ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Nancy Pelosi said...

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care

This little diatribe may be consider only anecdotal, but I speak from experience. I speak from what I have seen, in myself and in other creative people who have tried to find outlets for their creativity.

I have been a part time (and successful) musician, actor, writer and performer since about 1970. I have been able to find outlets for my passions both on an amateur and professional basis.

And I've never shirked from the possibilities that one of these talents would become a full time profession. I've taken all the opportunities made available to me, I've created my own opportunities and once in a while "blind luck" came my way.

But through all of these wonderful endeavors I never thought once that anyone owed me a career in these areas. I knew that if I ever wanted the chance to be a full time artist that I would have to work hard toward that end, and hope that fate (which has a big role in the performing arts) would shine on me.

I knew that if I wanted this bad enough, that I would have to be self supporting, that I would have to work hard at not becoming a burden to myself or someone else, that I would have to build a reasonable foundation that I could possibly launch my career.

I knew that I would have to ALWAYS have a full time job so I could navigate toward my other aspirations. I knew that that would make me stronger, give me more self confidence and prepare me just in case the arts didn't turn out to be my place in life.

So I worked, I became a computer programmer, worked good jobs, and that money and security enabled me to pursue my other interests.

And that's why I became good at writing plays, acting, running a live theatre and producing shows. BECAUSE IT WAS MY DIME, MY MONEY that was allowing me to work toward something that I felt I had to do, something that was in my soul. I was investing in myself and not living off the charity of someone else.

And I've seen this attitude and determination in people involved in most of the arts community, in Denver and in many other places where I've have the opportunity to expand my horizons.

It's because I didn't leave my work, selfishly and irresponsibly focus on my talent that I have reached the levels I have in my creativity and have been able to contribute something to the community, artistically and personally.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: But Archer they now have increased those eligible for Medicaid.

What does that have to do with what I posted? These are hard working people, with the income and desire to retire, who are working because they have to, to get health insurance. They wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid.

If they stopped working, they would be eligible for Medicaid, or sometimes, just reduced hours.
Of course, when you go on Medicaid and Medicare, you need to cut your hours because you spend so much more time finding doctors that will take your plan.

Reverend Revelant wrote: Nancy Pelosi said...

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care

This little diatribe may be consider only anecdotal, but I speak from experience. I speak from what I have seen, in myself and in other creative people who have tried to find outlets for their creativity.

I have been a part time (and successful) musician, actor, writer and performer since about 1970. I have been able to find outlets for my passions both on an amateur and professional basis.

And I've never shirked from the possibilities that one of these talents would become a full time profession. I've taken all the opportunities made available to me, I've created my own opportunities and once in a while "blind luck" came my way.

But through all of these wonderful endeavors I never thought once that anyone owed me a career in these areas. I knew that if I ever wanted the chance to be a full time artist that I would have to work hard toward that end, and hope that fate (which has a big role in the performing arts) would shine on me.

I knew that if I wanted this bad enough, that I would have to be self supporting, that I would have to work hard at not becoming a burden to myself or someone else, that I would have to build a reasonable foundation that I could possibly launch my career.

I knew that I would have to ALWAYS have a full time job so I could navigate toward my other aspirations. I knew that that would make me stronger, give me more self confidence and prepare me just in case the arts didn't turn out to be my place in life.

So I worked, I became a computer programmer, worked good jobs, and that money and security enabled me to pursue my other interests.

And that's why I became good at writing plays, acting, running a live theatre and producing shows. BECAUSE IT WAS MY DIME, MY MONEY that was allowing me to work toward something that I felt I had to do, something that was in my soul. I was investing in myself and not living off the charity of someone else.

And I've seen this attitude and determination in people involved in most of the arts community, in Denver and in many other places where I've have the opportunity to expand my horizons.

It's because I didn't leave my work, selfishly and irresponsibly focus on my talent that I have reached the levels I have in my creativity and have been able to contribute something to the community, artistically and personally.

You really need to get with the program man, there's a lot of free stuff available to you if you just slow your ass down and stop trying to get through this life on your own power. The government wants to help you... why must you be so stubborn?

pineinthegrass wrote: If your facts are well documented, how about presenting some links to support it? And don't tell me someone else doesn't present links, because I do, not that I need to here because I'm just expressing my opinion in arguing your "facts".

So you are basically saying it's OK that 2 million leave the workforce because they get healthcare subsidies from the government? If so, why don't we pay even more subsidies so we can open up even more jobs? Why not pay 100% of healthcare for a few, and not the rest? Not that we are increasing jobs, we are just paying taxpayer dollars to some so they can quit their jobs. And this is nothing that I saw mentioned in the Washington Post article, just your interpretation. So why pay huge taxpayer dollars for no net change in unemployment???

This seems like an argument that if we put 2 million more on welfare (voluntarily, of course), we will free 2 million jobs. That's an example, not an equivalent.

Or from a more conservative standpoint let's double military salaries so we can free up millions of private sector jobs. Yeah, that makes sense too.

Bottom line is if you change the way people are taxed, people will make choices. And the CBO doesn't even get into the marriage penalty of the ACA. Many married people will find that they can save thousands with subsidies if they divorce and stay together. That's my opinion. The marriage penalty has to do with the fact that two single people can make about $46K and get major subsidies. Married people can only make about $62K. And there is a big cliff slightly below those amounts where you can get huge taxpayer subsidies.

edited to add...

Yeah, I could of provided a source for the $46k and $62k, but that's well known by now and I said "about". I might be off by a thousand or so, not that it matters for the overall argument and a source is so easy to find...

http://healthreform.kaiserpermanente.org/10-most-asked-questions

Yet more lies. Where did I state that it is ok for 2 million to leave the workforce because of subsidies. I stated the opposite, that the 2 million are leaving the workforce for reasons such as now being able to get individual policies even with preexisting conditions which they could not before the ACA, that they are now able to find individual policies that they could not before the ACA, that students can now get on their parent's policies up to the age of 26 which they could not before the ACA, etc. Why don't you back up your claim that they only reason those 2 million job openings are due to subsidies? That those 2 million workers are all going on welfare? Just keep on your hatin'.
Further, there will then be 2 million job openings for those receiving subsidized benefits and unemployment.

I have provide documentation for my facts, the CBO report.

If saving a couple of hundred dollars a month is sufficient incentive for a married couple making $60,000 a year to divorce, then they have more serious problems. The federal poverty levels are not set by the ACA, that is a function of congressional legislation, which means the House GOP will not do anything about it.

pineinthegrass wrote: If your facts are well documented, how about presenting some links to support it? And don't tell me someone else doesn't present links, because I do, not that I need to here because I'm just expressing my opinion in arguing your "facts".

So you are basically saying it's OK that 2 million leave the workforce because they get healthcare subsidies from the government? If so, why don't we pay even more subsidies so we can open up even more jobs? Why not pay 100% of healthcare for a few, and not the rest? Not that we are increasing jobs, we are just paying taxpayer dollars to some so they can quit their jobs. And this is nothing that I saw mentioned in the Washington Post article, just your interpretation. So why pay huge taxpayer dollars for no net change in unemployment???

This seems like an argument that if we put 2 million more on welfare (voluntarily, of course), we will free 2 million jobs. That's an example, not an equivalent.

Or from a more conservative standpoint let's double military salaries so we can free up millions of private sector jobs. Yeah, that makes sense too.

Bottom line is if you change the way people are taxed, people will make choices. And the CBO doesn't even get into the marriage penalty of the ACA. Many married people will find that they can save thousands with subsidies if they divorce and stay together. That's my opinion. The marriage penalty has to do with the fact that two single people can make about $46K and get major subsidies. Married people can only make about $62K. And there is a big cliff slightly below those amounts where you can get huge taxpayer subsidies.

edited to add...

Yeah, I could of provided a source for the $46k and $62k, but that's well known by now and I said "about". I might be off by a thousand or so, not that it matters for the overall argument and a source is so easy to find...

http://healthreform.kaiserpermanente.org/10-most-asked-questions

Yet more lies. Where did I state that it is ok for 2 million to leave the workforce because of subsidies. I stated the opposite, that the 2 million are leaving the workforce for reasons such as now being able to get individual policies even with preexisting conditions which they could not before the ACA, that they are now able to find individual policies that they could not before the ACA, that students can now get on their parent's policies up to the age of 26 which they could not before the ACA, etc. Why don't you back up your claim that they only reason those 2 million job openings are due to subsidies? That those 2 million workers are all going on welfare? Just keep on your hatin'.

I have provide documentation for my facts, the CBO report.

If saving a couple of hundred dollars a month is sufficient incentive for a married couple making $60,000 a year to divorce, then they have more serious problems. The federal poverty levels are not set by the ACA, that is a function of congressional legislation, which means the House GOP will not do anything about it.

If more people dropping out of the workforce really is a good thing, I'm sure all the Democrats running for re-election in November will be using this information in their campaigns... right Dog? This snake oil won't sell just like the other bad consequences of the ACA so you won't be hearing much from these people about it.

Rick wrote: If more people dropping out of the workforce really is a good thing, I'm sure all the Democrats running for re-election in November will be using this information in their campaigns... right Dog? This snake oil won't sell just like the other bad consequences of the ACA so you won't be hearing much from these people about it.

I can't remember... who was it that said "if the ends justify the means?" Oh wait... I got it... it was Jesus or someone like that.

Rick wrote: If more people dropping out of the workforce really is a good thing, I'm sure all the Democrats running for re-election in November will be using this information in their campaigns... right Dog? This snake oil won't sell just like the other bad consequences of the ACA so you won't be hearing much from these people about it.

Yet another lie. So you really believe that opening up 2 million jobs to the unemployed is bad?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Rick wrote: If more people dropping out of the workforce really is a good thing, I'm sure all the Democrats running for re-election in November will be using this information in their campaigns... right Dog? This snake oil won't sell just like the other bad consequences of the ACA so you won't be hearing much from these people about it.

Yet another lie. So you really believe that opening up 2 million jobs to the unemployed is bad?

It is all about how you do it, right?
How about forcing Americans to retire at 50 and go on Social Security? That would open up a lot of jobs for unemployed Americans, and also burden an overstressed entitlement system.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.