Jump to content

The Obamacare Website - How Does It Represent A Failure Of Government?


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Watch the video. He repeated it ad nauseam for 4 years.

"Up to." It's weasel words, but he never said that every single person's premiums would drop by $2500. Also, the law has only been in effect for two weeks (and some parts won't go into effect until next year). Do you really think he claimed that everybody's premiums would immediately drop by $2500 on day one?

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a hypothetical to illustrate how poorly conceived aspects of this law are.

The bigger concern is the smaller penalties during the first few years and whether it will be enough to influence young voters to sign up.

But understand that in complaining about this, you're essentially wanting an even stronger individual mandate. You're saying that Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Up to." It's weasel words, but he never said that every single person's premiums would drop by $2500. Also, the law has only been in effect for two weeks (and some parts won't go into effect until next year). Do you really think he claimed that everybody's premiums would immediately drop by $2500 on day one?

Really?

Of course not. But in light of what we know now (WH aware that millions would be dropped, coupled with risings costs in roughly 45 out of 50 states)... how can you defend this part of his pitch? No one is saving money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. But in light of what we know now (WH aware that millions would be dropped, coupled with risings costs in roughly 45 out of 50 states)... how can you defend this part of his pitch? No one is saving money.

As I said, they were weasel words. I already said in one of these threads that he exaggerated and over-sold the policy. That's a very legitimate complaint - that he promised more than he could deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger concern is the smaller penalties during the first few years and whether it will be enough to influence young voters to sign up.

But understand that in complaining about this, you're essentially wanting an even stronger individual mandate. You're saying that Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

My pointing out an obvious flaw in the law suggests that I want them to take the mandate a step further? I want them to abolish this obnoxious law and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, they were weasel words. I already said in one of these threads that he exaggerated and over-sold the policy. That's a very legitimate complaint - that he promised more than he could deliver.

I missed your post. He over-sold and is going to have to deal with that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is, even if you made 100,000, your penalty is merely 2500. If you chose to do so, you could pay the penalty and forego carrying health insurance, then simply enroll as needed.

I'd like to know who makes 100,000 without a family and doesn't have health insurance? It's such a niche demographic that it's hardly worth considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know who makes 100,000 without a family and doesn't have health insurance? It's such a niche demographic that it's hardly worth considering.

Again, merely a hypothetical to highlight a flaw in the structuring of the law. I'm not saying it will happen on a large scale. But I know plenty of people who make that kind of money who are freelancers and/or self-employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, merely a hypothetical to highlight a flaw in the structuring of the law. I'm not saying it will happen on a large scale. But I know plenty of people who make that kind of money who are freelancers and/or self-employed.

In the real world, it isn't an issue. If that was a major demographic, then of course it would have to be dealt with, but it simply isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world, it isn't an issue. If that was a major demographic, then of course it would have to be dealt with, but it simply isn't.

Sure, but the major demo, and the one that is critical to the success of this program, is the young. And they have zero incentive to sign up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but the major demo, and the one that is critical to the success of this program, is the young. And they have zero incentive to sign up.

How do you figure this? Maybe not immediately, depending on how much they make, but any younger person with a relatively low income would be losing money by not signing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure this? Maybe not immediately, depending on how much they make, but any younger person with a relatively low income would be losing money by not signing up.

Because if they don't have a necessity for coverage, they only pay the penalty. $95, or $695, or 2.5% of gross income is likely less than the cost of coverage for the young. If they find they need coverage, they can sign up at any time. Unlike the current model, they will not be turned away. Why would any young person carry coverage when they can enroll, by law, at any time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's literally getting worse by the minute for the administration and his "signature" accomplishment.

The count is up to 20 Democrat Senators calling for a delay and scores in the House of reps. The New York Times, CBS and liberal stalwart pundits are savaging the administration on Obamacare. It's crumbling minute by minute.

Then add to it that hundreds of thousands are now losing their current health care plans and the cost to the consumer is skyrocketing. It's going to get worse yet.

But what's going to be the fix from the left? They will demand now a single payers system. Proving once again, that to the left, the remedy for failed government policy is more policy initiatives from the same people who never get it right.

10 Democrats

http://news.yahoo.com/unity-obama-faces-democratic-pushback-071058947--politics.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard a guy in Indiana this AM on the radio say that his wife works part time and the option the employer gave her was a basic 80/20 plan for her family of 4 that would have a $10,000 deductible and the cost to them would be $833/mo. He said that even with his income and hers, that's just not in their budget. That said, if he declines now then he also waives any subsidy he might qualify for.

Best case, this leglislation was rushed and pushed through without proper testing and thought. Worst case, it was done intentionally to blow up the healthcare system to move to a single payer system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard a guy in Indiana this AM on the radio say that his wife works part time and the option the employer gave her was a basic 80/20 plan for her family of 4 that would have a $10,000 deductible and the cost to them would be $833/mo. He said that even with his income and hers, that's just not in their budget. That said, if he declines now then he also waives any subsidy he might qualify for.

Best case, this leglislation was rushed and pushed through without proper testing and thought. Worst case, it was done intentionally to blow up the healthcare system to move to a single payer system...

Wait, if this is being offered through the employer then how is it the fault of the ACA? Also, what plans were available to them on the individual market before the exchanges took effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, if this is being offered through the employer then how is it the fault of the ACA? Also, what plans were available to them on the individual market before the exchanges took effect?

According to the person, his employer explained that he was rushed to a decision or be fined due to the new regulations.

Also saw on the news this AM that the 15 states who set up their own state only websites have put in over a billion dollars into them and they don't work either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard a guy in Indiana this AM on the radio say that his wife works part time and the option the employer gave her was a basic 80/20 plan for her family of 4 that would have a $10,000 deductible and the cost to them would be $833/mo.

That is right in line with what our company has been quoted for the last 5 years or so.

Did he mention what his plan was before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the person, his employer explained that he was rushed to a decision or be fined due to the new regulations.

Also saw on the news this AM that the 15 states who set up their own state only websites have put in over a billion dollars into them and they don't work either...

The employer mandate doesn't take effect until next year (it was delayed a year). That's the problem with these talk radio programs. They make s*** up.

As for the other states, four of them are working fine. I've heard great things about the Kentucky website, in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the person, his employer explained that he was rushed to a decision or be fined due to the new regulations.

Statements like this are very dubious. Employers have been blaming the ACA for years when the actual effects have been negligible. We got a rate hike in 2010 and had to pass some of that cost on to employees. Our broker said 'You could just tell them it's because of the ACA'. We opted to tell them the truth...that it was due to a few large claims on our plan that had effected our experience rating.

You don't strike me as someone to just have blind faith that employers are going to be honest with their employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The employer mandate doesn't take effect until next year. That's the problem with these talk radio programs. They make s*** up.

As for the other states, four of them are working fine. I've heard great things about the Kentucky website, in particular.

Several large corporations jumped the gun before the employer mandate was delayed. It was, after all, part of the law (before it wasn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...