ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope the only reason they claim is those individuals are becoming welfare bums.
Hatin not debating.

Who said the statement you just made and exactly who is being hated? Your use of the term "welfare bums" is YOUR OWN. You use those words as a way to paint your opponent as some uncaring asshole who hates the poor. This is a topic that can be debated for a long time and we will see the real outcomes... but by just throwing out terms nobody here is actually using is a dishonest and weak way to debate the topic.

It's called projection Rick. That's what Dog and other liberals are doing.

Just like the liberal assumption that if you don't like Obama's policies, it is because you are a racist.
So if I like Thomas Sowell's writing, does that make me not racist?

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope the only reason they claim is those individuals are becoming welfare bums.
Hatin not debating.

Who said the statement you just made and exactly who is being hated? Your use of the term "welfare bums" is YOUR OWN. You use those words as a way to paint your opponent as some uncaring asshole who hates the poor. This is a topic that can be debated for a long time and we will see the real outcomes... but by just throwing out terms nobody here is actually using is a dishonest and weak way to debate the topic.

Really Rick, you and the other haters have been claiming that the 2 million job openings will create 2 million more on the welfare system "sucking off the goverenment". You have yet to provide a single factual support for your claims about these individuals leeching off the taxpayers when in fact those individuals are those who are starting their own businesses, those who are finding jobs that better fit their skill sets, those who are taking jobs that are their dreams rather than just jobs that have health insurance, those who are taking early retirement to spend their hard earned savings, those who are going back to school to create new job skills, those choosing to stay to care for their children and/or elderly relatives. If you had actually read the CBO report, these are the individuals being described as likely to leave jobs that they had taken solely for the health insurance benefits.

You call this debating, I call it hating. Provide some facts that support your claims about these individuals sucking off the government.

MamaRama wrote: All we need is 2 million more people sucking off the goverenment.. Food stamps, Medicaid, welfare all were put into place as a "safety net" for people, not for a permanent way of life.

Rick wrote: You are so delusional in your blind partisanship. You really believe that more people leaving the workforce and getting on the dole is good for the economy?

And your math is just as bad as Obama's. The workforce participation is the lowest in decades and the ACA is going to make it even lower... no problem, we can just get the rich to make up the difference in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, the national debt, etc. etc. . It must be nice to live in your fantasy land.

LOL wrote:
And this is the problem with the mentality in this country. I guess I would not have a problem IF they were paying their way on reduced hours without subsidies. Personally I would have a problem taking free money that I could earn myself if I worked for it. JMO

LOL wrote:

Rick wrote: If two million MORE people drop out of the workforce, it's reasonable to believe that many of those will be dependent on taxpayers forever. Work needs to be promoted because there needs to be more people paying into everything that's eventually going to run out of money.

Exactly right Rick. I warned about this 3 years ago.

Hey I'm all for slacking and early retirement, part time whatever. Just have to take responsibility to pay your way, not collect freebies from the Gubbermint that are means-tested "engineered" by your intentionally set lower part-time income. So predictable. Free stuff, come and get it!

Rick wrote: Where does the money come from the gets 2.3 million people out of the workforce? Obamamoney?

Hell, if removing 2.3 million from the workforce is good, why not incentivize 50 million to leave? Just think how great that would be for our economy.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Provide some facts that support your claims about these individuals sucking off the government.

I don't think he actually used the word suck (I know I never did), but CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's appraisal of the effects of the ACA on the workforce can't be ignored.

“By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Us2OxwcUo8

You keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

The fact still remains that there will be Dems running for office in 2014, Dems that voted for the ACA. I believe it will also be a fact that none of these courageous Dems will be touting the CBO report as good news for our country.

I also heard today that the WH is considering giving people with "non-Obama-approved-plans", that people still want, a three year extension. That will be pretty convenient for the 2014 and 2016 elections. My guess is they WILL do something like this because that's just how they operate... keep the Titanic floating just long enough to keep six more years of power. Not sure what other tricks they can use but there will be something.

archer wrote: Spend some time in any age restricted communit, age 55+, and talk to the people who have the desire to retire, the money to retire, but can't until they are eligible for Medicare because there is no way they can get health insurance.. Many are past retirement age but hang onto their jobs so they can cover their younger spouses. They would like nothing better than to retire and let some younger person take that job. This is not a bad thing.

In Colorado and other states, people with preexisting conditions could get healthcare through high risk programs like Cover Colorado. I pointed out before with an example of how Cover Colorado could offer better coverage at less cost than an unsubsidized Obamacare policy (and I can offer another, even better example if anyone is interested). So if they live in Colorado or similar states with high risk coverage, and have the money to retire, I think they could of done so before.

http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-courthouse/30141?p=306977&hilit=covercolorado#p306977

People also keep working to pay the mortgage, auto payments, utilities, food, and clothing (there are no potential healthcare type restrictions there). Not just the 55+, but younger people as well. I see nothing wrong with that. A lot of people would love to retire or stop working before age 65, but does the government need spend money to encourage it, especially if there is no net change in unemployment? And many other people love to work.

The only way I can see that the ACA helps in states like Colorado is that it offers lower cost insurance with government (tax payer) subsides. Without those subsidies, I don't see how it helps most people since the ACA premiums are almost always more than what private insurance cost before for equivalent coverage (and sometimes more than high risk coverage), at least from what I've seen.

Obama: And tomorrow we work on rescuing the remaining 140 million Americans still trapped working.

My experience with Cover Colorado was not what you are describing

archer wrote: My experience with Cover Colorado was not what you are describing

Then describe your experience.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

archer wrote: My experience with Cover Colorado was not what you are describing

Then describe your experience.

I have here, more than once, and was told I was lying, exaggerating, or whatever... Short story, my individual coverage had risen to over $1000/month, I couldn't change to another company or to a different plan because of a pre existing condition, and cover Colorado for less coverage was more expensive and did not cover 2 of my doctors.