Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2013, 01:25:54 PM
-
30 Million people w/o Health Insurance
300 million people in this country
600 million dollars on a website for ACA (Which still does not work).
Remind me again why we need GhettoCare?
-
Is it 30 million people or 50 million without insurance?
I can't keep with the libtard lies?
And lets try not to count the illegal immigrants, the people that are only uninsured because they went without work for a few months and the young people who don't get insurance because they don't want to and really, don't need to.
-
Is it 30 million people or 50 million without insurance?
I can't keep with the libtard lies?
And lets try not to count the illegal immigrants, the people that are only uninsured because they went without work for a few months and the young people who don't get insurance because they don't want to and really, don't need to.
What would you do about medical care and its cost for people who don't have insurance? Sure, young people need medical care less than do older people. So if a young person gets sick and cannot afford care today, what happens now. You pay for it.
So you don't think its fair to require the young person to cover his or her own medical costs? Why not?
-
What would you do about medical care and its cost for people who don't have insurance? Sure, young people need medical care less than do older people. So if a young person gets sick and cannot afford care today, what happens now. You pay for it.
So you don't think its fair to require the young person to cover his or her own medical costs? Why not?
you arent forcing them to cover their medical costs b/c they either arent going to sign up for it or will receive subsidies from those older who are better off.
tell me how that is forcing them to cover their own medical cost?
this is nothing more than another govt hand out with the hard earned tax dollars of others.
-
you arent forcing them to cover their medical costs b/c they either arent going to sign up for it or will receive subsidies from those older who are better off.
tell me how that is forcing them to cover their own medical cost?
this is nothing more than another govt hand out with the hard earned tax dollars of others.
If you don't buy a policy and you are not covered by an employer plan, you pay a fine to the IRS. That fine for a healthy young person, is going to cost more than a basic catastrophic coverage policy for that person. So it just makes sense to buy the coverage.
Most people don't get subsidies.
-
Obamacare is based on fraud and a lie. Young people are not going to sign up and he system will collapse
-
Obamacare is based on fraud and a lie. Young people are not going to sign up and he system will collapse
Good rebut, it's socialist communism nazis
-
If you don't buy a policy and you are not covered by an employer plan, you pay a fine to the IRS. That fine for a healthy young person, is going to cost more than a basic catastrophic coverage policy for that person. So it just makes sense to buy the coverage.
Most people don't get subsidies.
ahhhh no jack ass that fine this year is below $100....how is that more than the premiums and deductible for any basic health coverage even if you prorate the rest of the year.
obviously you are woefully ignorant of this law and the healthcare system in general!!!!
-
If you don't buy a policy and you are not covered by an employer plan, you pay a fine to the IRS. That fine for a healthy young person, is going to cost more than a basic catastrophic coverage policy for that person. So it just makes sense to buy the coverage.
Most people don't get subsidies.
Would you consider the fine a tax of sorts? The government isn't directly providing the coverage so why are they collecting a fine? Serious question.
-
ahhhh no jack ass that fine this year is below $100....how is that more than the premiums and deductible for any basic health coverage even if you prorate the rest of the year.
obviously you are woefully ignorant of this law and the healthcare system in general!!!!
You are the dunce my friend. In the first year the fine is the greater of $95 or 1% of the person's income.
By 2016, it becomes $695 or 2.5%.
-
Would you consider the fine a tax of sorts? The government isn't directly providing the coverage so why are they collecting a fine? Serious question.
The president has always referred to it as a fine, doubtless because that sounds better than a new tax.
But to your point, when the Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, they also felt the "fine" was in fact a tax.
-
The president has always referred to it as a fine, doubtless because that sounds better than a new tax.
But to your point, when the Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, they also felt the "fine" was in fact a tax.
Thank you, Go.
-
You are the dunce my friend. In the first year the fine is the greater of $95 or 1% of the person's income.
By 2016, it becomes $695 or 2.5%.
and again I ask, how is 95 or 1% greater than the amount of premiums and deductibles offered by these plans?
do you even have health care? I pay more in a month than $95
-
oh yea then theres the reasonable chance that the penalty wont even apply to you if you dont have insurance....
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/10/20/obamacare-penalties-3-things-to-know-before-2014.aspx
Even if you aren't insured for most of 2014, there's still a reasonable chance that the penalties won't apply to you. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that of the 30 million Americans who likely won't have coverage in 2016, only 6 million or so will be subject to financial penalties.
Several groups of people are exempted by law from paying the Obamcare penalties. If the lowest-cost insurance plan is more than 8% of your income, for example, you won't be stuck with a fine if you don't obtain coverage. You can also apply for economic hardship exemptions.
face it, youre woefully ignorant of this law and its applications. I am starting to think you really dont even understand how health insurance in general works.
-
Take your household income, then subtract $20,000 if you have a family and $10,000 if you don't. Multiply that number by 1%. You'll owe the greater of the resulting amount and the minimum penalty mentioned above. Probably. The exception to this rule is that no one will be required to pay more than the average annual premium for a bronze plan (lowest-cost option) in Obamacare.
did you forget the part where you get to subtract 10K at a minimum from your income?
Im guessing you just plain didnt know, which would be par for the course
-
The president has always referred to it as a fine, doubtless because that sounds better than a new tax.
But to your point, when the Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, they also felt the "fine" was in fact a tax.
Another thing, it would be nice to have an accounting of where the money collected from fines goes. I truly hope it doesn't go into a general fund of some kind. Using that money for anything other than offsetting subsidy costs seems wrong.
-
30 Million people w/o Health Insurance
300 million people in this country
600 million dollars on a website for ACA (Which still does not work).
Remind me again why we need GhettoCare?
tax 90% of income above $1million...
problem solved and then some
-
Take your household income, then subtract $20,000 if you have a family and $10,000 if you don't. Multiply that number by 1%. You'll owe the greater of the resulting amount and the minimum penalty mentioned above. Probably. The exception to this rule is that no one will be required to pay more than the average annual premium for a bronze plan (lowest-cost option) in Obamacare.
did you forget the part where you get to subtract 10K at a minimum from your income?
Im guessing you just plain didnt know, which would be par for the course
And for a healthy twenty-five year old, I believe the average cost of the highest deductible bronze plan is under $190/month, which comes to $2,280/year. So if you're in this age group, you would have to be making less than $22,800/year for your health insurance to cost less.
It is also true that deductibles will be adjusted over time. They may be higher in some cases, lower in others, depending on the amount of competition among carriers and the number of uninsured who sign up.
Yes, I do have insurance. It now costs me $1,450 a month for my family of three. Under Obamacare, it will become $981/month. Deductible will be $200 more per year.
A version of Obamacare is implemented in Massachusetts and most people in that state are happy with it. It has also not destroyed the Massachusetts economy, the last time I looked.
Hey, I'm glad you did some reading and caught that bit about 1% of income. Don't forget, that starts increasing almost immediately. The idea is to support a gradual transition for those who don't have coverage now and will be picking it up for the first time.
-
and again I ask, how is 95 or 1% greater than the amount of premiums and deductibles offered by these plans?
do you even have health care? I pay more in a month than $95
Yes...Tony bringing down some pain.
And, they will probably keep them below as part of the reason the SCOTUS gave for interpreting it as a tax was that it was below the cost of insurance as well as collected by the IRS.
-
tax 90% of income above $1million...
problem solved and then some
Can we please ban the Canadian trolls from our political board? (no offense WOOO, you know I love your work on the G&O board)
Maybe Ron could create a "Mediocre Canadian Politics" sub board where they can discuss how unexceptional they are?
???
-
And for a healthy twenty-five year old, I believe the average cost of the highest deductible bronze plan is under $190/month, which comes to $2,280/year. So if you're in this age group, you would have to be making less than $22,800/year for your health insurance to cost less.
It is also true that deductibles will be adjusted over time. They may be higher in some cases, lower in others, depending on the amount of competition among carriers and the number of uninsured who sign up.
Yes, I do have insurance. It now costs me $1,450 a month for my family of three. Under Obamacare, it will become $981/month. Deductible will be $200 more per year.
A version of Obamacare is implemented in Massachusetts and most people in that state are happy with it. It has also not destroyed the Massachusetts economy, the last time I looked.
Hey, I'm glad you did some reading and caught that bit about 1% of income. Don't forget, that starts increasing almost immediately. The idea is to support a gradual transition for those who don't have coverage now and will be picking it up for the first time.
ok first your using deductible where premium should be, the deductible is what you pay when you get sick and go to the doctor...THE PREMIUM is what you pay monthly!!!!
so again the penalty is much less than the premium paid, annually...SO what makes you think a person who doesnt have insurance now will sign up for it if its cheaper not to?
-
Can we please ban the Canadian trolls from our political board? (no offense WOOO, you know I love your work on the G&O board)
Maybe Ron could create a "Mediocre Canadian Politics" sub board where they can discuss how unexceptional they are?
???
that would be nice...
sad [art is you know i am right... it's the tax structure that caused americant to flourish in the first place...
-
Iowa Insurance Enrollments Begin Trickling In
by Associated Press
October 20, 2013 10:19 AM
Iowa residents are slowly exploring their options under President Barack Obama's health care law after technical glitches stalled the rollout of the new online insurance marketplaces.
Detailed enrollment data is unavailable because the federal government, which is running the exchanges in Iowa and 35 other states, has not provided any numbers since the marketplaces were launched Oct. 1.
But Leigh R. McGivern , a spokeswoman for CoOportunity Health, one of the two insurance companies participating in the Iowa exchange, says they have had 16 people enroll in plans using the exchange during the first two weeks.
A spokeswoman for Iowa's other exchange provider, Coventry Health Care of Iowa, says it's too soon to release any numbers.
The Obama administration isn't expected to provide enrollment data until later in the fall.
-
16 - LMFAO!
-
16 - LMFAO!
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, they wrote the article as if this isn't bizarre as hell... ;D
-
Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.
-
Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.
He's delivering plenty of shit now. Problem is, he is no match for the Republicans when it comes to that.
-
He's delivering plenty of shit now. Problem is, he is no match for the Republicans when it comes to that.
-
ok first your using deductible where premium should be, the deductible is what you pay when you get sick and go to the doctor...THE PREMIUM is what you pay monthly!!!!
so again the penalty is much less than the premium paid, annually...SO what makes you think a person who doesnt have insurance now will sign up for it if its cheaper not to?
Sorry, I don't get it, Pal. Of course if you go without insurance it will be cheaper provided you don't get sick. That's the whole point. Over time, the penalty or fine will go up and the premiums will go down. That is how it is supposed to work, anyway.
You're the one who mentioned deductibles. So I figured 10% of the kid's salary for premiums and deductibles just to be generous. It is not a lot - you can run up a $2K bill with just three office visits in some places.
Anyway, I don't think I can convince you of anything on this, so off you go to a Ted Cruz rally and be well.
I hope you are rich, because if you're not, you appear to have been played for a fool. What the anti-Obamacare forces are afraid of is its success, not its failure. If they really thought it would fail, they could sit back and watch the train wreck they are predicting without getting painted as irresponsible extremists.
So they are afraid of its success, and they do expect it to be successful. Else, why the panic?
-
Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=498012.0;attach=538126;image)
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=498012.0;attach=538126;image)
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally
Says much more about the sorry state of knowledge among American voters than anything else.
I also understand that many people are against Obamacare but support the Affordable Care Act!
-
I got one for your new Canadian Political Board
Dying vet ordered to speak French at hospital
By Giuseppe Valiante ,QMI Agency
First posted: Sunday, October 20, 2013 02:09 PM EDT | Updated: Sunday, October 20, 2013 02:26 PM EDT
MONTREAL -- A 77-year-old Canadian navy veteran dying of cancer and his family say they were treated rudely by a hospital orderly last week because they spoke English.
The orderly at the Hull Hospital near Ottawa allegedly snapped at the family of patient John Gervais when he asked to use the bathroom.
Gervais' wife, Iris, told QMI Agency that the orderly had been rough with her husband and rude to the family, and he became particularly hostile after liquid from a bedside tray dripped onto the orderly's shoes.
"(The orderly) said: 'This isn't a hotel. I don't speak English; This is Quebec,'"
Read More: http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/10/20/dying-vet-ordered-to-speak-french-at-hospital
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=498012.0;attach=538126;image)
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally
Hahaha yeah that is about what I envision your average Obama worshipper on this forum to look like. :)
While we are on the subject, how many lies you reckon the Obama Adminstration is going to tell this week?
-
If you don't buy a policy and you are not covered by an employer plan, you pay a fine to the IRS. That fine for a healthy young person, is going to cost more than a basic catastrophic coverage policy for that person. So it just makes sense to buy the coverage.
Most people don't get subsidies.
Why should I have to pay a fine? Why can't I be allowed to evaluate my own risk and act appropriately. If I get sick and don't have insurance, don't treat me.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=498012.0;attach=538126;image)
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally
He is paying for the uninsured now Obamacare gives more people insurance so he doesnt have to pay for it.
Again Bacon Roger if you want to save money and end "free shit" you should vote for Obamacare.
-
Why should I have to pay a fine? Why can't I be allowed to evaluate my own risk and act appropriately. If I get sick and don't have insurance, don't treat me.
Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem. "All hospitals" means all those participating in any government medical program, like Medicare and Medicaid.
Requiring that all patients be treated could be changed, of course. But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America.
I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.
-
Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem.
That could be changed, of course. But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America.
I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.
FALSE. The lawis called EMTALA.
Get it right fagget.
-
FALSE. The lawis called EMTALA.
Get it right fagget.
Wow. How knowledgable you aren't.
For your information, EMTALA is part of COBRA. "Take a listen" (as they say on Faux News):
"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]"
- From Wikipedia (emphasis added).
-
Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem. "All hospitals" means all those participating in any government medical program, like Medicare and Medicaid.
Requiring that all patients be treated could be changed, of course. But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America.
I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.
I understand that hospitals will treat people since they are required by law, which is why I phrased my post the way I phrased it.
While I don't have a problem with the government attaching conditions to hospitals that want to do business with Medicare/Medicaid (or, more generally, to entities that choose to voluntarily participate in a program), this particular law is simply a bad idea.
You say that you and others wouldn't support a "poor and unhealthy be damned policy" in the United States. First of all, nobody's asking you to so you can put that straw man argument down and act like an adult.
First of all, prior to the law in question, people who couldn't afford care still got emergency treatment. Acting as if they didn't before and wouldn't today, without the law in place is just moronic.
But, more importantly, nothing stopped you and those who share your position from helping to cover the lot and the unhealthy in a much better way: providing charitable healthcare. You could do so directly (start a hospital funded by charitable donations, treat everyone) or indirectly (choosing to cover the cost of those who can't afford it).
Why don't you do that? Hmm?
The facts are simple: Health insurance in the US is broken. There are many reasons. The most important reason is that people view health insurance not as an insurance but as a bill-paying machine, that must cover all healthcare bills.
So instead of fixing the problem by coming up with sensible solutions, you keep advocating for more bad ideas and you propose that we continue going 100mph down a one-way street.
Forgive me if I think that makes you an idiot and for wanting to slam the brakes.
-
I already give very substantially to charity, including to a private hospital that provides free treatment to children with cancer.
I think giving to charity generally is important, and that everyone should do it who can do it.
And I am not going to launch into a full-fledged debate on health insurance, because we just will not agree. I feel health coverage should be provided by the government, with incentives for people to take responsibility for their health. You apparently don't want government involvement at all. Hard to reconcile that.
I am sure you know that Obamacare is almost identical to "Romneycare", successfully implemented in Massachusetts. And that plan was based substantially on a proposal from the Heritage Foundation back in the 1990's, which itself was a response to the Clinton plan, which was a single payer (ie, government provided) system.
Obamacare is not. I am sure it has many flaws, which of course can all be addressed through the normal legislative process, provided that process (and not name-calling and utter chaos) will continue to exist in this country.
And I am sorry if you think I am attacking a straw man. Eliminating how the uninsured are now covered when they are sick and offering just private charity was the Tea Party's answer.
And obviously I know that medical treatment is now covered for those must have treatment, since I cited why that is. And since that law is not being changed, that will continue. I just don't think, given the large number of people without insurance, that charity can or should absorb all of that cost.
Finally, to your point about what "insurance" should cover, there are and will continue to be policies that vary by how much and for what their coverage provides.
I understand that hospitals will treat people since they are required by law, which is why I phrased my post the way I phrased it.
While I don't have a problem with the government attaching conditions to hospitals that want to do business with Medicare/Medicaid (or, more generally, to entities that choose to voluntarily participate in a program), this particular law is simply a bad idea.
You say that you and others wouldn't support a "poor and unhealthy be damned policy" in the United States. First of all, nobody's asking you to so you can put that straw man argument down and act like an adult.
First of all, prior to the law in question, people who couldn't afford care still got emergency treatment. Acting as if they didn't before and wouldn't today, without the law in place is just moronic.
But, more importantly, nothing stopped you and those who share your position from helping to cover the lot and the unhealthy in a much better way: providing charitable healthcare. You could do so directly (start a hospital funded by charitable donations, treat everyone) or indirectly (choosing to cover the cost of those who can't afford it).
Why don't you do that? Hmm?
The facts are simple: Health insurance in the US is broken. There are many reasons. The most important reason is that people view health insurance not as an insurance but as a bill-paying machine, that must cover all healthcare bills.
So instead of fixing the problem by coming up with sensible solutions, you keep advocating for more bad ideas and you propose that we continue going 100mph down a one-way street.
Forgive me if I think that makes you an idiot and for wanting to slam the brakes.