• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

Whovian

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is what happens when you're told to pass a law so you can understand what is in it...

Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch - FoxNews.com

Older adults of the same age and income with similar medical histories would pay sharply different amounts for private health insurance due to what appears to be an unintended consequence of the new health care law.
Click to expand...

To see how the Social Security wrinkle would work, consider a hypothetical example of two neighbors on the same block.

They are both 62 and have the same income of $39,500 a year. But one gets all his income from working, while the other gets $20,000 from part-time work and $19,500 from Social Security.

Neither of them gets health insurance on the job. Instead, they purchase it individually.

Starting in 2014, they would get their coverage through a new online health insurance market called an exchange. Millions of people in the exchanges would get federal tax credits to make their premiums more affordable. Less-healthy consumers could not be charged more because of their medical problems.

The neighbor who is getting Social Security would pay an estimated $206 a month in premiums.

Half of his income from Social Security, or $9,750, would not be counted in figuring his federal health insurance tax credit. On paper, he would look poorer. So he would get a bigger tax credit to offset his premiums.

But the neighbor who makes all his income from work would not be able to deduct any of it. He would pay $313 for health insurance, or about 50 percent more.
Click to expand...

...you don't.
 
Whovian said:
This is what happens when you're told to pass a law so you can understand what is in it...

Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch - FoxNews.com

...you don't.
Click to expand...
Why exactly is this a problem? Regardless of how much of your social security they count as income both of these people are getting affordable health insurance. That was the whole point of the bill. Just because some person can think of 1 hypothetical scenario where one person pays more it doesn't make it a bad bill.

I'm getting tired of all of these "the health care law could" or "the health care law might"... as soon as we start killing granny because she costs too much or as soon as Obama tells me I can't go see my doctor I'll start getting worried. Til then I'll act like a person that can think for themselves.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Why exactly is this a problem? Regardless of how much of your social security they count as income both of these people are getting affordable health insurance. That was the whole point of the bill. Just because some person can think of 1 hypothetical scenario where one person pays more it doesn't make it a bad bill.

I'm getting tired of all of these "the health care law could" or "the health care law might"... as soon as we start killing granny because she costs too much or as soon as Obama tells me I can't go see my doctor I'll start getting worried. Til then I'll act like a person that can think for themselves.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the prevailing liberal attitude when anyone points out a flaw in Obamacare.... 'Oh, it's just one little thing. That doesn't mean it's a bad bill'.

One little thing, followed by the next... and the next... and the one after that...

Yeah. It's a bad law.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Why exactly is this a problem? Regardless of how much of your social security they count as income both of these people are getting affordable health insurance. That was the whole point of the bill. Just because some person can think of 1 hypothetical scenario where one person pays more it doesn't make it a bad bill.

I'm getting tired of all of these "the health care law could" or "the health care law might"... as soon as we start killing granny because she costs too much or as soon as Obama tells me I can't go see my doctor I'll start getting worried. Til then I'll act like a person that can think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Do you really think $230/month for one person in premiums is "affordable"? That doesn't include copays, perscription costs, deductible, etc. And that rate is low-balled, probably on the assumption that either of those men is in perfect health.
 
Whovian said:
That seems to be the prevailing liberal attitude when anyone points out a flaw in Obamacare.... 'Oh, it's just one little thing. That doesn't mean it's a bad bill'.

One little thing, followed by the next... and the next... and the one after that...

Yeah. It's a bad law.
Click to expand...
finally, a point upon which we agree

Obama should have used his mandate and control of both houses of congress to push thru medicare for all citizens before kennedy died
he wasted his mandate trying to reach a bipartisan agreement, resulting in a weaker health care bill
 
tessaesque said:
Do you really think $230/month for one person in premiums is "affordable"? That doesn't include copays, perscription costs, deductible, etc. And that rate is low-balled, probably on the assumption that either of those men is in perfect health.
Click to expand...

For a 62 year old? Are you serious?
 
roughdraft274 said:
For a 62 year old? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

If I go out right now and get insurance on myself at 25, non-smoker, no pre-existing conditions, my monthly premium would be $225. There is no WAY a 62 year old man will get insurance for $230 a month. Insurance costs will not drop under this bill.
 
Whovian said:
That seems to be the prevailing liberal attitude when anyone points out a flaw in Obamacare.... 'Oh, it's just one little thing. That doesn't mean it's a bad bill'.

One little thing, followed by the next... and the next... and the one after that...

Yeah. It's a bad law.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tessaesque said:
If I go out right now and get insurance on myself at 25, non-smoker, no pre-existing conditions, my monthly premium would be $225. There is no WAY a 62 year old man will get insurance for $230 a month. Insurance costs will not drop under this bill.
Click to expand...

That's what he will be paying after tax credits to help the elderly and poor afford health insurance. You're basically showing why we need this bill. It will help those that can't afford insurance to help afford it. We are better off as a nation with more people insured.
 
We got screwed by the Dems and Obama on this deal and if the Courts allow it to go into affect a lot of us are going into the poor house because of the damn Liberals, and it's going to piss off a lot of people.

There would already be protests if the Lame Stream Obamedia would tell the truth about is.

I am very pissed over this.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
Yeah... nothing wrong with Obamacare, right folks? Perfect law. No problems at all. :rolleyes:

Comprehensive List of Problems With Obamacare
NYT List of problems with Obamacare
Senator Highlights Rationing Problems With Obamacare Law


yup. nothing to see here folks... move along.
Click to expand...


I clicked on one of the links and it was just some ****wad talking about how they ration care in europe. Jesus Christ if I asked someone to come along and post something that in no way has to do with Obama Care yet will still get people that have no idea what they're talking about mad about Obamacare, that is what they would post dude.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That's what he will be paying after tax credits to help the elderly and poor afford health insurance. You're basically showing why we need this bill. It will help those that can't afford insurance to help afford it. We are better off as a nation with more people insured.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much money in "tax credits" it will take to cover "discounted" insurance for so many people? Where is that money coming from? They're going to hire somewhere between 9,000 and -19,000 new IRS agents to implement the tax-side of this bill. Where is that money coming from? How will these people with 'affordable' insurance pay for co-pays, deductibles, perscriptions? I'm assuming they won't be free. People just think that "oh, it helps people" is a good enough justification for something. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the cost of helping people in any one way exceeds the benefit. When that is the case (as it will be here, mark my words) a different, better option must be created. We haven't made it there yet, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a faulty bill with bad legislation.

They said the bill would create jobs. It's doing the opposite (private sector, anyway). That's a decrease in revenue, and thus a decrease in money for government services, including healthcare programs. If people are paying higher taxes and therefore spending less that will be less in state taxes, which means more in fed contributions to cover services the state is mandated to provide. It's a vicious cycle.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Do you realize how much money in "tax credits" it will take to cover "discounted" insurance for so many people? Where is that money coming from? They're going to hire somewhere between 9,000 and -19,000 new IRS agents to implement the tax-side of this bill. Where is that money coming from? How will these people with 'affordable' insurance pay for co-pays, deductibles, perscriptions? I'm assuming they won't be free. People just think that "oh, it helps people" is a good enough justification for something. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the cost of helping people in any one way exceeds the benefit. When that is the case (as it will be here, mark my words) a different, better option must be created. We haven't made it there yet, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a faulty bill with bad legislation.
Click to expand...

We either help these people afford insurance now of we pay for their bills later when they show up at the emergency room and no money to pay for treatment. That's one of the big reasons we could pass a bill like this where we get more people covered and the deficit goes down.
 
tessaesque said:
Do you realize how much money in "tax credits" it will take to cover "discounted" insurance for so many people? Where is that money coming from? They're going to hire somewhere between 9,000 and -19,000 new IRS agents to implement the tax-side of this bill. Where is that money coming from? How will these people with 'affordable' insurance pay for co-pays, deductibles, perscriptions? I'm assuming they won't be free. People just think that "oh, it helps people" is a good enough justification for something. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the cost of helping people in any one way exceeds the benefit. When that is the case (as it will be here, mark my words) a different, better option must be created. We haven't made it there yet, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a faulty bill with bad legislation.

They said the bill would create jobs. It's doing the opposite (private sector, anyway). That's a decrease in revenue, and thus a decrease in money for government services, including healthcare programs. If people are paying higher taxes and therefore spending less that will be less in state taxes, which means more in fed contributions to cover services the state is mandated to provide. It's a vicious cycle.
Click to expand...

don't use facts or reality. It confuses the koolaide drinkers.
 
tessaesque said:
They said the bill would create jobs. It's doing the opposite (private sector, anyway).
Click to expand...

Link? For some reason I trust the CBO and the governments numbers more than your opinion.
 
roughdraft274 said:
We either help these people afford insurance now of we pay for their bills later when they show up at the emergency room and no money to pay for treatment. That's one of the big reasons we could pass a bill like this where we get more people covered and the deficit goes down.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Link? For some reason I trust the CBO and the governments numbers more than your opinion.
Click to expand...

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?
 
roughdraft274 said:
I clicked on one of the links and it was just some ****wad talking about how they ration care in europe.
Click to expand...
roughdraft274 said:
Senator Highlights Rationing Problems With Obamacare Law | LifeNews.com
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

But of course, anyone who disagrees with you or Obama is 'just some ****wad'. We know... we know.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Whovian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Decreases the deficit,...
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom