ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Top Ten Democrats Responsible for the ObamaCare DISASTER:

► SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.”

---

Mary Landrieu, like all Senate Democrats, provided the deciding vote on passing ObamaCare.

► SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC): “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.”

---

160,000 residents of North Carolina have lost their health coverage.

► SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.”

► SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.”

► SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” As a senior member, and now Chair of the Budget Committee, Sen. Murray was in a position to know that these claims were false!

► SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like --existing policies--you can keep them. …we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.”

► SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.”

---

Schumer, who was in a position to know the inner-workings of the law seems to have lied.

► SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “This bill before us on the Senate floor makes it clear that if you have an insurance policy that you like, you can keep it. If you like the doctor that you're currently doing business with, you can continue to use that doctor.”

---

Durbin is the number two Democrat in the Senate

► SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):“In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.”

---

Core principles, apparently, aren't what they used to be. Sen. Reid emptied out the parliamentary cupboard to get ObamaCare passed. As Majority Leader, he had to have a keen understanding of what was in the bill and what the consequences would be. The White House, at the time, was aware of the fact that many Americans would lose their health insurance. Surely, Sen. Reid was privy to the same information. He is a LIAR.

And, the #1 Senate Democrat who should apologize...

► SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.”

---

Sen. Baucus wrote most of the bill that became ObamaCare. He has been steeped in health care policy for decades. He was in a position to know, and had to know, that the "central promise" that people could keep their current health care coverage was a lie. He has chosen to retire rather than face the voters.

Sen. Max Baucus has already resigned his job. Who is next? Sen. Kay Hagen?

There is one month left (end of March) for people to sign up for Obamacare in 2014 except for special cases.

Can we agree that if we end up with less people insured than before, then Obamacare is a total failure? Wasn't getting more people insured the main reason for the law?

Hey, I don't know how it will end up. It's just not looking good so far.

I do think enrollment will increase as the penalties increase in the future. I kind of sucks that's how it will work, but thanks Justice Roberts.

You will get a great deal on health insurance if you are subsidized, but I know some will still hate knowing it's not "free". Just thank your slightly higher paid neighbors for helping to pay for your subsidy. But if you are not subsidized, the insurance costs a lot and the deductibles and out of pocket expenses are huge for most policies. And the unsubsidized people are not rich. If single, you get nailed if you make over about $47K. If married, it's even worse at about $62K. No wonder work hours will be reduced per the CBO because there is a huge cliff in the amount you have to pay for health insurance (thousands of dollars), even though your income just goes up a little bit.

I've also pointed out that retired millionaires can get subsidies too from the hard working who make a bit too much (well, I think most of the retired were also hard working before they retired). Just keep your income low from investments with 15% or less from capital gains, unless you make a whole lot of money and are in the 39.6% tax bracket where you'd now pay 20% (not that even that might matter much). And for those of you who don't know much about taxes, those rates are only on profits. You don't have to pay tax on your purchase price and that amount you get back since you were already taxed. So a millionaire can do pretty well with investment money, and still qualify for an Obamacare subidy.

Yeah, it's a shame that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "examples" that have been featured in the Koch-Brothers/AFP anti-ACA ads have been found to be lying, or found to not even have bothered to actually check it out, and their ACTUAL cost is, on the average, half of what they were paying before.

But then, the GoTeaBaggers have never been real big on TRUTH or FACTS.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, it's a shame that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "examples" that have been featured in the Koch-Brothers/AFP anti-ACA ads have been found to be lying, or found to not even have bothered to actually check it out, and their ACTUAL cost is, on the average, half of what they were paying before.

But then, the GoTeaBaggers have never been real big on TRUTH or FACTS.

It's a shame that you think just saying something makes it go away. Of course, once again you offer no proof of your statement above.

This law was suppose to cover 30-50 million people (depending on what hour you heard that figure) who needed healthcare coverage. Four or five or seven million is not 30-50 million.

It's a bust Jazzer. Learn to count.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, it's a shame that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "examples" that have been featured in the Koch-Brothers/AFP anti-ACA ads have been found to be lying, or found to not even have bothered to actually check it out, and their ACTUAL cost is, on the average, half of what they were paying before.

But then, the GoTeaBaggers have never been real big on TRUTH or FACTS.

Great job! You got Koch brothers in a sentence again. One question, if you were the Great Leader, what would you do with the Koch brothers?

I'm not sure what your point is. I already said you will save a lot if you get subsidized by others.

And yes, millionaires can get subsidized by Obamacare too since it doesn't consider net worth.

pineinthegrass wrote: I'm not sure what your point is. I already said you will save a lot if you get subsidized by others.

My point was, and still is, that the Koch/AFP commercials are lies. Was there something ambiguous in that?

And since you obviously still don't understand how the subsidies are paid for, please do continue your "wounded over-burdened taxpayer" drivel.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, it's a shame that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "examples" that have been featured in the Koch-Brothers/AFP anti-ACA ads have been found to be lying, or found to not even have bothered to actually check it out, and their ACTUAL cost is, on the average, half of what they were paying before.

But then, the GoTeaBaggers have never been real big on TRUTH or FACTS.

It's a shame that you think just saying something makes it go away. Of course, once again you offer no proof of your statement above.

This law was suppose to cover 30-50 million people (depending on what hour you heard that figure) who needed healthcare coverage. Four or five or seven million is not 30-50 million.

It's a bust Jazzer. Learn to count.

I'm tryng to figure out your math. Are all those people who have health insurance coverage through their employer (which is part of the ACA) included in your 4, 5 or 7 million figure? Or is that just people who have signed up on the exchanges?

Cathy_Lee wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, it's a shame that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "examples" that have been featured in the Koch-Brothers/AFP anti-ACA ads have been found to be lying, or found to not even have bothered to actually check it out, and their ACTUAL cost is, on the average, half of what they were paying before.

But then, the GoTeaBaggers have never been real big on TRUTH or FACTS.

It's a shame that you think just saying something makes it go away. Of course, once again you offer no proof of your statement above.

This law was suppose to cover 30-50 million people (depending on what hour you heard that figure) who needed healthcare coverage. Four or five or seven million is not 30-50 million.

It's a bust Jazzer. Learn to count.

I'm tryng to figure out your math. Are all those people who have health insurance coverage through their employer (which is part of the ACA) included in your 4, 5 or 7 million figure? Or is that just people who have signed up on the exchanges?

I was using figures the administration has either used when they were pitching this thing (15,30,50 million need coverage), when it passed (we need 7 million to sign up by March 31st) and the recent figure (4 million have signed up).

They are not my figures. Personally I don't believe any of the figures that the administration has released or used as metrics from day one.

And now Sibelius is saying she NEVER used 7 million as a target for sign ups needed by March 31st. AND that is an outright LIE too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... et-number/

LadyJazzer wrote:
By the way, the number of enrollees is up to 4million now...

Yet you and your flying monkeys can't answer any of these questions:

1. How many "enrolled" have actually paid?
2. How many "enrolled" did not have insurance prior to the ACA?
3. How many "enrolled" are the young healthy ones who will be subsidizing the sick and old?
4. How many "enrolled" who had policies cancelled due to the ACA?
5. How many "enrolled" in Medicare who would have done so anyway without the ACA?

You got nothing but msnbc PROPOGANDA.