How the Affordable Care Act benefits you
 

All you have to do is click. No math. Even Dell can do it ;)

http://www.barackobama.com/health-care

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

Lord007 there is no way Obama would lie to us - besides it's all free just as Deb-o-Deb :p

Read the second and third paragraph, you Fn moronic douche. Oh, yeah: and the fourth paragraph.

My god. Teh stupid. It hurts. People who can't read past a headline.

Obamacare now estimated to cost $50 billion less over 10 years? Sounds great! Anybody not being insured through work due to a cheap boss who cuts them off gets insurance readily available through the exchanges? Good, too.

Thanks for posting that.

a lot of smaller companies will decide to pay the fine and dump group coverage, because it'll be cheaper that way. no surprise at all. the only surprise is that people think it won't happen. employers know that their workers will be able to get it elsewhere-so why not?
group coverage is good in that no one can be denied. but it can also be higher in cost for the youngest and healthiest employees, as they are subsidizing the overall cost-which is higher for some, lower for others. my son just experienced that-his cost was lower going on his own. for now. i told him when the ind. price exceeds the group, get in the group-if it still exists at that point.
but i'm being optimistic that the scotus will overturn what is unconstitutional. there is no way the commerce clause will be interpreted as the proper tool to force people to buy a product-even if it's 'for their own good'. who wants the govt deciding that?

From the article:
" ... the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019."

Per the ACA nobody can be denied, even in private coverage. Good thing your worry will be gone due to the ACA.

Cost which is brought down by insurance exchanges allowing non-profits to participate.

The Republican Party. "Everyone must be self-responsible and purchase health insurance". It's their health plan. Similar to the one Mitt Romney instituted to great success.

You're insured, right 'Zig? You take advantage of your increased preventive care benefits yet? Pap smear? Mammogram?

What if everyone refuses to pay the penalty? Then where does the revenue come from? I know that in this recession my partners boss has made some changes to the companies insurance program a slight increase in premiums and they dropped the life insurance policy. I also want to know if in this fabulous newly run program are people who are in very high risk jobs like me still get the shaft or will I just be considered no more of a risk than someone who pushes paper?
I guess Im one of those people who will believe it when I see it.

there are no benefits to the bill, it's simply the worst disaster foisted on the country by democrats in half a century. none of what was said about it is true including the costs which are astronomical. it is so bad that it won't be around for long because it will collapse of its own weight.

before it has even fully been implemented the estimated costs have doubled according to the CBO. it's hysterical that someone would post statements from barackobama.com or any .gov website, as if that is anything you can rely on. it's nonsense.

smaller groups are expected to cut coverages. matter of fact, bcbs already doesn't offer their less than 20 emp. group plan any longer.
one of the issues with obamacare is they ran the numbers based on one million losing employee coverage, when in fact six million or more could lose it. but using the one million number kept the cost under a trillion when they passed it. of course we now see theyve increased the costs, and concede it could be still higher.
does anyone rememeber legislation before ppuca being passed with no real idea of cost? no bottom line? anyone remember any bill being explained with the words you have to pass it to see whats in it?

wow! a rare arlington jim sighting.

it must be an election year.

The Executive Branch is trying to get the SCOTUS to review this right before the election.

Why is that?

Hummmmm.

Yes. That was when three different versions were being worked on separately, in Committee, the House, and the Senate, and a final version was not yet brought up for passage.

Interesting comment. The oral arguments before the Supremes start a week from Monday, the 26th.

This aggregation review of previous decisions essentially says the Supremes will likely hold with the two other conservative lower court judges opinions in support of the mandate. Points out a libertarian (conservative) court view of individual responsibility supports the individual mandate, and to overturn it would go against previous court rulings on the commerce clause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1354804.html

Top court set to take up health care mandate.

We report, you decide..:rolleyes:





http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...nd-ar-1774284/

One problem is that many people are woefully unawares of what is really in the bill. It's not single payer, it's not government running your healthcare. Too many rumors left over from the multiple plans that were being thrown about at the start of this. Sarah Palin's lie about "death panels" comes to mind.

The ACA has things most people support: not throwing people off insurance when you get sick, encouraging more doctors to enter the profession, encouraging preventive health care, helping your insurance premiums go down.

It's not big healthcare reform. It's little healthcare reform. It's really not even healthcare reform, as much as it is insurance company consumer protection reforms.

:zz: Why is someone against this? If you have insurance, keep it and go about your business. If you don't have insurance, you can now get it.

Note that the Republicans have just passed, or are trying to pass, multiple bills across many states mandating an invasive healthcare procedure, and mandating the recipient pay for it.

How can the very people that support mandated healthcare - the government literally forcing a medical procedure on it's citizens against their will- and a financial mandate literally forcing citizens to pay for it against their will, also be against this?

Why are citizens literally not taking arms up in the street, against their government forcing, against the patient and doctor's will, an invasive medical procedure the patient has to pay for! It's worse than Sarah Palin making raped women in Alaska pay for their rape kits. It's the government raping women with an ultrasound probe **, and then demanding the woman pay for it!

That's crazy. All the Dems want to do is leave healthcare up to the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, but enable people to access it!

Hey, Senator Santorum - why don't you call the mandated ultrasounds, "the death knell for freedom"? If the government forced you to have a yearly colonoscopy, and made you pay for it, you'd freak out.

** insert Dell's head exploding here, no, Dell, I am not saying this is the very same thing as sexual assault by a stranger (or friend), I'm using an appropriately defined word: if someone were to stick an object up your azz without your permission, you'd define yourself as raped, too.

Have received this email several times in the past, thought it died out but 'they' have dragged it out again..so i'm passing it along cause i am concerned...:)...we will all be floating in space before Christmas anyways..




Law Professor Points Out Some Interesting Facts Concerning the Presidential Election-Fiction!


Summary of the eRumor:
A forwarded email about a "Hemline" University School of Law Professor named Joseph Olson who pointed out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election and the murder rate in red and blue counties.

The Truth:
Joseph Olson is a real Professor at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota but he did not write this, according to his faculty bio page on the university site. Olson called it "bogus" in his disclaimer and said that the eRumor dates back to 2000 and originally was a commentary about the Bush/Gore election which quoted an 1800's Scottish philosopher Alexander Tyler

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scary Obituary.

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh ,
had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has
been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota ,
points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy,
with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached
the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at
stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

This is truly scary!
Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic .
Someone should point this out to Obama.
Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.
There couldn't be more at stake than on Nov 6, 2012.

If you are as concerned as I am please pass this along.

“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross”.

Hello, Rick Santorum. Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann. Rick Perry.

You omitted the Freaker of the Spouse....:D

Current or former? I think neither of them are Dominionists like the scary American Taliban members.

i banished my monster in laws mail to the delete files for forwarding stupid crap like that. :D

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Virginia celebrates two-year anniversary of Affordable Care Act
 

:tro:

The Affordable Care Act is working for Virginia:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...g-for-Virginia

Nice.

What percentage have premiums increased by in the last two years in VA?

Let us know when you find out some facts on that.

Oh - be sure to include stories from the people who have gotten refunds on their insurance premiums in the past two months, due to overpayment limited by the ACA. Because rerouting your health insurance premium dollars away from your health care is a good thing in your view?

yet another take on obamacare:

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-stil...070000003.html

some snippets:

ObamaCare places a tax on medical equipment manufacturers, to raise $20 billion for the federal coffers when it goes into full effect in 2013. As a result, some medical device manufacturers are already closing up shop or downsizing to reflect lower profits under ObamaCare. Some canceled plans for new U.S. plants, looking to other parts of the world. Many manufacturers have already announced significant layoffs, and most also look to other alternatives, including cutting research and development, and passing along the tax's costs to the patients.



The Congressional Budget Office just released new figures on the 10-year cost of ObamaCare. Starting in 2010, government began taxing for ObamaCare to build up revenues. So for the first four years, ObamaCare takes in tax money but does not start spending in any significant amount until 2014. This was a tactic designed to make ObamaCare seem more "affordable."

But even with this gimmick, the CBO just doubled its original projections for the cost of ObamaCare. Now, the CBO pegs the cost to taxpayers at $1.76 trillion over the next decade. And, critics point out, this price tag is only for the cost of insurance subsidies, Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). It doesn't include implementation or other costs, which will likely send the taxpayers' bill soaring past $2 trillion.
Obama said his plan would save American families $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. The new CBO report says premiums will rise 10 to 13 percent, and that up to 20 million people could lose their employer-provided health insurance every year from 2019 to 2022, a sharp revisal of its previous estimate of up to 3 million.


yes, look at all the ways it 'benefits' us. :rolleyes:

Pretty sure I read somewhere that it paid for itself...
Why would the CBO look at it any other way?

i'm pretty sure the cbo has to figure as well as possible what it will actually cost. politicians however can say what they wish, so maybe that's why you heard it paid for itself? there's no way that it could. what govt program does?

Tongue in cheek, I read that it paid for itself here. If ya know what I mean. ;)

It's an opinion piece that starts out with the imagined premise that the ACA will cause worse care and doctors leaving the country, falsely compares it to socialized government-run medicine in England (not even close), then goes downhill from there. It completely ignores multiple factors within the bill that provide revenue for the program. A very half-azzed piece. Erase all the false references to other countries and "socialized medicine" and there's only a few sentences left in this story.

Why are people wasting time on opinion pieces, when they can read the original themselves?

Why do people question my Lord and Savior Barack Christ? Why? Bawwwwww!!

Why are people so blindly and dumbly zombie-like in their dislike? :D

The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land, passed by the House and Senate, for two years. It's not going away. The current minority leader of the Senate knows it's fine, it works, and has public said he isn't going to try and repeal it.

At this point, with thousands now insured and getting health care that were not, and thousands more - even the complainers here - now covered by protections that prevent them from being thrown off their insurance in multiple ways, it's simply manufactured red meat on the campaign trail for those stuck in the Palin "death panel!" meme from three years ago.

Romney, Santorum - none of them can singularly, as the Executive Branch, repeal a law passed legally by the Congress, and they know that. Their audience apparently does not.

The only thing haters of this signature domestic policy initiative (yes, a Republican one from the 1990's) can hope is that the Supremes turn over the individual mandate, but that doesn't look likely at all based upon lower court interpretations. But hey, this high court does what they like.

And there's no real reason for them to dislike the law other than it was accomplished, finally, by a Democrat, and not by Bush, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Bush I, Johnson, etc. who all tried before to do the same: reform health care.

Our health care is 17% of our GDP. It's only 9% in other countries, who provide better care. If we want to erase our deficit, and live within our means, and have a strong economy, we must reform our massively broken healthcare system. Every single congress and president has known that over the years.

Why did Obama go forward with healthcare reform? It was more an economic issue. The healthcare reform contained within isn't any massive overhaul of the system, or a move to single payer (why the far left doesn't like it) it's mostly consumer protections.

The funny thing is that this law isn't "massive health care reform" in a single payer model as was discussed three years ago, it's basically only insurance reforms intent upon trying to keep your insurance company from screwing you, and trying to make Americans a little healthier with preventive care and more access.

If they have problems with parts of the law? They simply have to change it in the Congress. Not a hard thing to do.

Yes. The CBO initial evaluation, when the bill was passed, was that it paid for itself, and adds nothing to the deficit. Public information at the time, widely disseminated. The final vote couldn't be held until the Congressional Budget Office scoring was in, which is why the vote was delayed for a week at the time.

So you can be "tongue in cheek" all you want. You can read those original reports by the CBO, here, by going to this page and clicking on the links.

and now the evalutation is that is costs double the initial eval.

So the newest numbers are the ones that are actually accurate.

Yup. And 'Zig article cherry picks costs, but leaves out the new income, which offsets those costs.

Below is the original CBO report, below, in full - with all the numbers. Including the $176 trillion (which is a weird number, and I think should be $176 billion, and is miswritten in 'Zigs article I think - because see below, SCHIPS etc. is only 1.5 trillion)

What is left out of 'Zigs article about the $176 trillion is the offsets, which results in the ACA having a net cost of $50 billion less than previously estimated over the next 10 years than estimated last year. Yes, the costs go up, because more people (the baby boomers) will be using it, but the income and cost savings go up to cover it, too.

So yes: the March 13, 2012 CBO update on the cost of the ACA has a net cost, in the end, of $50 billion less than previously published last year.

Below is the entire original report, minus charts and graphs, from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080 that 'Zig's article is talking about. 'Zig's article simply leaves out alot of the facts.


http://www.cbo.gov/

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43076

ah, gotcha.

actually, we're probably just looking at it all wrong. we're not smart enough to figure out the right way to look at it!
thing is, until everyone cuts their coverage and makes all their employees go thru the exchanges (which many states have yet to even set up) no one knows for sure how many will end up without. but, they used a small # initially-which kept that magic number below that trillion that so many said was the cutoff to produce a nay, rather than a yea vote. funny, isn't it? now, after it's passed-why the cost is steadily climbing. and like i posted in the '13 budget thread, the white house consistently uses incorrect numbers to get a rosier view on things.

and as for the exchanges...

they will go by income levels to know what your subsidy is-which means the computers will have to have access to the irs records.
you have to be a citizen-so they will also have to have access to records of who's who-are you an illegal? or legal but not a citizen? there will be so many levels of info needed... i can only imagine the nightmare to come with trying to set all this up in each state. and only a licensed agent can give insurance info-but they don't plan to use agents, they plan to use 'navigators' who don't have to be licensed. but you have to have a license to give insurance advice!!! lol

hatahs gotta hate. :D :rolleyes:

Perhaps Anti could PM 'Zig and tell her the actual report she is discussing is posted here ;)