Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274
    I clicked on one of the links and it was just some ****wad talking about how they ration care in europe.
    you should read the entire piece before you post about what it is all about. You'd look smarter.

    Johnson goes on to say:

    For the first time in U.S. history, a personal inaction (not purchasing something, in this case, a health- insurance plan) will be deemed unlawful. The person not committing this act (or is it committing an inaction?) will be subject to a fine. Or is it now, as the government contends, a tax? I’m confused.

    This is precisely what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama wanted. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was sprung on an unsuspecting public with barely enough time for anyone to read it. Remember Speaker Pelosi’s famous line? “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Unbelievable.

    I am convinced that ObamaCare was designed to lead to a government takeover of our entire health-care system, which is one-sixth of our economy. As I traveled around Wisconsin in the last year, I asked thousands of people a simple question: “Do you think the federal government has the capability of running one-sixth of our economy?” Only two people ever raised their hands.

    Our health-care system has problems that must be addressed. But ObamaCare will make those problems much worse. Instead of increasing consumer choice, it narrows it. Instead of encouraging innovation, it stifles creativity. Instead of expanding access to care, it will ration it. And instead of allowing competition to help bring down costs, it increases spending and puts our health-care system on a path to ruin.

    The defects with the president’s health law are so serious and widespread that the administration has already granted over 1,000 waivers to protect businesses, labor unions and other organizations from its most onerous provisions. We need to recognize that the finest health-care system in the world is at risk—and repeal ObamaCare before it’s too late.
    But of course, anyone who disagrees with you or Obama is 'just some ****wad'. We know... we know.
    Last edited by Whovian; 06-30-11 at 11:19 AM.

  2. #22
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,213

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    That doesn't mean we help them with an ill-conceived, poorly-funded, unsustainable plan. Again, we need a solution, but just taking the first one that comes along doesn't guarantee anything. Many indicators would suggest that this bill will hurt more than it helps.
    Ill conceived? This thing was highlighted and debated nationwide for over a year. It went through congressional meetings, scored by the CBO, talked about on damn near every news segment on every channel. Poorly-funded? Conservatives are the ones that just don't trust the CBO. Unsustainable? Yea, according to talking heads on fox and the heritage foundation. This plan wasn't my first choice and i would have much rathered a public option or even looking into single payer, instead we went with a middle of the road option that only ten or fifteen years ago republicans and conservatives would be cheer leading for because it makes you responsible for yourself in buying your own health insurance. Once you take out all of the BS talking points about rationing care and "we can't afford it" there is nothing to hate about this bill. Decreases the deficit, insures more people, more preventative care etc...
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Link? For some reason I trust the CBO and the governments numbers more than your opinion.
    The August 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act would reduce the amount of labor in the economy by about 0.5%

    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

  4. #24
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,213

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    you should read the entire piece before you post about what it is all about. You'd look smarter.



    But of course, anyone who disagrees with you or Obama is 'just some ****wad'. We know... we know.
    That article could have been better written by a monkey. The government isn't taking over 1/6 of our economy. They aren't running hospitals, they aren't telling your doctor to pull the plug. It's bull**** laden talking points. Decrease innovation? Proof of this? Nope, just a silly talking point. It will ration care? Proof? Nope, more bull****. Doesn't allow competition? Proof? That's what these exchanges are for, a place you can go to for the best deal and it guarantees that an insurance company won't offer you a BS plan that doesn't cover anything. It creates standards and that's a good thing. Increase spending? Once again, talking point not based in reality.

    I'd be mad too if I didn't understand anything that was going on and instead listened to morons like this guy that wrote this article.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Decreases the deficit,...
    Not true.

    Paul Ryan: Actually, Obamacare Will Increase Budget Deficit by $700 Billion Over 10 Years | The Weekly Standard

    Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said this afternoon that contrary to claims that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, it will actually increase the deficit by roughly $700 billion.

    Ryan said this afternoon at the National Press Club that the only reason a Congressional Budget Office letter claims the national health care law will reduce the deficit--i.e. bring in more revenue through tax hikes and Medicare cuts than it spends on Obamacare--is because "the books have been severely cooked"--not by the CBO but by the Democrats who wrote the bill.

    "CBO has to score what you put in front of them," Ryan explained. "And if you put a bill in front of them that ignores the discretionary cost of the $115 billion you need to spend to run this new Obamacare program, that double counts the Medicare savings, that double counts the CLASS Act revenue, that double counts the Social Security revenue, that does not count the "Doc Fix"--you add all that stuff up, net it out, we're talking about a $701 billion hole--deficit."

    "So if you actually do real accounting, get away the smoke-and-mirrors, get away the budget gimmicks, this thing is a huge deficit-increaser. And so we're not interested in enshrining, and endorsing, and accepting all the budget gimmicks the Democrats used to cram this thing through [Congress]," Ryan continued. "Mark my words: this thing will not reduce the deficit. I am very confident in saying that. They have a piece of paper from CBO that they contorted to suggest that it does. But that's not reality."

  6. #26
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    In general about 90% of the stuff I've seen pointed out about Obamacare are things that don't even reflect poorly on the bill. This article is trying to say that people on social security will get more aid in buying a healthcare plan then an identical person not on social security. You might not like it but it doesn't create a problem within the bill. I can't even figure out a way to turn that into a bad thing. The permits for companies to get a little extra time to conform to the law, once again, it's being harped on by the right and in reality it was written into the law to give people that need the time a chance to adjust and it seems to be working just as planned. If there are any serious issues then I'd like to hear about them, but I haven't heard any that are actual problems.
    It does create a problem, it encourages more people to draw on SS earlier than otherwise because of the tax benefits.

    Why should the person drawing income from SS get a better tax benefit?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    Why exactly is this a problem?
    Ask the administration... THEY said it's a problem...

    Aware of the problem, the administration says it is exploring options...
    They must be a bunch of lying Republicans who hate America, right?

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    God the blind support on this forum by some members for anything Obama does is absolutely incredible.

    While I stood behind Bush on most stuff, some things I DEFINITELY was against. If he'd have passed this legislation, I'd have wanted his head on a platter.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    There's a thread floating around with a link in it. I believe the title is something about health care and jobs. That should identify it for you pretty easily.

    Also, funny you mention the CBO, since they came out with two different reports on that healthcare bill based on information provided to them by both parties. Also, CBO numbers in favor of the bill are based largely on projections, one of which being that unemployment would be considerably lower now (and GDP higher) than it is. When projections don't come true, neither do the CBO estimates. It's hard to rely on something that is based on speculation, isn't it?
    CBO scores can be incredibly onerous.

    They are based on the bills as written and understood at that time.
    They do not account for increased costs based on behavior changes and adjustments to bills after they are passed.

    That's one of the major problems with people relying on the CBO scores to this bill in original form.
    After they passed the doc fix, once the ObamaCare bill was passed, it practically erased all cost savings.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #30
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,213

    Re: Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    The August 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act would reduce the amount of labor in the economy by about 0.5%

    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf
    A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org
    A ‘Budget-Busting’ Law? | FactCheck.org
    As for the GOP’s claim that "the bill would add over $700 billion in red ink over the next decade," we judge it to be mostly bogus.
    It rests largely on a claim that hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare savings are being "double-counted." But CBO is simply not doing that.
    The GOP’s $700 billion figure also includes more than $200 billion for a permanent "doctor fix" to prevent a cut in Medicare payments to doctors. But that is not even a part of the new law, and many Republicans endorse the "doctor fix" anyway.
    The GOP claims the law will cost $115 billion to administer, but that isn’t true. CBO actually puts those costs at roughly $10 billion to $20 billion over the next 10 years.
    Basically, the CBO is saying that some people right now are working mostly to keep their health insurance. Once they have other options -- to enroll in Medicaid, or to qualify for tax breaks to buy insurance from a health exchange -- they might choose to work less. The CBO describes this as a "small segment" of the population. And, because the CBO is describing reduced hours rather than lost jobs, it never uses the 650,000 number that the Republican document cites. The Republican extrapolated that number from the CBO's estimate of one-half percent of the labor supply. Finally, we should point out that a person who voluntarily chooses to work less is not having their job "killed" by federal legislation.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •