yearly contribution from the govt. and you make the employer and employee HSA contributions deductible.

The HSA gets used for routine visits etc., the catastrophic coverage covers the rest, and the burauracy is far smaller. Fact is, it probably could work system wide.

My daughter in law had a similar setup where she received $5k/year/person in her HSA and could contribute more herself. She loved it, but ObamaCare regulated it out.

Another "happy" customer :angry:

 

We pay more for healthcare than every other country save 1, and we get less for our money than dozens of other countries, including several third world countries. That system is broken. http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries

 

  1. It is already possible to get catastrophic coverage, and enrollment in an HDHP is required for an HSA.
  2. HSAs already accumulate year to year tax free.
  3. The government will continue to subsidize the insurance of the unemployed and poor.
  4. HSA contributions are deductible by individuals, and deductible as a business expense by employers.

 

So basically your only answer is that everyone should just get an HSA. That is not a solution... As Bryan Fischer showed with his amazing math.

 

How exactly did your daughter-in-law get regulated out of her HSA by Obamacare?

 

HSAs may be all the rage of FreedomWorks, and for some they might be feasible, but for most they are not. With the high deductibles required due to a mandatory enrollment in an HDHP, they are quite a gamble, among other serious drawbacks.

 

According to the Commonwealth Fund, early experience with HSA-eligible high-deductible health plans reveals low satisfaction, high out-of-pocket costs, and cost-related access problems.[32] A survey conducted with the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that people enrolled in HSA-eligible high-deductible health plans were much less satisfied with many aspects of their health care than adults in more comprehensive plans.[37]

People in these plans allocate substantial amounts of income to their health care, especially those who have poorer health or lower incomes.

Adults in high-deductible health plans are far more likely to delay or avoid getting needed care, or to skip medications, because of the cost. Problems are particularly pronounced among those with poorer health or lower incomes.

HSA funds that are not held in savings accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are subject to market risk, as is any other investment. While the potential upside from investment gains can be viewed as a benefit, the subsequent downside, as well as the possibility of capital loss, may make the HSA a poor option for some.

41% of tax filers who made an HSA contribution did not make any withdrawals; 22% withdrew more than they contributed during the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account

 

Better than the ACA? I think not, and that's a low bar to begin with. Besides, I could suggest several improvements to Obamacare, but none that I think conservatives would be all that willing to support, such as a single payer solution. Liberals would never go for the HSA gimmick, and rightly so. It is a gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Universal healthcare can work in the U.S.....

 

If 2/3's of the US population immigrate to countries that already have Universal healthcare. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The old system wasn'totally broken but needed a few reforms that would have been far so let than this abomination.

Covering the "uninsured" and low income folks likewise could have been easily managed by 1) providing catastrophic coverage for emergencies and major illnesses (cheaper than full coverage), and 2) enlarging health savings accounts so that the yearly employer & employee contribution could accumulate year-to-year tax free. Unemployed/poor etc. got the yearly contribution from the govt. and you make the employer and employee HSA contributions deductible.

The HSA gets used for routine visits etc., the catastrophic coverage covers the rest, and the burauracy is far smaller. Fact is, it probably could work system wide.

My daughter in law had a similar setup where she received $5k/year/person in her HSA and could contribute more herself. She loved it, but ObamaCare regulated it out.

Another "happy" customer :angry:

The issue is why the low-income folks were NOT covered by Medicaid (which was supposedly designed with them in mind).

 

Bear in mind that the target folks that the pro-ACA folks want covered are legal immigrants and the employed who are uninsured (either due to insurance being unavailable at their workplaces at a decent rate OR due to pre-existing conditions) - if you are talking any that fall outside that category, then you are talking about changing the law - illegal immigrants are not supposed to be employable under existing law - which ACA does not address.

 

Pre-existing conditions are a twofold problem, as most such conditions are far from inexpensive to treat, let alone cure (if such are even curable) - I'm just referring to those conditions which CAN be caused by insured-induced factors, such as substance abuse (including tobacco); that is, after all, the reason for the medical-history part of any health-insurance screening (even when the employer pays, partially or completely).  Even non-stock (mutual) insurers are not charities - and high-risk insured will need those expenses covered - the catch for THEM is that they pay more of that risk themselves in the form of higher rates.  However, these are liberals - it's "not their fault".  Since you can't guilt the insurance companies into eating the cost (of course not - the cost is too high), instead, the proposal is to guilt everyone into paying that cost.  By having the IRS do the dunning, it can be called a "tax" as opposed to a "fine" or "penalty" (which it really is, despite it not being assessed by a court of law or arbitration panel or commission sitting as a court) and therefore, it stays on the straight and narrow constitutionally (that is direct from Chief Justice Roberts' decision).

 

The ACA is a "moral suasion" law - which are, invariably the WORST sort of law, regardless of motive; it's far too easy to stray off the narrow path.  (Yes - I'm even including "blue laws" regarding weekend sales of alcoholic beverages; how many times has someone in some legislature attached something else to that part of the law?)  What strikes me as horrible is that the folks pushing for the ACA would be up in arms if the GOP had tried anything remotely similar - in fact, they beat back something that didn't reach as far when proposed under both Reagan (second term) and Bush the Elder!  What makes them right here, but wrong when the GOP tried it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Reminds me of this, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Reminds me of this, 

 

In other words, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger (preferably to death)?

 

The "Chewbacca defense" is no less than bullying by another name - or have you forgotten the why OF that defense?

 

I dislike that defense for the same reason I have such a low (as in underwater) opinion of ALL moral suasion style law - regardless of proponent.

 

Basically, bullying is bullying, even for a "good" reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.