15 Nov 13
in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html
If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't receive subsidies will definitely be paying more. There we have it, even the Obama Administration has admitted that the Affordable Care Act makes Care more expensive.
It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.
15 Nov 13
Originally posted by EladarIf the Queen gave Obama the book 1984 then that explains why they would say something more expensive is more affordable. Also explains Why he says stuff like raising the debt ceiling does not increase debt.
[b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html
If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
15 Nov 13
Originally posted by EladarThe reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
[b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html
If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
Originally posted by EladarLiberals will never admit it's not a fundamentally good plan.
[b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html
If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
Lately they seem to have received a memo telling them to say "the old plans are all substandard 'junk' plans!!!"
They've got a point. In the "land of the free and the home of the brave", it's too risky for a 60 year old to buy a plan that doesn't offer pre-natal care.
Our ancestors sailed across the Atlantic in hopes of being free. That took courage. But none of these early pilgrims would have advised us to be so courageous as to not have prenatal coverage at age 60.
People are free to lead their own lives of course, but we have to scale back some freedoms. If it doesn't hurt someone else, you should be free to do it. And 60 year olds who don't have pre-natal coverage are clearly hurting other people by their reckless, thoughtless actions.
Originally posted by SoothfastGood call, because the government has an excellent track record of ratcheting back subsidies.
The reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
Originally posted by dryhumpI see that, as usual, none of the bat-crap crazy rightists around here want to debate the substance of the matter. It's like talking to a cage full of parrots that was put next to a radio set to Glenn Beck for a month. Huh.
Good call, because the government has an excellent track record of ratcheting back subsidies.
17 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastThe pricing is not due to the glitches. The price increase is due to Obamacare itself. The present price structure was determined before Obamacare was even launched.
The reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
If your position is that cost doesn't matter (just keep increasing subsidies) because the government's pockets are infinitely deep, then there is nothing to discuss.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by SleepyguyYou don't need a Harley. First off, it's carbon producing and bad for the environment. Secondly, motorcycles are dangerous and will only add to health care costs and add years to your life.
*sigh*
I'll never get a Harley.
So there you have it, the nanny state has come to your rescue. Why fight it?
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by SoothfastThere is nothing to debate. It is all cast into stone. Why they fight is beyond me.
I see that, as usual, none of the bat-crap crazy rightists around here want to debate the substance of the matter. It's like talking to a cage full of parrots that was put next to a radio set to Glenn Beck for a month. Huh.